As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
who has never read it.

Meta
[I changed "whom" in the above sentence to "who". The pronoun (standing for
"person" is the subject of the clause ending with "has never read it". "Whom" is
the objective case, whereas "who" is the subjective case. --Paul]
/Meta

This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true.
However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message).

> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
>
> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> > The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
> > regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
> >
> >> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
> >> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
> >> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
> >> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
> >> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
> >> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
> >> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
> >>
> >
> > Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
> > subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
> > choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
> > have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
> > objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
> > me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
> > makes things enjoyable in the present.
>
> This is entirely reasonable. It is a normal aspect of learning through
> experience present in all animals. However, humans have mental faculties
> that enable them to analyze any experience in terms of both its short
> and long range aspects, including analyzing just why it is "felt" to
> be a positive experience. After such analysis, if one sees that the
> experience (and the emotion about it) is *not* beneficial because the
> events of the experience are actually *not* going to optimally increase
> one's lifetime happiness, then the emotional reaction to that kind of
> experience needs to be modified accordingly (the emotion is not
> consistent with one's rationally held analysis of one's life and
> therefore is actually harmful to continue having - because it distorts
> rational decision making).
>
> > At the same time, I understand
> > that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
> > nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
> > subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
> > preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
> > one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
> > what do I replace it ?"
>
> There are several things here.
> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.

I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
behavior/action/situation.

> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.

The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
activities.

What I describe next may sound strange to some readers. However, I
think that many young people may be experiencing this same situation,
so I wanted to discuss it here so that others may relate to it. I know
of at least one person around my age who has told me she has developed
very similar habits with regard to how she considers her state of
happiness.

Meta
[I changed "whom" in the above sentence to "who". The pronoun (standing for "one
person" is the subject of the clause ending with "has told me". "Whom" is the
objective case, whereas "who" is the subjective case. --Paul]
/Meta

One problem I think I am struggling with is that I repeatedly
ignore, or fail to recognize, the effect of some experiences on my
happiness. I think I have developed this problem from incorporating the
idea of "biting the bullet". This phrase might be described as "doing
the activities one is taught 'should' be done, regardless of whether the
activities contribute positively to one's happiness". Through much
of my life so far I have participated in the activities that I learned
"should" be done, such as getting a college degree. Which activities
*should* be done was determined by people other than myself, such as
parents and family. I think that when I was younger (from the ages of
10-20), I wanted to be a "good" son to my parents, and thus performed
those activities that would make them proud of me. Because some of
these activities were not very enjoyable to me, I learned to ignore my
state of happiness with regard to a given activity, so I could complete
the project successfully without my negative thoughts of the task
interfering with my performance. One example of this is when one works
at a job one does not particularly enjoy, but does so because s/he has
few alternatives. From working at a series of projects with this
perspective, I had learned to think "I must finish the current activity,
regardless of my feelings for it". I know now that this way of thinking
and acting is irrational and harmful, and I am making progress in
changing it.

> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).

Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
with regard to one's lifetime happiness. Some examples of a neutral
preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
video games as a form of mental stimulation.

All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them, which
causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair. Both of these positive and
negative aspects are small, since this preference is not critical to my
life happiness. But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
about this.

Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
my time thinking about other things.

> There is no need to always have something with which to replace a
> "whatever" that you decide is not as valuable as you formerly thought
> (or more correctly, "emoted") it was. Rather you can simply spend more
> time on "whatevers" that you already know you value highly and enjoy.
>
> > Furthermore, I have been frustrated in my attempts to make a distinction
> > between those preferences of mine that I derive enjoyment from that are
> > not harmful or destructive, with those that are harmful or destructive.
> > An easy way by which to make the distinction is to evaluate the
> > long-term implications of holding each preference. If the long-term
> > outcome of an attachment to a preference is negative, then one must do
> > one's best to eliminate that preference.
>
> If it is negative, yes. But often one "whatever" is merely less
> beneficial than another "whatever", rather than being actually
> destructive/harmful.
>
> [In regards to food that is highly pleasurable tasting but is of
> little nutritious value, one need not entirely eliminate that food
> from one's intake, never partaking of it again. There are many
> desert-type foods of which I and Paul take a small amount on the
> infrequent occasions that we eat out. Since they are so rarely eaten,
> I can enjoy a bit then - the chocolate volcano cake (small amount) was
> one this past Thursday when we ate out on Paul's 71st birthday.
>
> For many of those we saw at the restaurant, it is clear that their
> eating practices are mostly harmful. **Kitty]

Good point Kitty. I think it is wise to keep a longer-term perspective
on the "treat foods" that one only occasionally eats. One can eat these
"treat foods", which have high pleasure and low nutritious value, and
still be very healthy. It is the *frequency* with which one eats these
foods that determines whether eating them is unhealthy.

> > One example of this is my habit of,
> > and preference for, lifting weights. I have regularly lifted weights
> > for most of my life. Doing so makes me feel good, physiologically.
> > For me, it has the effects of reducing stress, improving sleep,
> > increasing motivation for other activities, and some others.
>
> These last benefits are related to the physical exercise and
> accomplishment aspects of lifting weights, and are all highly valuable
> results that you need to continue gaining. What you need to ask
> therefore, is "Is lifting weights the best overall way to gain such
> results?" - "Might there not be some other activities that will cause
> the same results and be beneficial in other ways also, or not have some
> of the detrimental effects of lifting weights?" You might ask yourself:
> "what am I doing with my mind while I am lifting weights?" - "Is that a
> valuable mental activity?" Perhaps you find lifting weights to be very
> mentally relaxing and good time for reflection and analysis of problems
> that you have been working on - as I do when taking a relaxing shower -
> at which I definitely take more time than I need in order get clean -
> which results in the negative effects of extra usage of my time, costs
> of water and electricity, but wrt which I long ago decided are
> worthwhile expenditures - ie the long showers give me a net gain of
> lifetime happiness. The result of this is that I do not think of the
> negatives of the longer showers, but only enjoy the whole in degree to
> the net sum of benefit.

The above analysis is a good example of how one might analyze a given
preference for an activity, and I find the example useful. Your
comparison of the positive and negative aspects of long-duration showers
is one that looks familiar to me, as I have analyzed some behaviors of
my own in this same way. This leads me to think that it is not my
ability to reason effectively, but my lack of confidence in my
conclusions, that cause me to re-evaluate these behaviors too often. If
this is true, then I have a confidence problem, which fits with other
characteristics I have identified about myself.

This is a little discouraging to me, as I know I have struggled with
this issue for a long time. However, one must identify a personality
issue properly before one can effectively and efficiently improve it.

> > In the past I have often
> > lifted weights with "lifting buddies", and our experience together
> > were enjoyable. Even now, when I lift weights alone, I often recall
> > these fond experiences of lifting weights with others.
>
> Have you analyzed just *why* those experiences were "enjoyable" and
> whether there were valid reasons for them being enjoyable, in light of
> your new thinking? If you now find that the reasons for enjoyment were
> *not* valid, then you must logically quit thinking of them with
> enjoyment. There can be events in your past that you remember enjoying
> (the memory is still there and certainly should be, otherwise you are
> evading), but when you think of them now, it is with the thought of
> "what a stupid thing to do and to enjoy". I think likely everyone
> (at least every self-honest person) has such memories.

This is a great question to ask Paul. I have considered this question
in regard to my positive weight lifting experiences with my lifting
buddies, and I concluded that I enjoyed the camaraderie and the fact
that others shared my goal of improving one's body composition and
overall health. I have also considered that this last may be a positive
aspect to me because I feel mostly alone in my dedicated effort to
constantly improve myself and my life. So I think I found my social
weightlifting experiences encouraging that people other than myself
have a desire to grow and improve. My weightlifting buddies and I also
learned a lot from one another about weight lifting, health, and
exercise physiology, as each of us were interested in improving
different aspects of our bodies. So we had the opportunity to share our
knowledge with one another - an activity I found enjoyable. However,
my goals for "muscle-development" are now much lower than theirs, as I
think I am at a satisfactory level in this regard. This means that I
do not require the amount of weight, or the number of weightlifting
sessions per week, to reach my goals, as they do. Therefore, I have
spent a greatly decreased amount of time with my weightlifting buddies
in the last six months, since our once-shared goals have mostly diverged.

> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]

I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
how they are doing or to influence them. Perhaps a better behavior would
be to: when I have this desire to ask about them, I should instead
decide to make an effort to meet someone new instead. This would enable
me to get to know someone new and possibly interesting, rather than
continuing to interact with the same people that have repeatedly
disappointed me in the past. This seems like a healthy habit with regard
to reducing the amount of time wasted on disappointing people, while
increasing the frequency with which I meet new people - both positive
changes for me.

> [However, I also have
> hundreds of photos (almost all neatly in albums) and dozens of hours
> on video tape that I can - if I want to spend the time - view for my
> own pleasure or show to others. **Kitty]
>
> > However, our
> > previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
> > has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
>
> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
> useful in its accomplishment.

I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
systematic protocol for maintaining my strength. I do take many
opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
falls, so I want to correct this. However, I don't think my current
bike-riding will help very much with this weakness. So my weight lifting
protocol is to target those muscle groups that I don't normally use
(which is many of them).

I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
(push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
training has improved this also), and my upper back (I had never
developed this area very much while previously weight-training, and I
think it is important to have well-developed back muscles to support the
spine).

I am happy with my current weight-lifting protocol, as I don't think it
stresses my body very much due to the lower-weight compared to what I
previously used (I once bench-pressed 300 lbs - excessive, I know),
doesn't take up very much time, and it exercises those muscles that,
with time, tend to be neglected and result in injuries.

> The trick is to find useful physical labor in this day of so many
> labor saving devices and a general trend toward reducing physical
> labor for productive purposes. However, that is why I and Kitty always
> eschew taking the easy way to do many things as long as we can afford
> the time. For example I use hand saws for most of what I saw as long
> as there is no necessity to get a very straight cut.

Yes this is a good trick. On the rare occasion that someone helps me
with my house projects, I often get asked why I choose to use a hand-saw
for 2x4's instead of using the electric circular saw. I'm surprised to
see most people eschew such an opportunity to get a little extra
exercise and accomplish something by doing it.

> When I "make" the water every few days (25 gallons of water after
> reverse osmosis treatment), I always have to carry out the pails of
> effluent water (slightly higher concentration of impurities than from
> the tap - totaling about 100 gallons - 10 -10 gallon pails) one in
> each hand and water the fir trees with them. (This is in addition to
> their regular drip irrigation.) As I do, I lift each up with one arm
> to get my other hand underneath it in order to pour it. That gives me
> a little natural weight carrying and lifting activity.

I think this is a great practice. I try to do something similar when I
buy groceries. I only shop every few weeks to "stock up", so when I do,
I usually get a fair number of things. When carrying them into the house
I try to get them all in one trip, which can get quite heavy. But I
think having both hands full of grocery bags is good exercise for one's
arms and shoulders. However, I don't do this when I purchase eggs
*laughs*. I had an accident doing this with eggs once and I'd rather
avoid it in the future.

> When coming back from the basement, I only go up the 14 steps one at a
> time if I am carrying something heavy and/or awkward, otherwise I go 2
> at a time. Unfortunately with most of the buildings being only one
> floor, Arizona presents little opportunity for taking stairs instead
> of elevators and escalators - although there are certainly lots of
> rocky hills to climb.
>
> When in the supermarket I generally use a hand basket instead of a
> cart, and it is also faster to get around through the aisles that way.
> I and Kitty also always carry our groceries in cloth bags that we
> bring into the market (to save on plastic bag waste - and sometimes to
> get a reward for doing so), back to the car, which in turn is parked
> at the far end of the parking lot (again, unless we are in a hurry).
>
> [We've gotten into the habit of looking at the need to make an extra
> walking trip (down to the basement, or in a store looking for
> something, or back out to the mailbox, etc) as "opportunities", rather
> than a nuisance. **Kitty]

This seems like a good perspective to have about a brief, physical
errand. Currently I try to minimize my *time spent* on these types of
errands, as I think I get enough cardiovascular exercise by riding my
bike to class four times per week. But for someone who gets relatively
little exercise this is a healthy way to look at such an opportunity.

> [Even our manual garage door is an opportunity for me
> to weight lift - Paul does most of the driving here in AZ and I get
> the door honors ;>) The heavy double door had an automatic opener that
> was not working when Paul started living here half a year at a time,
> but neither of us has had any interest in seeing if it can be fixed
> and even less in replacing it.
> I think far too many people fail to make opportunities for physical
> activity in their regular daily lives, and spend money to let a
> fitness club, they hope, make them fit.... **Kitty]

I emphatically agree with your very last comment Kitty. Nearly everyone
I interact with at the university think it is strange that I ride my
bike to school. They say it's strange because it's winter and can get
quite cold. Some of these people pay for gym memberships and make
frequent trips out of their way to get exercise. However, some of these
same people could ride their bike to class without undue risk of harm
and perhaps save money on a gym membership, and additionally save the
time they would otherwise spend driving to and from the gym. I'm really
happy with my decision to ride my bike to work/class (both at the
university). I get approx. 2 hours of bike-riding per week, spend an
average of approx. $60/year on gasoline, and save time by riding my bike
(compared to driving). It was a great decision for me to do this.

> > This change of
> > habits, behavior, or disposition toward a preference has been difficult
> > for me. It is less difficult when the negative consequences of a
> > preference are obvious to me (such as being fat). However, when
> > evaluating some preferences, I find that it is difficult to clearly
> > determine the net, long-term outcome, such as with lifting weights. I
> > know I very much enjoy lifting weights.
>
> But have you fully analyzed the rationality of all the reasons why you
> "enjoy lifting weights", rather than merely the possible long term harm
> of having unnecessary muscle (which I agree is not black and white)?

I appreciate your bringing up this important question to me. I think I
have given the subject a thorough enough evaluation to justify my
current level of weight lifting frequency and intensity.

There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
protein synthesis value in the fasted state. And since there is no
exogenous source of amino acids (subjects exercised while fasted and
remained so for some time after the exercise), endogenous protein must
have been recycled (i.e. proteolysis and recycling) to achieve a
positive protein synthesis value.

I have not studied this hypothesis as much as I'd like, but I have seen
some evidence that it may be true. I am currently working toward a
better understanding of biochemistry, so I can better evaluate evidence
related to hypotheses such as this one. If anyone would like to study it
further and report it here I would appreciate it. I have spent some time
trying to find the article and finally found one that sounds familiar (I
have not read it in a while). Here is the link to the Pubmed abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252485

Additionally, I understand that exercise, especially weight-lifting and
other anaerobic exercise, strongly enhances insulin sensitivity and
glucose disposal. I have read several articles that specifically
advocated strength training as a treatment for type 2 diabetics to
improve insulin sensitivity. This is another benefit I see for
maintaining a strength-training protocol. I am not inclined at this time
to present articles to support this, so if a reader is interested in
learning more about this, I would recommend searching academic articles
for terms such as "type 2 diabetes, strength, resistance, weight,
training, exercise, GLUT4, insulin sensitivity". Note that published
articles use the terms "strength", "weight", and "resistance"
interchangeably, and combine one of these words with "training" or
"exercise", which makes a search for weight training a little more
difficult.

> Re-read what I wrote about it above. Do you get some other benefit from
> these weight lifting "buddies" or are they otherwise merely a bunch of
> jerks. And if the latter, then why do you value anything about them at
> all. After all, a large male gorilla can lift a lot more weight then any
> of you or any other human!

I see your point here about the gorilla vs. human with regard to valuing
strength, and I discussed my lifting buddies in my above comments.

> Humans are made to get far, far more enjoyment
> from efficacious use of their brains than of their bodies.

I agree with your last statement about happiness and the use of one's
brain.

> > It brings me happiness. However, does
> > the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
> > out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
> > answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
>
> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
> is harmful.

Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
one's self.

> I don't really see how such conflicts are possible once a
> person has analyzed the situation fully enough. I think the answer
> would be to do only a small amount of the activity such that it would
> no longer be harmful.

I was going to state, one way in which a conflict is possible is when
there is not enough evidence to conclude that the behavior is a net
positive or negative. However, you proposed a good solution to this:
only do a small amount of the activity so that it reduces the negative
consequences. My and Kitty's discussion of treat foods above is a good
example of this.

> For something like alcohol this is clear. I and
> Kitty still eat very small amounts of some things for which greatly
> enjoy the taste (a very hard emotion to totally eliminate) because we
> protect ourselves so well in other ways from their potentially harmful
> effects.

This is another good way to continue to do enjoyable but slightly
harmful things: to only do them when one can reduce the harmful effect
by some intervention, as you described above.

> However, if after this analysis of the benefits and harms of weight
> lifting, you find that you have no other means of reducing the weight
> lifting and replacing some of it with another activity that has the
> same benefits, then you should not stop lifting weights until you do
> develop some such replacement.

I had never thought about "replacement activities" for weight lifting,
so I'm glad you suggested it. I have thought of alternative activities
for other things, food being a main example (i.e. I will replace
strawberry shortcake with strawberry yogurt).

> [I've noticed with those many people who do continue a clearly harmful
> activity and who acknowledge that they are doing so, that they almost
> always demonstrate that they have not done a thorough evaluation of
> the benefit/harm to themselves. I think that they use the "shoe-box"
> method of thinking - sometimes referred to as "under the bed" or "head
> in the sand". They tuck away the serious thinking/evaluation for "some
> other time" and never do get to it until some very definite problem
> occurs. **Kitty]

Yes, I see this also. I see this with a number of individuals on the
weight lifting and bodybuilding forums I read. On these forums there are
a number of people who ask about insulin sensitivity and weight loss
because they have recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or had
a heart attack.

> [By they then have to undo damage which is far more difficult,
> if even possible, than preventing its occurrence would have been. **Kitty]

Yes, unfortunately.

> [It is quite reasonable to get pleasure from encouragement and praise,
> but reasonably encouragement and praise should mean little from those
> one has little respect for (just as negative criticism from someone
> for whom you have no respect means little). **Kitty]

I have found this to be true, and is generally the perspective that I have.

> [In contrast, the praise
> and encouragement will mean far more from someone highly valued (as
> will also any negative expressions from such a person be more
> hurtful). So if you want to retain this type of pleasure, I suggest
> cultivating and/or increasing friendships with those you admire and
> in beneficial activities that you both/all enjoy. **Kitty]

That is good advice. My current organic chemistry professor did to me
recently in class. First, I usually answer his in-class questions
correctly. However, I skipped class twice in the last two weeks and he
came to the lab I work in and asked me (playfully) if I was dropping his
course. I told him no, and that I was studying independently. The next
class session I answered some relatively difficult questions and he said
to me in front of the class: "Okay, Steve, you are the only one who is
allowed to skip my class". *laughs in enjoyment*. That felt good, even
more so because I know I worked to earn the praise.

> [Paul and I are praise/encouragement sources for each other. **Kitty]

This praise from other individuals whom I admire and respect is
something that does not come frequently for me, mostly because there
aren't many people regularly involved in my life whom I respect. So
that's great that you and Paul are a source of praise and encouragement
for one another.

Meta
[Your "whom" above was correct (the objective case) because it was a pronoun
standing for "many people regularly involved in my life" and was the object of
the clause "I respect" as "I respect many people". --Paul]
/Meta

> [We do enjoy the praise we
> get from others when we dance, an activity that we have evaluated as
> being truly beneficial, partly because it has so many facets to it,
> and we certainly enjoy the praise more from a good DJ and/or other
> good dancers than from those who simply stand on the sidelines. **Kitty]

Yes, I'd bet many DJs have seen quite a few dancers, so to receive
praise might be more pleasurable, given the DJs assumed experience.

> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]

Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.

> > I have been trying to evaluate
> > all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
> > feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
> > positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
>
> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.

I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.

> > One positive
> > aspect that must be weighed against the negative aspects of a
> > given habit is the enjoyment derived from that habit.
>
> Absolutely true. But in the end your emotional response to the activity
> must become an integrated whole habit, rather than fragmented into
> negative and positive aspects depending on your thoughts. Perhaps you
> are still at the stage of constantly fragmented thoughts about the
> activity rather than having fully reprogrammed your emotions to become
> the subconscious and automatic *net results* of these thoughts.

This describes exactly how I feel about many of my habits: that I have
not yet fully reprogrammed my emotions to be the automatic net result of
my thoughts about a given habit. There are some habits I have concluded
that I enjoy, and emotionally appreciate them when I engage in them. One
example is my enjoyment of ground flax seed, which I have a few
tablespoons per day of. But, my special enjoyment of flax seed is the
aroma. I remember when I first started losing weight when I was 210 lbs
I decided that flax seed would be helpful in getting healthy fatty
acids, and fiber to keep me feeling fuller. I remember smelling the
ground flax, and the aroma was strange to me, as I had never eaten it
before. I was a little wary of eating it at first, since it was foreign
to me. But at the time I decided that I would lose the excess weight,
even if I had to "resort" to eating things that were foreign to me. Now,
the smell of flax seed reminds me of my previous determination to change
my habits, and that I have maintained those healthier habits. Knowing
this, and that flax is quite healthy, makes my eating flax enjoyable
to me in several ways.

> --Paul
>
> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]

I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
portions of treats.

> But if
> one is mostly consistent in hir values (no one is 100% consistent),
> and they have a foundation of principles valid for reality, then hir
> emotions and ideas/values will quickly come back into accord. **Kitty]

---
Max Peto / Steve Floyd

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This thread has now branched off into two unrelated areas: 1)
> Child/adult responsibility and rationality comparisons (to which I
> respond here)

<snipped # 2>

> On 01/02/2009 09:28 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote: Hi David,
>
> I appreciate your comments to our discussion and I enjoyed them. I
> responded to them below.

Steve,
I'm glad to participate with you.  I have especially enjoyed reading
your thoughts throughout 2008 and into 2009 and look forward to
sharing more, together.

>> --- In morelife@yahoogroup s.com
>> <mailto:morelife%40yahoogroups.com>, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
>> <Olehenry1@ ..> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroup s.com
>>> <mailto:morelife%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>>>> In the context of this "healthy environment" , the book
>>>>> mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that
>>>>> environment, and how parental behavior can effect a child's
>>>>> (and the resulting adult's) behavior. A very important aspect
>>>>>  of this interaction between a parent's behavior and the
>>>>> child's behavior as an adult is that when the child becomes
>>>>> an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he is behaving in a
>>>>> manner that is harmful to hirself*.
>>>>
>>>> What this means in practice is that the child has only
>>>> nominally become an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning
>>>> one' living, etc). Full adulthood is a "becoming" process,
>>>> something that is never completely attained (as with a
>>>> mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
>>>> asymptotically) . Unfortunately few people continue with the
>>>> "becoming" process, but rather remain as stunted children all
>>>> their lives. Full human life must necessarily involve mental
>>>> growth and development, which is why I often state that "Most
>>>> people are dead by the time they are 30".
>>>
>>> Is not "being an adult" the time after which a non-adult crosses
>>> a social boundary by claiming full responsibility for hir
>>> actions, therefore ceasing to be a child of other adult(s). This
>>> is a social expression, a way of reaching out to others who also
>>> claim self- responsibility, and, when two or more such
>>> individuals intentionally interface, a social contract is formed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a great description of what might define an "adult"
>>  - the social boundary one crosses that marks the time after which
>> one is expected to be fully responsible for hir actions.
>
> The problem with the given description is that in the current society
>  a person is *never* expected to be fully responsible for hir
> actions. When I was writing the NSC, I first used the term "adult",
> to me a fully responsible human individual (essentially what I now
> mean by "Freeman"), but I soon realized that this attempt to reclaim
> the word "adult" would be fraught with too many problems (relating to
> the fact about its meanings in current society). Furthermore, in the
> current society there is no such thing or even understanding of a
> social contract being formed between two interacting individuals
> whether adult or not. David's description is attempting to apply the
> ideas of the Freeman Society, about a child becoming fully
> independent from hir parents and fully responsible for all hir
> actions, to the current society. But that simply won't work, mainly
> because it is neither enabled nor allowed to work by all the
> institutional interferences of the current society, but also because
> the thinking of those who are supposedly becoming adults is not
> adequate for the purpose.

Understood, and agree that things are very problematic wrt
responsibility and adulthood.  Even though it won't work to apply
definitions (that refer to the free society) to the current society, I am
glad we can address the meta-needs here on MoreLife and
potentially practice exercising our needs both via the internet and
sometimes in person.  MoreLife has been a good communication
platform, and I look forward to further investigating the wiki design
as a technological improvement which I expect will offer each
participant opportunity to more deeply participate.

>> I find it unfortunate that, while this "social boundary" is
>> considered by many to be after the attainment of age 18 or 21, the
>> person achieving such age is often not treated any differently.
>
> This is because most such new "adults" have shown that they are not
> capable of behaving any differently - so why should they be treated
> differently? Granted that such an approach is another kind of
> groupism and each person should be assessed individually for his own
> particular capabilities. However, since most people have neither the
> time nor the ability to make such assessments, it is reasonable that
> from their experience they simply choose to treat a new "adult" as
> little different than a slightly more capable and knowledgeable
> larger child.
>
>> This was true in my experience. For example, when one reaches the
>> age of "adulthood", the new "adult" should be treated as though
>> they can make hir own decisions - decisions which must be respected
>>  by others.
>
> Your "should" and "must" are an example of wrong thinking. Instead it
>  will be best for your lifetime happiness if you don't go around
> telling people what they should and should not do (and even less so
> must and must not do), but simply socially preference against those
> who do not treat you as you want to be treated and socially
> preference for those who do - and be sure to tell both groups why you
>  are doing this. The first step in such social preferencing is to
> ignore as much as possible those in the first category and deal
> almost exclusively with those in the second category. Not only does
> this approach provide the feedback necessary for those others to
> better understand you, but even more importantly it optimizes the use
>  of your time and mental energy by applying them to people with whom
> you will be more likely to profit from interacting.
>
> In addition, no decisions of anyone "must be respected by" anyone
> else. You are confusing "respect" - which means that the decision is
> estimated to be beneficial to lifetime happiness of the person making
>  it - with "allow" - which simply means that the person will leave
> the decision maker completely at liberty to act on hir decision.
> Thus, while it is certainly true that everyone should be entitled (or
> at liberty) to make their own decisions and take their own actions,
> as long as such actions are not the effective cause of harm to
> others, it is also certainly true that any other person is entitled
> to think and say what s/he thinks about such an action (including
> strong condemnation) and, finally, to socially preference according
> to such thoughts.

Thanks Paul for pointing out all of these problems with Steve's
statements, each of which I am in agreement.  Steve, I suggest to
you (as well remind myself) to be aware of attempting to do
exactly what Paul warns about above, swapping a definition or
concept from a free society into our descriptions of past or
present problems, because this has lead to many mistakes
(for me) about how to begin solving the problems.  For example,
I historically attempt to reconcile my family members with my albeit
"green" SMN and NSC perspective, but that has not helped me
solve problems.  Instead, I recognize now and then (when I
exercise such awareness) that I am metaphorically attempting to
force a square peg to fit nicely into a round hole.

I am not intending to address value received from sharing our
unfortunate experiences with our families in the context of the
current society, which can be valuable for numerous reasons.

<snipped most of the remainder, except the following paragraph
which restates Paul's message above:>

> However, as I have explained many times, the definitions, statements,
>  actions and behavioral standards of the NSC are not applicable to
> current society, where, in fact, there is no reasonably defined
> separation between childhood and adulthood, much less any actually
> clear difference in the behaviors of individuals in each category.
> Rather the NSC is applicable to what people could and ought to become
>  (where "ought" means only that doing so will be most likely to
> enable each of them to maximally increase hir lifetime happiness).

<snipping continues: if someone in the group is having children soon, this
would be a great post to revisit in search of valuable child-rearing
thoughts for deep consideration>

> [I strongly recommend the writings of John Holt, who really created
> an uproar in the mid-60s with his book, _Why Children Fail_, and then
>  a few years later, _How Children Learn_. While in these 2 books he
> is focusing on the compulsory/forced educational system as the
> antithesis of a true learning situation for children, the concepts
> apply to the total environments of children. (John Holt was the the
> major spearhead in the homeschooling movement, increasingly favored
> by many parents as just recently reported by the US Dept of Education
>  - http://tinyurl.com/7wa96g Another excellent book by Holt is
> _Instead of Education; Ways to Help People Do Things Better_, which
> emphasizes the enormous number of ways learning and growing can (and
> very often do) take place outside the education system - the
> government decreed method for becoming educated and thereby
> authorized to perform in certain manners. **Kitty]

I'm reading a little here and there from Holt's _Instead of Education_,
which I find valuable because of the constant reminders that I treat my
formal university education differently than I am expected to, for example,
that I begin my own projects related to Organic Chemistry, Statistics, and
my Reasoning courses and not rely on the professor or my classmates to
communicate or teach satisfactory methods for thoroughly digesting the
raw information, selectively integrating the good information, and testing
the efficacy of the new in a context of the proven.  Thanks Kitty for the
recommendation!

<snipped the terrifying thought of being, and being surrounded by, children>

> Welcome to the real and actual world of the current society in which
> all of us are embedded! Not only have I been fully aware of this for
> over 40 years, but having thought about such problems, the detailed
> way that social interactions should and could work, and how much
> better would be so many wasteful activities in this society if such
> solutions were implemented (for example all the time and resources
> spent on security, spam protection, privacy, etc would be saved for
> actual happiness producing purposes), is it any wonder that I
> sometimes feel enormous depression, particularly having no one else
> but Kitty who really understands my viewpoints and solutions?

I angered Paul the last time I visited when I reminded him of a commonly
espoused concept, that is: even though the United States of citizens,
e.g., have wasted unbelievable amount of resources (including
misdirection of thought, which has led many people down these
government-subsidized paths) at least we have good technologies that
have resulted as an aside of military spending, such as GPS and so on.
I think I showed Paul that I do not have a good grasp of how much
waste occurs, and to have this sort of sympathizer-type statement occur
in his house as though it was not that big of a deal, dug deeply and hurt
(him).  I was sad to be a part of the experience, and quickly
remembered that the Antonik-Wakfer residence commands (because
of earned respect IMO) a higher standard of communicating.  Paul, I
am sorry for my part of contributing sadness that day.  Kitty, I am
sorry to you as well for contributing any grief.

Both Paul and Kitty are skilled with patience.  Both Paul and Kitty are
blessed (by there own practice and awareness) with emotions of full
intensity.  I appreciate these attributes :)

Warmly,
Jack

> <snipped the rest - responded to in message with subject: Balancing
> productive endeavors and leisure>
>
> --Paul

It's taken me longer than I hoped but I finally completed my and
Paul's supplement regimen pages along with the very large spreadsheet
of supplements that can be accessed from Note 5 of either regimen
page. There were numerous changes as you will see, many as a result of
LEF's product changes of existing items we have been taking but also
some as a result of additions and modifications resulting from Paul's
assessments of the literature. All three files have now been uploaded.

There are a couple of new items on the Science and Practice Indexes,
which are unrelated to our regimen changes.
The Supporting page has been added to - always a pleasure.
A total of 4 photo pages are newly uploaded - 3 are from last summer
and early Fall which were mostly done before we left Ontario. One is a
collection of very recent photos, and actually bumped slightly older
photos for which I've not done any work, but they are so interesting I
thought others would like to see them.

As in the past, if anyone finds an error of omission or commission,
please let me know. http://morelife.org

We are not likely to do any further updating to the technical portions
of MoreLife, and possibly not even much of our personal implementation
area either, in the website's current form. Instead, Paul has been
devoting most of his time to completing modification and installation
of wiki software for a family of 4 sites (MoreLife, SelfSIP and 2
others). And now that I've updated the supplement regimens to the
current state, I can get back to helping Paul. We look forward to soon
being able to debut these wikis after we and several helpers have done
more testing out and begin adding content. We will then also welcome
anyone who is willing to be fully identified to participate in
assisting this effort as either a "Discusser" or "Editor" (the latter
if approved for creating/editing content).

1) Anonymous people can only read these wikis.
2) Discussers have their own userpages over which they have full
creation and editing ability, can create/edit/respond to the
Discussion area (which substitutes for a forum and will in time
replace this group) and can also create/edit/respond to any Meta pages
of any other pages.
3) Editors have the above privileges, but can in addition create/edit
content pages.

Anyone interested in participating is encouraged to examine the
structure and organization of Wikipedia, and to use their sandbox to
try things out a bit. Our wikis are based on the same software from
http://mediawiki.org , but with some modification by Paul. One of
these is to change the name of all "Talk" pages to "Meta" pages,
intended only for commenting on the organization, layout, syntax, word
usages, etc of a page. Instead comments and discussions of the content
will go on a Discussion page of the same name.

It will be great to have others share the task - and the pleasure - of
making more of MoreLife! (and hopefully the other wikis also once they
are ready and their purpose is understood).

**Kitty

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> > This is my response to the second part of the original for which the
> > subject title is still appropriate.
> >
> > On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> >
> > <big snip of what was previously responded to>
> >
> > > > > I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day
> > > > > has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min
> > > > > per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in
> > > > > response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group
> > > > > posted 06/04/08:
> > > > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809
> > > > >
> > > > > Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent
> > > > > would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways
> > > > > hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?
> > > >
> > > > Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of
> > > > the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.
> > > > Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible
> > > > after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with
> > > > that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at
> > > > least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into
> > > > a very relaxed state by sleep time.
> > >
> > > I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic
> > > response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy
> > > stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey
> > > protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?
> >
> > I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the
> > autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,
> > since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser
> > extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first
> > for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested
> > ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted
> > state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested
> > ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they
> > can be absorbed.
>
> I agree with Paul here. Jack, I don't know how familiar you are with
> autophagy, but autophagy is basically a process whereby the body eats
> itself because it is lacking energy stores and the building blocks
> required to support anabolism. Now here is a logical exercise for you
> Jack (This relates to the use of logic Paul spoke about in your last
> post). The question you have to ask yourself here is *why* is there an
> increase in the liberation of energy stores during exercise? Why does
> your body start liberating fat and increasing glucose output from the
> liver when you exercise, and how does that relate to autophagy?
>
> If you think about the answer you can come to realize that it doesn't
> make sense that exercise would cause autophagy to decrease. The answer
> is that energy stores are being liberated because the muscle tissue is
> burning up so much energy and it needs more of it to keep the exercise
> going. The energy stores thus are being liberated in order for the
> muscles to take up the energy they need (glucose and fat) to keep
> functioning at high efficiency. Now this energy has to come from
> somewhere and since you have not eaten for a long time it makes sense
> that the body has to turn to itself by both breaking down stored
> energy (glycogen and fat) as well as by eating itself through
> autophagy. Note that the liver can not store much glycogen and as it
> starts to empty it will have to increase gluconeogenesis (the
> synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors such as amino
> acids). Now where do the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis come
> from? Again the answer is from autophagy, if you haven't eaten for a
> while that is.

This last part helped me understand that the increase in
gluconeogenesis is fueled by amino acids liberated during
autophagy -- I did not understand the details, so this has
spurred my further investigation.

Is there known to be a self-reported difference in the quality
of performance of subjects between fueling vigorous exercise
with gluconeogenesis versus fueling with stored gylcogen or
fat stores?  Quality of performance meaning relative
sluggishness, alertness, or emotional motivation in response
to physical performance.

I'm wondering because if yes, then maybe it be wise to
exercise vigorously when stored glycogen and fat stores
are available to ensure peak physical performance, with
the remaining hours of regular caloric demand between
exercise and meal expected to be powered more-so by
autophagy.

> Energy depleting exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle
> tissue being exercised, which increases uptake of nutrients such as fat
> and glucose into the muscle tissue being exercised. The muscles are
> basically creating a funnel for nutrients. This increased insulin
> sensitivity in the muscle tissue being exercised also lasts a while
> after the exercise is over causing increased nutrient uptake into the
> exercised muscle for a while after the exercise. But this effect is
> strongest right after exercising and fades somewhat afterwards which
> is one reason it is beneficial to eat immediately after exercising as
> opposed to eating later on. If you eat right after exercising more of
> the nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. Much of the
> glucose f.ex. will go towards filling the muscles glycogen stores
> leaving less of it left to cause harmful elevation of blood glucose.

Understood -- these are good reasons for scheduling a meal
to immediately follow exercise.

[snipped part on META --Paul]

> > > If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead
> > > immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?
> >
> > That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,
> > the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs
> > should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.
>
> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of
> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before
> eating it as you appear to have understood it.

Yes, for 8 weeks now I have exercised followed ~40 min later
by a 2-hour meal.  Since I take a shower, gather my study
material, then walk to the cafe, I must be missing an important
period of nutrient uptake since my heart rate, sweating, and
overall physical exertion has decreased to pre-workout status.

> Anyways your point
> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of
> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.
>
> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be
> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather
> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question
> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:
>
> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer
> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an
> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase
> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the
> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been
> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising
> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.

Regardless of the time of day of exercise, as long as all other
things were equal, one would always end up metabolizing the
same amount from both normal body stores (glycogen and fat)
and autophagy.  However, what I gather from each of you is
one can increase the autophagic effect by pushing exercise to
later in the day, but this seems false because, calories-in
calories-out, there is no difference in the number of calories
taken in and likewise, no difference in the amount/type of
energy-expending exercise.
The difference I do see, which does not strike me as significant,
is: during a much earlier bout of exercise, one will rely less on
autophagy for energy, but the autophagy will show an increase
earlier in that day, whereas during a much later bout of exercise,
  one will rely more heavily on autophagy for energy, and the
autophagy will show an increase later in the day-- but this
difference is only in timing exercise to match with autophagy,
which does not necessarily change the calorie count.

Are you suggesting that timing exercise so one relies more
heavily on autophagy as a source of energy brings an additional
calorie-burning advantage versus timing exercise to rely more
heavily on glycogen and fat stores as a source of energy (and
thus leaving autophagy for later, relaxed states)?

--Jack

[snipped text not responded to. --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Brett" <dbrett@...> wrote:
>
> Where I have a significantly higher lifetime risk than the average
> i.e. prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes I intend to strengthen my
> defences however I am able.

Have you considered any supplemental boron for prevention of prostate cancer?
PMID 15010890 (http://pubmed.gov/15010890):

<<After controlling for age, race, education, smoking, body mass index,
dietary caloric intake, and alcohol consumption, increased dietary
boron intake was associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer
with a dose-response pattern. The adjusted odds ratio was 0.46 (95%
confidence interval: 0.21-0.98) for the highest quartile of boron
intake comparing to the lowest quartile (P for trend = 0.0525).>>

It also has benefits for bone health and helps arthritis (PMID 7889887).

StephenB

META
I apologize for the delay in posting this (it should have come before
Jack's recent reply to the same message). I had composed it almost
immediately, but did not post it due to my self-imposed 7 day wait
restriction. However, the original never did arrive in my inbox from
Yahoo, so my system of tagging posts that I plan to answer could not
work for it, and because of my preoccupation with other intensive work
it then got totally forgotten. However, there is some benefit
afterall, since I have new input to it that makes it even better than
it would have been if posted immediately.
/META

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> > This is my response to the second part of the original for which the
> > subject title is still appropriate.
> >
> > On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

[big snip of text not in need of response or responded to elsewhere]

> > > If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead
> > > immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?
> >
> > That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,
> > the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs
> > should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.
>
> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of
> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before
> eating it as you appear to have understood it.

Indeed you are correct, and Jack's sentence was clearly written to
signify that. I was not in top form when I read/responded and, partly
for that reason, Kitty was not totally focused either.

[Neither one of us can remember what Paul was referring to here at the
time that he originally wrote this reply (almost two months ago now).
However, it had nothing to do with his mysterious leg syndrome that
began it's infrequent, though initially quite severe in symptoms,
appearance back in March 2000. It has now been over *14 months* since
the last episode - the one before which he was seen by a local
infectious disease specialist, had some blood tests during and the
resulting bill was subject of a Focus on Freedom article -
http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcareexample.html Because of this
usually lengthy hiatus and because the last episode was not at all
like previous ones, we have great hopes and some conviction that the
cause of that ailment has been eliminated (whatever it was). **Kitty]

> Anyways your point
> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of
> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.
>
> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be
> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather
> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question
> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:
>
> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer
> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an
> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase
> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the
> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been
> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising
> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.
> 2) As I mentioned above exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the
> muscle tissue being exercised. The action of contracting your muscles
> causes translocation of GLUT-4 to the cell surface of the skeletal
> muscle cells. GLUT-4 is the main glucose transporter in human muscle
> tissue. This consequently leads to increased uptake of glucose into
> the exercised muscle tissue. This will in turn cause more of any
> ingested glucose to be taken up by muscle tissue rather than
> contributing to harmful elevation of blood glucose levels. And this is
> an effect that is generally strongest right after exercising.
> 3) During exercise blood flow to the muscle tissue being exercised is
> increased considerably. This fades quickly when the exercise is
> stopped but lasts for a while after the exercise. This contributes to
> increased nutrient delivery to the muscle tissue during and right
> after the exercise. The effect again is that more of any ingested
> nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. The benefits of this
> include a lower blood glucose spike from a meal that is eaten after
> exercising compared to if it were eaten later. Also since the
> increased blood flow to the working muscle fades fairly quickly after
> the exercise it is important to eat right after the exercise if one
> wants to take advantage of the increased nutrient delivery and the
> potential benefits it has.
>
> BTW to take advantage of some of the benefits I mentioned above I
> myself try to always eat my biggest meal of the day right after
> exercising. I also partition a large share of my daily carbohydrate
> intake during this meal knowing it will likely cause less of a rise in
> my blood sugar than if I were to consume them at other times.

Your reasoning is correct as far as it goes, but, since it only
examines the consequences of eating immediately after exercise on the
blood sugar and the muscles, I do not think that it is complete. The
reason that I wrote above: "2 hrs should give your body sufficient
time to recover before the large meal" is that, although I have no
cites for evidence, it seems very clear to me that if the body is
still heated up, heart racing, with high blood pressure and entirely
focused on using some of its muscles, it will not be in optimum
condition to either consume or digest food.

Remember that the digestive system is not passive but is rather a
large organ that requires a lot of energy to adequately do its job.
This is why many people feel tired after a large meal and take a nap.
All animals do the same thing. (Think of lions gorging themselves and
then sleeping after a kill - this is not due to the weight of the food
on them, since the same lion is capable of dragging the entire carcass
for hundreds of yards to a sheltered and relaxed feeding place). Just
as animals need a safe place during sleep, so those that eat large
amounts at once, and are not the top local predators, need a safe
place in which to eat. Humans are no different. This is particularly
the case when one has not eaten for some time and has also been
exercising during that period. Just today this phenomenon showed
itself strongly to me. Yesterday was a fasting day, but it was also a
desert music/dance event. We got there by 5pm did our usual hiking and
desert trash cleanup and then began dancing, which was extremely
intensive to excellent music between 11pm to 1am (and the desert
ground is *not* easy to dance on). We had nothing but our tea drink
during the entire time until 1pm today (after stopping any food intake
at 10pm 2 days before that). After eating most of the first half of
the meal today - smoothie plus a large veggie cheese omelet, I felt so
tired that I could not finish the salad portion and actually laid down
for about 20 mins in the dark and quiet. My analysis of this situation
is that because of its highly depleted state (and I had taken acipimox
right after rising late, only 2 hours before eating), my body was not
able to supply the digestive system with enough energy to digest the
food and at the same time to still keep me alert and fully functional.
At 2.5 hours after finishing that food I am up and able to this work.

[I did not experience the same degree of fatigue as Paul this
afternoon. I did dance last night for almost as long a period - my
pedometer recorded 32,209 steps for the day while his was at 40,336 -
though the intensity was not quite as great as what I would have done
to the great music output by Spyder (11pm-1am slot) if the surface had
been smooth. (I stopped for short periods to snap photos and also to
converse with some friends and curious new people ... :)

I've not been taking any acipimox the past 2 weeks because it appears
to be linked to a return of diarrhea; I'm just now back to full
reinstitution of all my other supplements and will see how that goes
before any retry of the acipimox. While I did feel a noticeable
decrease of energy in the mid-afternoon today that I do not experience
on fasting days, it was not so great that I stopped my writing (of a
lengthy online comment) to go lie down. **Kitty]

Therefore, there must be some minimal time after exercise, probably
depending no the length and intensity of the exercise, and perhaps on
the condition of the individual, which is needed to rest and recover
the body *before* the consumption and digestive processing of food can
optimally occur. I do not expect that this time is as long as 2 hrs
(unless perhaps a person had exercised to total exhaustion), but I
would expect that it would always be at least 15 mins and could well
be longer.

Therefore, my general recommendation would be to act as Olafur stated
(and for the reasons that he gave/explained), but to be sure to wait a
sufficient amount of time after exercising so that your physiological
state fully recovers to basal levels. For most people this should be
automatic with the normal amount of time taken for a shower, a change
of clothes and readying the food for consumption.

Another important point is that although Olafur's recommendation (with
my moderation of it) is good theory, I know of no studies that show
that such an approach is conducive to either increased health or
longevity. And, as a general rule of biology - particularly human
biology, it is so complex that more often than not good theories do
not stand the test of experiment.

--Paul

[In conjunction with Paul's comments above about digestive processing,
I went to his copy of Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology (8th
ed.) to see what information could be discerned about the
gastrointestinal tract's requirements for its task of transporting,
mixing, digesting and absorbing nutrients (from) the food one
consumes. The subject is far too great for me to absorb in a short
time the information on all that the GI tract does. But as a brief
indicator of the amount of work being done in this part of the body,
I'll just quote from the subsection "Gastrointestinal Blood Flow" (Ch
62 Principles of Gastrointestinal Function - Motility, Nervous Control
and Blood Circulation):
"Under normal conditions the blood flow in each area of the
gastrointestinal tract, as well as in each layer of the gut wall, is
directly related to the level of local activity. For instance, during
active absorption, blood flow in the villi and adjacent regions of the
submucosa is greatly increased. Likewise, blood flow in the muscle
layers of the intestinal wall increases with increased motor activity
in the gut. For instance, after a meal the motor activity, secretory
activity, and absorptive activity all increase, and likewise the blood
flow increases as much as 100 to 150 percent, usually lasting for 3 to
6 hours."

This textbook is probably the best one on human physiology. For those
who take their life-extension practices very seriously and therefore
want to really understand what is happening in their bodies, this book
should always be readily available for consultation. I see from
looking at Amazon that for the newest edition (11th - 2005) under Book
Description:
"Offers access to the full text and other valuable features online via
the STUDENT CONSULT website"  This makes the book even more valuable
in the way of accessibility and usability. **Kitty]

On 03/18/2009 06:58 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>
>>> This is my response to the second part of the original for which the
>>> subject title is still appropriate.
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>>>>
>>> <big snip of what was previously responded to>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day
>>>>>> has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min
>>>>>> per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in
>>>>>> response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group
>>>>>> posted 06/04/08:
>>>>>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent
>>>>>> would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways
>>>>>> hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of
>>>>> the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.
>>>>> Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible
>>>>> after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with
>>>>> that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at
>>>>> least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into
>>>>> a very relaxed state by sleep time.
>>>>>
>>>> I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic
>>>> response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy
>>>> stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey
>>>> protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?
>>>>
>>> I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the
>>> autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,
>>> since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser
>>> extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first
>>> for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested
>>> ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted
>>> state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested
>>> ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they
>>> can be absorbed.
>>>
>> I agree with Paul here. Jack, I don't know how familiar you are with
>> autophagy, but autophagy is basically a process whereby the body eats
>> itself because it is lacking energy stores and the building blocks
>> required to support anabolism. Now here is a logical exercise for you
>> Jack (This relates to the use of logic Paul spoke about in your last
>> post). The question you have to ask yourself here is *why* is there an
>> increase in the liberation of energy stores during exercise? Why does
>> your body start liberating fat and increasing glucose output from the
>> liver when you exercise, and how does that relate to autophagy?
>>
>> If you think about the answer you can come to realize that it doesn't
>> make sense that exercise would cause autophagy to decrease. The answer
>> is that energy stores are being liberated because the muscle tissue is
>> burning up so much energy and it needs more of it to keep the exercise
>> going. The energy stores thus are being liberated in order for the
>> muscles to take up the energy they need (glucose and fat) to keep
>> functioning at high efficiency. Now this energy has to come from
>> somewhere and since you have not eaten for a long time it makes sense
>> that the body has to turn to itself by both breaking down stored
>> energy (glycogen and fat) as well as by eating itself through
>> autophagy. Note that the liver can not store much glycogen and as it
>> starts to empty it will have to increase gluconeogenesis (the
>> synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors such as amino
>> acids). Now where do the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis come
>> from? Again the answer is from autophagy, if you haven't eaten for a
>> while that is.
>
> This last part helped me understand that the increase in
> gluconeogenesis is fueled by amino acids liberated during
> autophagy -- I did not understand the details, so this has
> spurred my further investigation.

One point that Olafur did not mention is that if a person has stores
of easily available triacylglycerols, then glucose (and other other ATP
production precusors) will be generated first from decomposition of
those triacylglycerols (stored in fat cells) into free fatty acids and
glycerol (a three carbon hydroxylated chain), with the glycerol
portion then used to produce glucose.

[Recall that triacylglycerol is the correct biochemical term for what
is often still referred to as triglyceride -
http://morelife.org/glossary/stu.html#triacylglycerol **Kitty]

Because this process is always third in line after glucose production
from digestion and from glycogen stores, it is only natural that the
body "eats" its own fat before it then starts eating its own proteins,
particularly muscles (since fat takes far less work to store as a
source of energy than does production of protein, and proteins are
more important for continuation of survival).

In fact, the whole point of taking acipimox is to *prevent* the
decomposition of triacylglycerols and the consequent use of the
liberated glycerol as a glucose source in order to force the body to
recycle its own proteins. It should thus be clear that acipimox is not
something that a person attempting to lose weight from reduction of
calories and fasting should be taking. Acipimox is only beneficial for
enhancing autophagy for people such as me and Kitty who have no more
fat to lose and do not care to go through a fat storage and release
cycle every 3 days. Rather we want to go through a mainly protein
breakdown, recycling and buildup process at as high a rate as
possible. Again the reason for this is because the greater "pressure"
(need by the body) for energy substrate, the greater will be the
likelihood of breaking down dysfunctional proteins.

> Is there known to be a self-reported difference in the quality
> of performance of subjects between fueling vigorous exercise
> with gluconeogenesis versus fueling with stored gylcogen or
> fat stores?  Quality of performance meaning relative
> sluggishness, alertness, or emotional motivation in response
> to physical performance.

This is a good question that I will leave it to Olafur (and his twin
Egill - who is even more into exercise physiology than is Olafur). My
own thoughts on this are that theoretically the level of physical
exertion capability should decrease in the order of glycogen, fat and
protein use. See my recent post in this thread for a personal example
relative to this point.

> I'm wondering because if yes, then maybe it be wise to
> exercise vigorously when stored glycogen and fat stores
> are available to ensure peak physical performance,

That would probably be true if you had any good reason to want to
"ensure peak physical performance". This again raises the question
about the purpose of the physical performance and why it needs to be
"peak" (and what constitutes "peak", for that matter). There is a huge
difference between exercise for the purpose of health and longevity
and exercise to achieve some sports, other cultural or personal
enjoyment goal.

[The phrase "ensure peak per performance" most definitely requires
from the speaker/writer definitions of "performance" and "peak". These
are very subjective terms and rely entirely on the value judgments of
each individual - the choice of what activity is being performed and
the level that is considered to be "peak". **Kitty]


> with the remaining hours of regular caloric demand between
> exercise and meal expected to be powered more-so by autophagy.

Ignoring "peak performance", yes, it makes sense that sufficient
exercise to burn up your glycogen and easily available fat, and then
consuming acipimox to prevent further fat decomposition, should enable
protein autophagy to take place for the longest period. However, the
overall effect of the amount of protein autophagy would only be
increased by any such method given that the amount of exercise and the
fasting period remained the same and your amount of stored fat
reserves had not yet reached a minimal level (where each fat cell
contained so little actual stored triacylglycerols that any left were
not easily released).


>> Energy depleting exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle
>> tissue being exercised, which increases uptake of nutrients such as fat
>> and glucose into the muscle tissue being exercised. The muscles are
>> basically creating a funnel for nutrients. This increased insulin
>> sensitivity in the muscle tissue being exercised also lasts a while
>> after the exercise is over causing increased nutrient uptake into the
>> exercised muscle for a while after the exercise. But this effect is
>> strongest right after exercising and fades somewhat afterwards which
>> is one reason it is beneficial to eat immediately after exercising as
>> opposed to eating later on. If you eat right after exercising more of
>> the nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. Much of the
>> glucose f.ex. will go towards filling the muscles glycogen stores
>> leaving less of it left to cause harmful elevation of blood glucose.
>
> Understood -- these are good reasons for scheduling a meal
> to immediately follow exercise.
>
>>>> If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead
>>>> immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?
>>>>
>>> That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,
>>> the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs
>>> should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.
>>>
>> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of
>> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before
>> eating it as you appear to have understood it.
>>
>
> Yes, for 8 weeks now I have exercised followed ~40 min later
> by a 2-hour meal.  Since I take a shower, gather my study
> material, then walk to the cafe, I must be missing an important
> period of nutrient uptake since my heart rate, sweating, and
> overall physical exertion has decreased to pre-workout status.

See my other message in this thread for reasons and evidence that eating
*immediately* after a strenuous workout is *not* healthy. I think your
40 min delay is likely quite excellent and you should not change it.

>> Anyways your point
>> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of
>> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.
>>
>> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be
>> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather
>> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question
>> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:
>>
>> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer
>> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an
>> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase
>> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the
>> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been
>> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising
>> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.
>
> Regardless of the time of day of exercise, as long as all other
> things were equal, one would always end up metabolizing the
> same amount from both normal body stores (glycogen and fat)
> and autophagy.

Yes, if you are not eating less calories than you are using and if you
are not taking acipimox. And note that if you are not losing weight,
then you are also restoring those same body stores of glycogen and fat
every eating, sleeping and exercising cycle of your body.

>  However, what I gather from each of you is
> one can increase the autophagic effect by pushing exercise to
> later in the day, but this seems false because, calories-in
> calories-out, there is no difference in the number of calories
> taken in and likewise, no difference in the amount/type of
> energy-expending exercise.
> The difference I do see, which does not strike me as significant,
> is: during a much earlier bout of exercise, one will rely less on
> autophagy for energy, but the autophagy will show an increase
> earlier in that day, whereas during a much later bout of exercise,
>  one will rely more heavily on autophagy for energy, and the
> autophagy will show an increase later in the day-- but this
> difference is only in timing exercise to match with autophagy,
> which does not necessarily change the calorie count.
>

Your logical is impeccable and is similar to what I wrote above (about
the timing not mattering overall). With regard to calories, the only
thing that can be changed is the amount of energy that is from protein
autophagy versus that from usage of stored fat. I have no more fat to
lose and by the usage of acipimox, I am forcing my body into protein
autophagy (moreso than it would normally be) and saving it from having
to use up and then restore fat. This is very different from Olafur's
considerations for himself since he has more fat than I do and is more
concerned with retaining muscle mass and strength (for no good reason
that I have ever been able to discern).

However, the consideration of protein recycling via autophagy is not
the only one of concern to Olafur nor to me. Also highly important is
the contribution of blood glucose toward glycation and ultimately to
AGE formation. It is for this purpose that Olafur's scheme of
exercising soon before eating (moderated by my information about the
digestive needs) is important, since it should reduce the highest
blood glucose levels if not the average blood glucose level. Recall
that glycation rate increases faster than directly proportional
(linearly) to blood glucose.

> Are you suggesting that timing exercise so one relies more
> heavily on autophagy as a source of energy brings an additional
> calorie-burning advantage versus timing exercise to rely more
> heavily on glycogen and fat stores as a source of energy (and
> thus leaving autophagy for later, relaxed states)?

Actually this is true to a certain extent because usage of protein for
energy takes more usage of energy and is highly wasteful of chemical
components (all the nitrogen containing amine groups are ultimately
excreted by the kidneys). The energy needed to reclaim each calorie
from stores increases in the order from glycogen, fat, protein (which
is why the body reclaims that energy in that order).

--Paul

I just had one comment below, communicating my experience with eating
immediately after exercise.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is my response to the second part of the original for which the
> > > subject title is still appropriate.
> > >
> > > On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>
> [big snip of text not in need of response or responded to elsewhere]

[snip of other items not responded to in this post]

> > BTW to take advantage of some of the benefits I mentioned above I
> > myself try to always eat my biggest meal of the day right after
> > exercising. I also partition a large share of my daily carbohydrate
> > intake during this meal knowing it will likely cause less of a rise in
> > my blood sugar than if I were to consume them at other times.
>
> Your reasoning is correct as far as it goes, but, since it only
> examines the consequences of eating immediately after exercise on the
> blood sugar and the muscles, I do not think that it is complete. The
> reason that I wrote above: "2 hrs should give your body sufficient
> time to recover before the large meal" is that, although I have no
> cites for evidence, it seems very clear to me that if the body is
> still heated up, heart racing, with high blood pressure and entirely
> focused on using some of its muscles, it will not be in optimum
> condition to either consume or digest food.

Monday through Thursday I ride my bike home from class around 5 or 7pm.
When I begin my vigorous ride I am very hungry from calorie restriction
throughout the day. However, once I get home, I notice that I am not
hungry for around 30-60 minutes. I find that the exercise from
bike-riding consistently reduces my level of hunger. Some days I am
quite hungry when I return and decide to eat something small as soon as
I get in the door. When I do this I frequently get acid reflux or feel a
small measure of nausea. I'm guessing that this is caused by my body
still quite active from the ride (i.e. as Paul describes: heart racing,
high blood pressure, muscles full of blood, etc.).

Do you eat your biggest meal *immediately* after exercising? If so, have
you ever felt nauseous or experienced acid-reflux? If so, perhaps eating
so soon after exercise is the cause, as in my experience.

[snipped the remainder of the discussion not replied to]

--Steve

On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
> am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
> days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
> read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
> of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
> initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
> to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
> proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
> one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
> some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
> who has never read it.
>
> This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
> own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true.
> However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
> writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message).
>

Meta
Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
message, I have placed it in Meta tags.
/Meta

And I have been delayed with this reply because of wiki website work.

>
>> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
>>
>> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
>>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
>>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
>>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
>>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
>>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
>>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
>>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
>>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
>>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
>>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
>>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
>>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
>>> makes things enjoyable in the present.
>>>
>> This is entirely reasonable. It is a normal aspect of learning through
>> experience present in all animals. However, humans have mental faculties
>> that enable them to analyze any experience in terms of both its short
>> and long range aspects, including analyzing just why it is "felt" to
>> be a positive experience. After such analysis, if one sees that the
>> experience (and the emotion about it) is *not* beneficial because the
>> events of the experience are actually *not* going to optimally increase
>> one's lifetime happiness, then the emotional reaction to that kind of
>> experience needs to be modified accordingly (the emotion is not
>> consistent with one's rationally held analysis of one's life and
>> therefore is actually harmful to continue having - because it distorts
>> rational decision making).
>>
>>
>>> At the same time, I understand
>>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
>>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
>>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
>>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
>>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
>>> what do I replace it ?"
>>>
>> There are several things here.
>> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
>> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
>> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
>> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
>>
> I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
> emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
> reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
> preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
> negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
> preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
> rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
> behavior/action/situation.

Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
(all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
(a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
preference (a conscious choice and action).

>> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
>> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
>> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
>> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
>
> The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
> lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
> example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
> predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
> or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
> changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
> Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
> activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
> an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
> better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
> activities.

Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
possible meanings.

[I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety. **Kitty]

> What I describe next may sound strange to some readers. However, I
> think that many young people may be experiencing this same situation,
> so I wanted to discuss it here so that others may relate to it. I know
> of at least one person around my age who has told me she has developed
> very similar habits with regard to how she considers her state of
> happiness. One problem I think I am struggling with is that I repeatedly
> ignore, or fail to recognize, the effect of some experiences on my
> happiness. I think I have developed this problem from incorporating the
> idea of "biting the bullet". This phrase might be described as "doing
> the activities one is taught 'should' be done, regardless of whether
> the activities contribute positively to one's happiness". Through much
> of my life so far I have participated in the activities that I learned
> "should" be done, such as getting a college degree. Which activities
> *should* be done was determined by people other than myself, such as
> parents and family. I think that when I was younger (from the ages of
> 10-20), I wanted to be a "good" son to my parents, and thus performed
> those activities that would make them proud of me. Because some of
> these activities were not very enjoyable to me, I learned to ignore my
> state of happiness with regard to a given activity, so I could complete
> the project successfully without my negative thoughts of the task
> interfering with my performance.

There is always a limit to which one can ignore the negatives of a task
and still effectively accomplish it and most minds will not allow such
inconsistencies with reality to continue without some negative effects
on health and longevity. This is because such "ignoring" means that one
is incorrectly evaluating the total effect on one's lifetime happiness.

> One example of this is when one works
> at a job one does not particularly enjoy, but does so because s/he has
> few alternatives. From working at a series of projects with this
> perspective, I had learned to think "I must finish the current activity,
> regardless of my feelings for it". I know now that this way of thinking
> and acting is irrational and harmful, and I am making progress in
> changing it.

Excellent!

>> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
>> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
>> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
>> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
>> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
>> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
>>
> Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
> will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
> preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
> action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
> with regard to one's lifetime happiness. Some examples of a neutral
> preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
> preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
> video games as a form of mental stimulation.

In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
in One Lesson"). In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
decrease. In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
happiness over the rest of your life).

> All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
> to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
> preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,

I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them. I
constantly wish that I could duplicate myself dozens of times over in
order to be able to have all my goals accomplished.

> which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
> example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
> not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
> facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
> hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
> outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.

This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
ought to be?

> Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
> preference is not critical to my life happiness.

It could be so critical if it prevented you from being able to interact
sufficiently with others that you could not gain the necessities of
life. And this is merely with regard to others simply refusing to deal
with you. It says nothing about the possibility of others actually
perpetrating physical harm because of some trait that you have or action
that you take that is of no physical harm to anyone else (as happens
all the time in less socially advanced countries).

> But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
> situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
> frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
> I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
> preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
> preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
> without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
> place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
> preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
> think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
> preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
> aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
> about this.

What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them. It is
only rational to highly value the opinions (subjective evaluations) of
those for whom you have an overall high value for the purpose of
interaction. Generally this is because the thoughts and evaluations of
those people will generally be more logical and more compatible to
your own subjective preferences than are the evaluations of the
others.
(Note: I have made this evaluation of others here only relate to their
benefit to you for the purposes of interaction, precisely because you
were specifically discussing the reactions to you of others with whom
you are relating. This is quite different than one's evaluation of the
statements of someone knowledgeable with whom one does not relate.)
So it is not correct to go from great caring about the opinions of
others to not caring at all. In the end, the degree of caring for
others and their opinions about your actions are both integral parts
of the evaluation of the contribution of that action toward your
lifetime happiness. However, it is also important to use all actions
and all reactions of others towards you as tools by which to
continually reevaluate your measure of their worth to you.

> Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
> or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
> my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
> preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
> re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
> is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
> therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
> I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
> confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
> my time thinking about other things.

It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
lifetime happiness. Again what I think that you are missing is that
most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal. But you are correct
that it is not time well spent (ie not conducive to your lifetime
happiness) to dwell on actions that can only possibly have a minor
effect on your lifetime happiness. My approach to such minor things
(most actions) is to make them into habits that I only occasionally
reconsider - generally when something brings it to my attention.

>> There is no need to always have something with which to replace a
>> "whatever" that you decide is not as valuable as you formerly thought
>> (or more correctly, "emoted") it was. Rather you can simply spend more
>> time on "whatevers" that you already know you value highly and enjoy.
>>
>>> Furthermore, I have been frustrated in my attempts to make a distinction
>>> between those preferences of mine that I derive enjoyment from that are
>>> not harmful or destructive, with those that are harmful or destructive.
>>> An easy way by which to make the distinction is to evaluate the
>>> long-term implications of holding each preference. If the long-term
>>> outcome of an attachment to a preference is negative, then one must do
>>> one's best to eliminate that preference.
>>>
>> If it is negative, yes. But often one "whatever" is merely less
>> beneficial than another "whatever", rather than being actually
>> destructive/harmful.
>>
>> [In regards to food that is highly pleasurable tasting but is of
>> little nutritious value, one need not entirely eliminate that food
>> from one's intake, never partaking of it again. There are many
>> desert-type foods of which I and Paul take a small amount on the
>> infrequent occasions that we eat out. Since they are so rarely eaten,
>> I can enjoy a bit then - the chocolate volcano cake (small amount) was
>> one this past Thursday when we ate out on Paul's 71st birthday.
>>
>> For many of those we saw at the restaurant, it is clear that their
>> eating practices are mostly harmful. **Kitty]
>
> Good point Kitty. I think it is wise to keep a longer-term perspective
> on the "treat foods" that one only occasionally eats. One can eat these
> "treat foods", which have high pleasure and low nutritious value, and
> still be very healthy. It is the *frequency* with which one eats these
> foods that determines whether eating them is unhealthy.

Agreed, of course :)

[It is probably more the combination of frequency *and* amount of the
intake of low nutritional value food that can be detrimental to one's
overall health. A *very* small amount of such food taken frequently
(eg. every other day) will likely be of less harm (if any at all) than
a generous serving (pig-out) once a month. The "trick" I need to keep
in mind for myself is not to let those "very small" amounts get larger
and more often. ;>) **Kitty]

>>> One example of this is my habit of,
>>> and preference for, lifting weights. I have regularly lifted weights
>>> for most of my life. Doing so makes me feel good, physiologically.
>>> For me, it has the effects of reducing stress, improving sleep,
>>> increasing motivation for other activities, and some others.
>>>
>> These last benefits are related to the physical exercise and
>> accomplishment aspects of lifting weights, and are all highly valuable
>> results that you need to continue gaining. What you need to ask
>> therefore, is "Is lifting weights the best overall way to gain such
>> results?" - "Might there not be some other activities that will cause
>> the same results and be beneficial in other ways also, or not have some
>> of the detrimental effects of lifting weights?" You might ask yourself:
>> "what am I doing with my mind while I am lifting weights?" - "Is that a
>> valuable mental activity?" Perhaps you find lifting weights to be very
>> mentally relaxing and good time for reflection and analysis of problems
>> that you have been working on - as I do when taking a relaxing shower -
>> at which I definitely take more time than I need in order get clean -
>> which results in the negative effects of extra usage of my time, costs
>> of water and electricity, but wrt which I long ago decided are
>> worthwhile expenditures - ie the long showers give me a net gain of
>> lifetime happiness. The result of this is that I do not think of the
>> negatives of the longer showers, but only enjoy the whole in degree to
>> the net sum of benefit.
>
> The above analysis is a good example of how one might analyze a given
> preference for an activity, and I find the example useful. Your
> comparison of the positive and negative aspects of long-duration showers
> is one that looks familiar to me, as I have analyzed some behaviors of
> my own in this same way. This leads me to think that it is not my
> ability to reason effectively, but my lack of confidence in my
> conclusions, that cause me to re-evaluate these behaviors too often. If
> this is true, then I have a confidence problem, which fits with other
> characteristics I have identified about myself.

This is not something to be highly concerned about at your age. One
generally gains more confidence about one's evaluations as one gets
older and finds them to work out to one's benefit - after learning
better just how to effectively introspect and really determine whether
or no one has actually benefited.

[And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
this aspect of reality all the time.

The various readings I've done in the past 8 years have been extremely
helpful in improving my introspection and communication - some of the
books/articles were a reread but many of them were new to me, most of
which I've shared in various posts. **Kitty]

> This is a little discouraging to me, as I know I have struggled with
> this issue for a long time. However, one must identify a personality
> issue properly before one can effectively and efficiently improve it.

Absolutely. And having done so and "owned" it (to use Nathaniel
Branden's great term), you are already past the most difficult part of
the process.

>>> In the past I have often
>>> lifted weights with "lifting buddies", and our experience together
>>> were enjoyable. Even now, when I lift weights alone, I often recall
>>> these fond experiences of lifting weights with others.
>>>
>> Have you analyzed just *why* those experiences were "enjoyable" and
>> whether there were valid reasons for them being enjoyable, in light of
>> your new thinking? If you now find that the reasons for enjoyment were
>> *not* valid, then you must logically quit thinking of them with
>> enjoyment. There can be events in your past that you remember enjoying
>> (the memory is still there and certainly should be, otherwise you are
>> evading), but when you think of them now, it is with the thought of
>> "what a stupid thing to do and to enjoy". I think likely everyone
>> (at least every self-honest person) has such memories.
>
> This is a great question to ask Paul. I have considered this question
> in regard to my positive weight lifting experiences with my lifting
> buddies, and I concluded that I enjoyed the camaraderie and the fact
> that others shared my goal of improving one's body composition and
> overall health. I have also considered that this last may be a positive
> aspect to me because I feel mostly alone in my dedicated effort to
> constantly improve myself and my life.

Well even though I and Kitty are rarely physically near you, you need
no longer consider that you are alone, since we are with you in our
thoughts and our encouragements whenever you need us. I can say that
unequivocally, precisely because I know that your sense of responsibility
will not allow you to abuse our time (ie. seek to gain more of our time
than value that you return for it).
Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
and having her physically with me most of the time.

[I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
the other. **Kitty]

> So I think I found my social
> weightlifting experiences encouraging that people other than myself
> have a desire to grow and improve. My weightlifting buddies and I also
> learned a lot from one another about weight lifting, health, and
> exercise physiology, as each of us were interested in improving
> different aspects of our bodies. So we had the opportunity to share our
> knowledge with one another - an activity I found enjoyable. However,
> my goals for "muscle-development" are now much lower than theirs, as I
> think I am at a satisfactory level in this regard. This means that I
> do not require the amount of weight, or the number of weightlifting
> sessions per week, to reach my goals, as they do. Therefore, I have
> spent a greatly decreased amount of time with my weightlifting buddies
> in the last six months, since our once-shared goals have mostly diverged.

I see the above as all entirely reasonable. My expression for this is
that you had a "tiny perfect" relationship with these individuals for a
beneficial period of time that has now ended. What you need now is to
find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
perfect relationships. For example we have such relationships with our
dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
better term or even simply friends) , I have had few buddies in my
lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
Kitty have ever remained in that status.

[I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
tiny-perfect relationship.

And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
foundational basis that we have developed. Such a basis is something
that is missing currently in most relationships between people, but
then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]

>> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
>> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
>> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
>> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
>> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
>> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
>> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
>> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
>> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
>> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
>> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
>> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
>> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
>
> I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
> waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
> couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
> is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
> firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
> how they are doing or to influence them.

You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time. This is my
approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
relations with me about 8 years ago.

[Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]

> Perhaps a better behavior would
> be to: when I have this desire to ask about them, I should instead
> decide to make an effort to meet someone new instead. This would enable
> me to get to know someone new and possibly interesting, rather than
> continuing to interact with the same people that have repeatedly
> disappointed me in the past. This seems like a healthy habit with regard
> to reducing the amount of time wasted on disappointing people, while
> increasing the frequency with which I meet new people - both positive
> changes for me.

Absolutely correct.

>> [However, I also have
>> hundreds of photos (almost all neatly in albums) and dozens of hours
>> on video tape that I can - if I want to spend the time - view for my
>> own pleasure or show to others. **Kitty]
>>
>>> However, our
>>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
>>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
>>>
>> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
>> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
>> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
>> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
>> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
>> useful in its accomplishment.
>
> I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
> days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
> systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.

By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?

> I do take many
> opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
> wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
> the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
> However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
> motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
> in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
> flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
> of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
> understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
> falls, so I want to correct this.

You are "putting the cart before the horse". If you do maintain your
good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
be maintained sufficiently to do so.

[All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
pursue it. **Kitty]

> However, I don't think my current
> bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.

What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?

> So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
> I don't normally use (which is many of them).

So what? Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks? Any healthy young
person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
that we do (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.

[My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
our Mental/Physical Activities page -
http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html This is done upon arising
before starting the day because I can easily remember to do them by
making it a part of my day. The purpose is as I've said on that page -
to keep my abdominal muscles particularly strong so as to protect my
lower back that was abused during my early nursing career days (and
with which I did continue to have problems up to the early 2000s when
I received treatments from an excellent chiropractor in Toronto, and
began these daily morning exercises).

My daily routine is much like Paul describes for himself. I take every
opportunity to move horizontally and vertically. I've changed entirely
my way of thinking from one in which a person tries to economize
movement to one in which every movement is viewed as natural exercise.
I sit only when the activity requires it - transporting myself in the
car (or as a passenger when Paul is driving), much of our eating time,
working on the computer, and reading before going to sleep are the big
4 I can think of. All the rest of the time I stand with as much
horizontal and vertical movement included as is appropriate for the
location. And at dancing events (special and regular) I get in lots of
both (it is rare that either of us ever sit at a dance event). Also
when the music being played at home is conducive to dancing, I take
the opportunity during my frequent breaks from the computer.

And I too take the basement steps upward 2 at a time ;>) - except when
I'm carrying something heavy. **Kitty]

> I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
> the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
> intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
> per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
> (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
> lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
> lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
> immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
> systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
> neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
> shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
> the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
> due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
> training has improved this also),

These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas. However, I
want to mention that I too had lower back problems in my late 20's but
with use of better posture, particularly when lifting boxes or other
heavy objects during normal activities this totally want away and I have
had no sign of such problems for over 30 years now. In addition, since
meeting Kitty, and being reminded by her to stand up straighter
(something that I did not think would accomplish much because of my
natural "bird neck" - comes out more towards the front of my body), I
have been amazed to find that that also can be largely corrected. Of
course it also helps that life with Kitty has so greatly enhanced my
self-esteem and confidence that I very naturally go around feeling
straight and tall rather than slumped and depressed.

> and my upper back (I had never
> developed this area very much while previously weight-training, and I
> think it is important to have well-developed back muscles to support the
> spine).

Again (as above) simply standing straight and supporting your spine will
automatically cause such muscles to be sufficiently developed. I think
that what you are missing here is that the human body is a wonderfully
self-organized and self-ordered system that will totally look after
itself if not abused and given the right nutrition.

> I am happy with my current weight-lifting protocol, as I don't think it
> stresses my body very much due to the lower-weight compared to what I
> previously used (I once bench-pressed 300 lbs - excessive, I know),
> doesn't take up very much time, and it exercises those muscles that,
> with time, tend to be neglected and result in injuries.
>
>> The trick is to find useful physical labor in this day of so many
>> labor saving devices and a general trend toward reducing physical
>> labor for productive purposes. However, that is why I and Kitty always
>> eschew taking the easy way to do many things as long as we can afford
>> the time. For example I use hand saws for most of what I saw as long
>> as there is no necessity to get a very straight cut.
>
> Yes this is a good trick. On the rare occasion that someone helps me
> with my house projects, I often get asked why I choose to use a hand-saw
> for 2x4's instead of using the electric circular saw. I'm surprised to
> see most people eschew such an opportunity to get a little extra
> exercise and accomplish something by doing it.

[I haven't yet gotten to crating that page of photos showing all the
wood cutting and splitting we did at the cottage this past October.
(I'm just now organizing the page showing the downing of 3 large dead
trees.) But the vast majority of it was done by us manually - great
exercise! **Kitty]

>> When I "make" the water every few days (25 gallons of water after
>> reverse osmosis treatment), I always have to carry out the pails of
>> effluent water (slightly higher concentration of impurities than from
>> the tap - totaling about 100 gallons - 10 -10 gallon pails) one in
>> each hand and water the fir trees with them. (This is in addition to
>> their regular drip irrigation.) As I do, I lift each up with one arm
>> to get my other hand underneath it in order to pour it. That gives me
>> a little natural weight carrying and lifting activity.
>
> I think this is a great practice. I try to do something similar when I
> buy groceries. I only shop every few weeks to "stock up", so when I do,
> I usually get a fair number of things. When carrying them into the house
> I try to get them all in one trip, which can get quite heavy. But I
> think having both hands full of grocery bags is good exercise for one's
> arms and shoulders. However, I don't do this when I purchase eggs
> *laughs*. I had an accident doing this with eggs once and I'd rather
> avoid it in the future.

Yup. Often on the way to the car from the store (we only use a cart on
those rare occasions when we have bought more than we can physically
manage to carry) , I will lift each bag in my hands up and down as I
walk along (ignoring the stares of any onlookers, of course - usually
all pushing carts).

[It's a rare occasion in grocery stores in Arizona that we use a
wheeled cart, but rather make use of a hand basket. In Ontario,
however, because we only shop every 2 weeks, a wheel cart is a
necessity in the 1 of the 2 large grocery stores in Bancroft. And then
we most often use our backpacks and walk between the 2 health food
stores, and smaller errand stops in Bancroft itself. It's been an
annoyance that one of the 2 large grocery stores (Price Chopper) is
built on the northern outskirts of the town and is not at all a reasonable walk
from the center of town containing No-Frills, bank,
the health food stores, my hairdresser, post office, etc.
Interestingly, many other people must think the same because the
traffic at Price Chopper is always much less than at No-Frills. **Kitty]

>> When coming back from the basement, I only go up the 14 steps one at a
>> time if I am carrying something heavy and/or awkward, otherwise I go 2
>> at a time. Unfortunately with most of the buildings being only one
>> floor, Arizona presents little opportunity for taking stairs instead
>> of elevators and escalators - although there are certainly lots of
>> rocky hills to climb.
>>
>> When in the supermarket I generally use a hand basket instead of a
>> cart, and it is also faster to get around through the aisles that way.
>> I and Kitty also always carry our groceries in cloth bags that we
>> bring into the market (to save on plastic bag waste - and sometimes to
>> get a reward for doing so), back to the car, which in turn is parked
>> at the far end of the parking lot (again, unless we are in a hurry).
>>
>> [We've gotten into the habit of looking at the need to make an extra
>> walking trip (down to the basement, or in a store looking for
>> something, or back out to the mailbox, etc) as "opportunities", rather
>> than a nuisance. **Kitty]
>
> This seems like a good perspective to have about a brief, physical
> errand. Currently I try to minimize my *time spent* on these types of
> errands, as I think I get enough cardiovascular exercise by riding my
> bike to class four times per week. But for someone who gets relatively
> little exercise this is a healthy way to look at such an opportunity.

[This is the concept of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise. One need
only stop and think about physical activity by the regular Jane/Joe
100 years ago. If coupled with nutritious eating, restful sleep and
reasonable practices of cleanliness, they were in decent physical
condition. The idea of stopping productive activity to purposefully do
"exercise" would have been bizarre. All the activities each of them
did each day provided a wide array of opportunities for all their
muscles used to perform the tasks that were part of their
responsibilities. Children grew up participating in these same
activities and developed those muscles that were needed. Boys
naturally have more upper body strength, but I'm sure that plenty of
girls and women in rural areas chopped wood and performed other
strength-requiring tasks at times when the "men" were unavailable.

It was the idea of being wealthy enough to hire someone else to do the
work and eventually to purchase "labor-saving" devices that has
contributed greatly to the demise of natural exercise. So now large
numbers of people pay money (often large amounts) to health clubs to
have a place where they can move weights (owned by the club)
vertically and horizontally and move their entire body in various ways - all for
the purpose of using muscles they do not use in their regular daily activities.
**Kitty]

>> [Even our manual garage door is an opportunity for me
>> to weight lift - Paul does most of the driving here in AZ and I get
>> the door honors ;>) The heavy double door had an automatic opener that
>> was not working when Paul started living here half a year at a time,
>> but neither of us has had any interest in seeing if it can be fixed
>> and even less in replacing it.
>> I think far too many people fail to make opportunities for physical
>> activity in their regular daily lives, and spend money to let a
>> fitness club, they hope, make them fit.... **Kitty]
>
> I emphatically agree with your very last comment Kitty. Nearly everyone
> I interact with at the university think it is strange that I ride my
> bike to school. They say it's strange because it's winter and can get
> quite cold. Some of these people pay for gym memberships and make
> frequent trips out of their way to get exercise. However, some of these
> same people could ride their bike to class without undue risk of harm
> and perhaps save money on a gym membership, and additionally save the
> time they would otherwise spend driving to and from the gym. I'm really
> happy with my decision to ride my bike to work/class (both at the
> university). I get approx. 2 hours of bike-riding per week, spend an
> average of approx. $60/year on gasoline, and save time by riding my bike
> (compared to driving). It was a great decision for me to do this.

With you driving so little and the cost of insurance being not
sufficiently related to the miles driven, would it not be actually
cheaper for you to rent a car for those rare times that you use one? But
I suppose this would not be true, particularly with the time and delay
necessary to rent a car, if you are making many, many very small trips.
I have known people who lived in a downtown area of a large city
(Toronto) and wisely did not own a car, but rented one when they wanted
to take trips outside the city. The only reason that I have never done
this is because I have always needed a car either for my work or for
frequent trips outside the city.

[And vehicle parking in a large North American eastern city can also
be a real hassle and big expense. **Kitty]

>>> This change of
>>> habits, behavior, or disposition toward a preference has been difficult
>>> for me. It is less difficult when the negative consequences of a
>>> preference are obvious to me (such as being fat). However, when
>>> evaluating some preferences, I find that it is difficult to clearly
>>> determine the net, long-term outcome, such as with lifting weights. I
>>> know I very much enjoy lifting weights.
>>>
>> But have you fully analyzed the rationality of all the reasons why you
>> "enjoy lifting weights", rather than merely the possible long term harm
>> of having unnecessary muscle (which I agree is not black and white)?
>
> I appreciate your bringing up this important question to me. I think I
> have given the subject a thorough enough evaluation to justify my
> current level of weight lifting frequency and intensity.
>
> There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
> me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
> a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
> what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.

Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
details.

> I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
> session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
> limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
> use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
> protein synthesis value in the fasted state.

Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
gluconeogenesis for energy production.

> And since there is no
> exogenous source of amino acids (subjects exercised while fasted and
> remained so for some time after the exercise), endogenous protein must
> have been recycled (i.e. proteolysis and recycling) to achieve a
> positive protein synthesis value.

The muscle cells are the body's major place for protein storage (just
as fat cells are for storage of triacylglycerols) and will largely be
tapped for amino acids required for protein building during fasting.
The value of exercising during fasting is that this also increases the
push to build muscle protein and thus puts pressure on the system to
get the necessary amino acids from elsewhere. Which unfortunately can
be from other non-exercised muscles, so I guess perhaps that is a good
reason to exercise all muscles groups when you do exercise particularly
when fasting.

[I like to use my entire body when dancing and this is why I find the
(occasional) interludes in trance and house music very conducive to my
style. I make use of those periods to stretch in all directions, and
this is one reason why I do not enjoy being crowded in when dancing.
And of course when the tempo is up, I really move - as anyone who has
seen me can verify ;>) **Kitty]

> I have not studied this hypothesis as much as I'd like, but I have seen
> some evidence that it may be true. I am currently working toward a
> better understanding of biochemistry, so I can better evaluate evidence
> related to hypotheses such as this one. If anyone would like to study it
> further and report it here I would appreciate it. I have spent some time
> trying to find the article and finally found one that sounds familiar (I
> have not read it in a while). Here is the link to the Pubmed abstract:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252485

The problem with amino acid balance measurements is that they cannot
determine which areas of the body the protein is coming from and going
to. This would need extremely complex measurements of all muscle
strengths and even then would be lacking in other axes of the body for
which the protein content cannot be measured.

> Additionally, I understand that exercise, especially weight-lifting and
> other anaerobic exercise, strongly enhances insulin sensitivity and
> glucose disposal.

Do you currently have low insulin sensitivity, high fasting blood
glucose with particularly high post-prandial spikes and a high HbA1C
measurement? If so, then lifting weights would benefit you. If not, then
at your age, you do not need to lift weights for this purpose. Remember
that none of the CR experiments show any increase in longevity with
weight lifting, and only those on very mild CR show any advantage to
exercise beyond that normal in any healthy active individual in addition
to the CR.

> I have read several articles that specifically
> advocated strength training as a treatment for type 2 diabetics to
> improve insulin sensitivity. This is another benefit I see for
> maintaining a strength-training protocol.

Are you a type 2 diabetic with low insulin sensitivity?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! (which is very different than
preventing it from getting broke, but the methods for the two are not
necessarily the same).

<Snipped some text not needing a response.>

>>> It brings me happiness. However, does
>>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
>>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
>>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
>>>
>> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
>> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
>> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
>> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
>> is harmful.
>
> Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
> books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
> continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
> harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
> consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
> is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
> one's self.

Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
is a point that I made above.

[This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
stiffle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]

<snipped more text not needing a response>
>
>> [It is quite reasonable to get pleasure from encouragement and praise,
>> but reasonably encouragement and praise should mean little from those
>> one has little respect for (just as negative criticism from someone
>> for whom you have no respect means little). **Kitty]
>
> I have found this to be true, and is generally the perspective that I have.

But this is something that I went over again above, since your remarks
there suggested that you really do not fully understand or have not
fully adopted that approach.

[Maybe that is why Max/Steve wrote "generally"...he appears to
recognize that he has not fully integrated the concept. **Kitty]

>> [In contrast, the praise
>> and encouragement will mean far more from someone highly valued (as
>> will also any negative expressions from such a person be more
>> hurtful). So if you want to retain this type of pleasure, I suggest
>> cultivating and/or increasing friendships with those you admire and
>> in beneficial activities that you both/all enjoy. **Kitty]
>
> That is good advice. My current organic chemistry professor did to me
> recently in class. First, I usually answer his in-class questions
> correctly. However, I skipped class twice in the last two weeks and he
> came to the lab I work in and asked me (playfully) if I was dropping his
> course. I told him no, and that I was studying independently. The next
> class session I answered some relatively difficult questions and he said
> to me in front of the class: "Okay, Steve, you are the only one who is
> allowed to skip my class". *laughs in enjoyment*. That felt good, even
> more so because I know I worked to earn the praise.

Good!

[Here's a demonstration of the *earning* of self-esteem to which I
referred above. **Kitty]

>> [Paul and I are praise/encouragement sources for each other. **Kitty]
>
> This praise from other individuals whom I admire and respect is
> something that does not come frequently for me, mostly because there
> aren't many people regularly involved in my life whom I respect. So
> that's great that you and Paul are a source of praise and encouragement
> for one another.

We also get little praise from others about things that are really most
important to us (mainly only related to dancing abilities relative to
our ages), except from one another.
However, you now have the addition of us from whom to get praise and
encouragement and vice versa (which is a major purpose for having good
friends).

>> [We do enjoy the praise we
>> get from others when we dance, an activity that we have evaluated as
>> being truly beneficial, partly because it has so many facets to it,
>> and we certainly enjoy the praise more from a good DJ and/or other
>> good dancers than from those who simply stand on the sidelines. **Kitty]
>
> Yes, I'd bet many DJs have seen quite a few dancers, so to receive
> praise might be more pleasurable, given the DJs assumed experience.
>
>> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
>> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
>> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
>> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
>
> Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
> encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
> how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
> encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.

[I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
discuss? It's obvious." So life since Dec 1999 has been an enormous
pleasant change. **Kitty]

>>> I have been trying to evaluate
>>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
>>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
>>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
>>>
>> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
>> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
>> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
>> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
>> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
>> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
>> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
>
> I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
> that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
> infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
> find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
> schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
> of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.

Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.

[Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
relationships.  **Kitty]

>>> One positive
>>> aspect that must be weighed against the negative aspects of a
>>> given habit is the enjoyment derived from that habit.
>>>
>> Absolutely true. But in the end your emotional response to the activity
>> must become an integrated whole habit, rather than fragmented into
>> negative and positive aspects depending on your thoughts. Perhaps you
>> are still at the stage of constantly fragmented thoughts about the
>> activity rather than having fully reprogrammed your emotions to become
>> the subconscious and automatic *net results* of these thoughts.
>
> This describes exactly how I feel about many of my habits: that I have
> not yet fully reprogrammed my emotions to be the automatic net result of
> my thoughts about a given habit. There are some habits I have concluded
> that I enjoy, and emotionally appreciate them when I engage in them. One
> example is my enjoyment of ground flax seed, which I have a few
> tablespoons per day of.

Just be careful that either it is fresh when you buy it and then
stored in the refrigerator or, best, you keep the seeds in the
refrigerator and you only grind it when needed.

> But, my special enjoyment of flax seed is the
> aroma. I remember when I first started losing weight when I was 210 lbs
> I decided that flax seed would be helpful in getting healthy fatty
> acids, and fiber to keep me feeling fuller. I remember smelling the
> ground flax, and the aroma was strange to me, as I had never eaten it
> before. I was a little wary of eating it at first, since it was foreign
> to me. But at the time I decided that I would lose the excess weight,
> even if I had to "resort" to eating things that were foreign to me. Now,
> the smell of flax seed reminds me of my previous determination to change
> my habits, and that I have maintained those healthier habits. Knowing
> this, and that flax is quite healthy, makes my eating flax enjoyable
> to me in several ways.

That's an excellent approach. We have the same for several things. There
can be many reasons to enjoy things and interestingly enough those other
reasons can even enhance the taste over time. This is the way that an
integrated, non-contradictory body and mind work together.

--Paul

>> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
>> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
>> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
>> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
>> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
>
> I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
> portions of treats.

[Me too ;>) **Kitty]

>> But if
>> one is mostly consistent in hir values (no one is 100% consistent),
>> and they have a foundation of principles valid for reality, then hir
>> emotions and ideas/values will quickly come back into accord. **Kitty]
>
> ---
> Max Peto / Steve Floyd

On 03/08/2009 02:40 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2009 09:28 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@ ..>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> In morelife@yahoogroup s.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>>>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> In the context of this "healthy environment" , the book
>>>>>> mainly focuses on the behavior of parents in that
>>>>>> environment, and how parental behavior can effect a child's
>>>>>> (and the resulting adult's) behavior. A very important aspect
>>>>>>  of this interaction between a parent's behavior and the
>>>>>> child's behavior as an adult is that when the child becomes
>>>>>> an adult s/he *is often unaware that s/he is behaving in a
>>>>>> manner that is harmful to hirself*.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What this means in practice is that the child has only
>>>>> nominally become an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning
>>>>> one' living, etc). Full adulthood is a "becoming" process,
>>>>> something that is never completely attained (as with a
>>>>> mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
>>>>> asymptotically) . Unfortunately few people continue with the
>>>>> "becoming" process, but rather remain as stunted children all
>>>>> their lives. Full human life must necessarily involve mental
>>>>> growth and development, which is why I often state that "Most
>>>>> people are dead by the time they are 30".
>>>>>
>>>> Is not "being an adult" the time after which a non-adult crosses
>>>> a social boundary by claiming full responsibility for hir
>>>> actions, therefore ceasing to be a child of other adult(s). This
>>>> is a social expression, a way of reaching out to others who also
>>>> claim self- responsibility, and, when two or more such
>>>> individuals intentionally interface, a social contract is formed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think this is a great description of what might define an "adult"
>>>  - the social boundary one crosses that marks the time after which
>>> one is expected to be fully responsible for hir actions.
>>>
>> The problem with the given description is that in the current society
>> a person is *never* expected to be fully responsible for hir
>> actions. When I was writing the NSC, I first used the term "adult",
>> to be a fully responsible human individual (essentially what I now
>> mean by "Freeman"), but I soon realized that this attempt to reclaim
>> the word "adult" would be fraught with too many problems (relating to
>> the fact about its meanings in current society). Furthermore, in the
>> current society there is no such thing or even understanding of a
>> social contract being formed between two interacting individuals
>> whether adult or not. David's description is attempting to apply the
>> ideas of the Freeman Society, about a child becoming fully
>> independent from hir parents and fully responsible for all hir
>> actions, to the current society. But that simply won't work, mainly
>> because it is neither enabled nor allowed to work by all the
>> institutional interferences of the current society, but also because
>> the thinking of those who are supposedly becoming adults is not
>> adequate for the purpose.
>>
>
> Understood, and agree that things are very problematic wrt
> responsibility and adulthood.  Even though it won't work to apply
> definitions (that refer to the free society) to the current society,
> I am glad we can address the meta-needs here on MoreLife and
> potentially practice exercising our needs both via the internet and
> sometimes in person.

I don't understand what you mean by "exercising our needs". Perhaps
you could explain.

> MoreLife has been a good communication
> platform, and I look forward to further investigating the wiki design
> as a technological improvement which I expect will offer each
> participant opportunity to more deeply participate.

The identification requirements for writing there will be the same as
on this group, but the flexibility of organization should be far better.

>>> I find it unfortunate that, while this "social boundary" is
>>> considered by many to be after the attainment of age 18 or 21, the
>>> person achieving such age is often not treated any differently.
>>>
>> This is because most such new "adults" have shown that they are not
>> capable of behaving any differently - so why should they be treated
>> differently? Granted that such an approach is another kind of
>> groupism and each person should be assessed individually for his own
>> particular capabilities. However, since most people have neither the
>> time nor the ability to make such assessments, it is reasonable that
>> from their experience they simply choose to treat a new "adult" as
>> little different than a slightly more capable and knowledgeable
>> larger child.
>>
>>> This was true in my experience. For example, when one reaches the
>>> age of "adulthood", the new "adult" should be treated as though
>>> they can make hir own decisions - decisions which must be respected
>>>  by others.
>>>
>> Your "should" and "must" are an example of wrong thinking. Instead it
>>  will be best for your lifetime happiness if you don't go around
>> telling people what they should and should not do (and even less so
>> must and must not do), but simply socially preference against those
>> who do not treat you as you want to be treated and socially
>> preference for those who do - and be sure to tell both groups why you
>> are doing this. The first step in such social preferencing is to
>> ignore as much as possible those in the first category and deal
>> almost exclusively with those in the second category. Not only does
>> this approach provide the feedback necessary for those others to
>> better understand you, but even more importantly it optimizes the use
>> of your time and mental energy by applying them to people with whom
>> you will be more likely to profit from interacting.
>>
>> In addition, no decisions of anyone "must be respected by" anyone
>> else. You are confusing "respect" - which means that the decision is
>> estimated to be beneficial to lifetime happiness of the person making
>> it - with "allow" - which simply means that the person will leave
>> the decision maker completely at liberty to act on hir decision.
>> Thus, while it is certainly true that everyone should be entitled (or
>> at liberty) to make their own decisions and take their own actions,
>> as long as such actions are not the effective cause of harm to
>> others, it is also certainly true that any other person is entitled
>> to think and say what s/he thinks about such an action (including
>> strong condemnation) and, finally, to socially preference according
>> to such thoughts.
>
> Thanks Paul for pointing out all of these problems with Steve's
> statements, each of which I am in agreement.

META
Grammatically, since the verb "agreement" requires a prepositional
phrase for completion of that to which it applies, the last clause of
your sentence above should have been: "with each of which I am in
agreement", or the dangling prepositional form that is becoming more
and more acceptable with time and usage: "each of which I am in
agreement with".
/META

> Steve, I suggest to
> you (as well remind myself) to be aware of attempting to do
> exactly what Paul warns about above,

META
In the above "aware" should likely be "wary" (because of the following
"warns"). Certainly one must be "aware" before one can be "wary", but
the two words have very different meanings even though they are clearly
etymologically related.
/META

> swapping a definition or
> concept from a free society into our descriptions of past or
> present problems, because this has lead to many mistakes
> (for me) about how to begin solving the problems.  For example,
> I historically attempt to reconcile my family members with my albeit
> "green" SMN and NSC perspective, but that has not helped me
> solve problems.  Instead, I recognize now and then (when I
> exercise such awareness) that I am metaphorically attempting to
> force a square peg to fit nicely into a round hole.
>
> I am not intending to address value received from sharing our
> unfortunate experiences with our families in the context of the
> current society, which can be valuable for numerous reasons.
>
> <snipped most of the remainder, except the following paragraph
> which restates Paul's message above:>
>
>> However, as I have explained many times, the definitions, statements,
>> actions and behavioral standards of the NSC are not applicable to
>> current society, where, in fact, there is no reasonably defined
>> separation between childhood and adulthood, much less any actually
>> clear difference in the behaviors of individuals in each category.
>> Rather the NSC is applicable to what people could and ought to become
>> (where "ought" means only that doing so will be most likely to
>> enable each of them to maximally increase hir lifetime happiness).
>
> <snipping continues: if someone in the group is having children soon, this
> would be a great post to revisit in search of valuable child-rearing
> thoughts for deep consideration>
>
>> [I strongly recommend the writings of John Holt, who really created
>> an uproar in the mid-60s with his book, _Why Children Fail_, and then
>> a few years later, _How Children Learn_. While in these 2 books he
>> is focusing on the compulsory/forced educational system as the
>> antithesis of a true learning situation for children, the concepts
>> apply to the total environments of children. (John Holt was the the
>> major spearhead in the homeschooling movement, increasingly favored
>> by many parents as just recently reported by the US Dept of Education
>> - http://tinyurl.com/7wa96g Another excellent book by Holt is
>> _Instead of Education; Ways to Help People Do Things Better_, which
>> emphasizes the enormous number of ways learning and growing can (and
>> very often do) take place outside the education system - the
>> government decreed method for becoming educated and thereby
>> authorized to perform in certain manners. **Kitty]
>>
>
> I'm reading a little here and there from Holt's _Instead of Education_,
> which I find valuable because of the constant reminders that I treat my
> formal university education differently than I am expected to, for example,
> that I begin my own projects related to Organic Chemistry, Statistics, and
> my Reasoning courses and not rely on the professor or my classmates to
> communicate or teach satisfactory methods for thoroughly digesting the
> raw information, selectively integrating the good information, and testing
> the efficacy of the new in a context of the proven.

[This relates to the Henry Hazlitt book "Thinking as A Science" that I
mentioned again in the post reply to Steve just recently. The concept
of independent thinking - and what you have related is an example - is
terribly ignored in formal schools, even apparently at the university
level. It would not be surprising that truly independent thinkers at
the graduate and doctoral level are a rare breed - how could they be
otherwise given the lack of opportunity and/or encouragement earlier
in their learning years. While some innovative thinking is (still)
encouraged at graduate school in the hard sciences, this is not the
case, from my observation and readings, in the social sciences. In the
latter, especially philosophy, an intense review, comparison or a
slight reworking of the "giants" of the past is all that is often
acceptable - including in journals. **Kitty]

> Thanks Kitty for the recommendation!

[You are most welcome. ;>) **Kitty

> <snipped the terrifying thought of being, and being surrounded by, children>
>
>> Welcome to the real and actual world of the current society in which
>> all of us are embedded! Not only have I been fully aware of this for
>> over 40 years, but having thought about such problems, the detailed
>> way that social interactions should and could work, and how much
>> better would be so many wasteful activities in this society if such
>> solutions were implemented (for example all the time and resources
>> spent on security, spam protection, privacy, etc would be saved for
>> actual happiness producing purposes), is it any wonder that I
>> sometimes feel enormous depression, particularly having no one else
>> but Kitty who really understands my viewpoints and solutions?
>
> I angered Paul the last time I visited when I reminded him of a commonly
> espoused concept, that is: even though the United States of citizens,
> e.g., have wasted unbelievable amount of resources (including
> misdirection of thought, which has led many people down these
> government-subsidized paths) at least we have good technologies that
> have resulted as an aside of military spending, such as GPS and so on.
> I think I showed Paul that I do not have a good grasp of how much
> waste occurs, and to have this sort of sympathizer-type statement occur
> in his house as though it was not that big of a deal, dug deeply and hurt
> (him).  I was sad to be a part of the experience, and quickly
> remembered that the Antonik-Wakfer residence commands (because
> of earned respect IMO) a higher standard of communicating.  Paul, I
> am sorry for my part of contributing sadness that day.  Kitty, I am
> sorry to you as well for contributing any grief.
>
> Both Paul and Kitty are skilled with patience.  Both Paul and Kitty are
> blessed (by there own practice and awareness) with emotions of full
> intensity.  I appreciate these attributes :)

Thank you, Jack, for having and describing sensitive understanding of the
occurrence that you relate above. Yes, it was the sort of remark that
I read/hear from so many others both in online forums and in political
conversations at social gatherings, but was definitely emotionally
distressed by having it come from you, right in my own home (a place
where people who make such statements would not normally be invited).
I will tell you very frankly that directly after that episode, I moved
your folder of email correspondence from the group "friends and current
interaction acquaintances" to "former friends". It had already been
moved back before this post, but for a while you were temporarily
written off as hopeless. (I want to once again make it clear that none
of my "writeoffs" of others are permanent in any manner, since I am
always open to evidence of change. Despite what some think, human
individuals are not "leopards who cannot change their spots".)

Getting back to the political/social part of what you wrote above, here
is a more complete refutation of this nonsense about the benefits of
"military spending, such as GPS" or of any government spending at all,
for that matter. The crux of the matter is that when governments fund
things it is not the result of the individual evaluative choices of
the owners of the resources used for the funding. Any such choice by
government of what to fund cannot therefore be as effective at
increasing the lifetime happiness of each owner of that funding as would
be the choices of each of those individuals for how hir money should be
spent. With respect to useful things such as GPS, it is impossible to
know whether or not it (or perhaps something equivalent in effect but
very different in implementation) would yet exist without government
funding having created it. My guess is that in the current situation of
government waste and interference preventing technological progress from
advancing at anything more than a snail's pace, if government had not
done the GPS, then nothing similar would yet exist. But that if most
people in the US, say, had been interacting as a Freeman Society for the
last 50 years, GPS (or something much different and better that
accomplished at least that same goal) would have been done just about as
soon as it happened and by now technology would be so far advanced
beyond that as to make the current level of GPS usage seem like the
first days of the horseless carriage.
In order to better imagine the total effect of government on technological
progress, just think, not only that over half of every man-year (in
terms of all taxes at all levels, deductions, etc) is spent to fund
government projects, virtually none of which would be voluntarily chosen
by the funders (taxpayers), but also that all the rules and regulations
take additional amounts of time to cope with and prevent enormous
numbers of choices (alternative ways of accomplishing things) from even
being considered, let alone tried out. Furthermore, because governments
have so grossly distorted the paths of development of science and its
applications, it is possible (even likely, IMO) that the discovery of
many extremely important things will be delayed for decades even if
and when a truly free society does emerge from the current mess.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> > As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
> > am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
> > days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
> > read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
> > of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
> > initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
> > to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
> > proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
> > one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
> > some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
> > who has never read it.
> >
> > This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
> > own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true.
> > However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
> > writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message).
> >
>
> Meta
> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.

I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
the nature of composition of a message. Since this comment is directly
related to your Meta comment above, I have placed it here, within your
Meta tag. I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
time I have such a comment.

> /Meta
>
> And I have been delayed with this reply because of wiki website work.
>
> >
> >> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
> >>
> >> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
> >>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
> >>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
> >>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
> >>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
> >>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
> >>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
> >>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
> >>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
> >>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
> >>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
> >>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
> >>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
> >>> makes things enjoyable in the present.
> >>>
> >> This is entirely reasonable. It is a normal aspect of learning through
> >> experience present in all animals. However, humans have mental faculties
> >> that enable them to analyze any experience in terms of both its short
> >> and long range aspects, including analyzing just why it is "felt" to
> >> be a positive experience. After such analysis, if one sees that the
> >> experience (and the emotion about it) is *not* beneficial because the
> >> events of the experience are actually *not* going to optimally increase
> >> one's lifetime happiness, then the emotional reaction to that kind of
> >> experience needs to be modified accordingly (the emotion is not
> >> consistent with one's rationally held analysis of one's life and
> >> therefore is actually harmful to continue having - because it distorts
> >> rational decision making).
> >>
> >>
> >>> At the same time, I understand
> >>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
> >>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
> >>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
> >>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
> >>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
> >>> what do I replace it ?"
> >>>
> >> There are several things here.
> >> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
> >> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
> >> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
> >> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
> >>
> > I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
> > emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
> > reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
> > preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
> > negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
> > preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
> > rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
> > behavior/action/situation.
>
> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
> preference (a conscious choice and action).

I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
*conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

> >> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
> >> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
> >> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
> >> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
> >
> > The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
> > lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
> > example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
> > predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
> > or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
> > changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
> > Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
> > activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
> > an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
> > better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
> > activities.
>
> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
> possible meanings.
>
> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety. **Kitty]

Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
experienced this.

> > What I describe next may sound strange to some readers. However, I
> > think that many young people may be experiencing this same situation,
> > so I wanted to discuss it here so that others may relate to it. I know
> > of at least one person around my age who has told me she has developed
> > very similar habits with regard to how she considers her state of
> > happiness. One problem I think I am struggling with is that I repeatedly
> > ignore, or fail to recognize, the effect of some experiences on my
> > happiness. I think I have developed this problem from incorporating the
> > idea of "biting the bullet". This phrase might be described as "doing
> > the activities one is taught 'should' be done, regardless of whether
> > the activities contribute positively to one's happiness". Through much
> > of my life so far I have participated in the activities that I learned
> > "should" be done, such as getting a college degree. Which activities
> > *should* be done was determined by people other than myself, such as
> > parents and family. I think that when I was younger (from the ages of
> > 10-20), I wanted to be a "good" son to my parents, and thus performed
> > those activities that would make them proud of me. Because some of
> > these activities were not very enjoyable to me, I learned to ignore my
> > state of happiness with regard to a given activity, so I could complete
> > the project successfully without my negative thoughts of the task
> > interfering with my performance.
>
> There is always a limit to which one can ignore the negatives of a task
> and still effectively accomplish it and most minds will not allow such
> inconsistencies with reality to continue without some negative effects
> on health and longevity. This is because such "ignoring" means that one
> is incorrectly evaluating the total effect on one's lifetime happiness.
>
> > One example of this is when one works
> > at a job one does not particularly enjoy, but does so because s/he has
> > few alternatives. From working at a series of projects with this
> > perspective, I had learned to think "I must finish the current activity,
> > regardless of my feelings for it". I know now that this way of thinking
> > and acting is irrational and harmful, and I am making progress in
> > changing it.
>
> Excellent!
>
> >> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
> >> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
> >> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
> >> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
> >> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
> >> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
> >>
> > Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
> > will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
> > preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
> > action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
> > with regard to one's lifetime happiness. Some examples of a neutral
> > preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
> > preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
> > video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>
> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
> in One Lesson").

I remember reading Hazlitt's account of this.

> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
> decrease.

If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct? In other words,
there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
preference?

> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
> happiness over the rest of your life).

I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

> > All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
> > to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
> > preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>
> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.

Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
*doing* anything.

> I
> constantly wish that I could duplicate myself dozens of times over in
> order to be able to have all my goals accomplished.

It is often that I also feel like this. In fact, I was just doing some
thinking about this last night, trying to put my time limitations into
perspective, so I can better adjust to the fact that I have such
limitations.

> > which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
> > example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
> > not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
> > facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
> > hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
> > outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>
> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
> ought to be?

This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains. I see two
opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
find employment while having facial hair. Since employment has been
the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that I
have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
appearance. OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills that
I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
*them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

> > Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
> > preference is not critical to my life happiness.
>
> It could be so critical if it prevented you from being able to interact
> sufficiently with others that you could not gain the necessities of
> life.

I have been concerned with this, regarding facial hair, as I discuss
above.

> And this is merely with regard to others simply refusing to deal
> with you. It says nothing about the possibility of others actually
> perpetrating physical harm because of some trait that you have or action
> that you take that is of no physical harm to anyone else (as happens
> all the time in less socially advanced countries).

Yes, this is a frightening thought, but I understand it to be true.

> > But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
> > situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
> > frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
> > I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
> > preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
> > preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
> > without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
> > place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
> > preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
> > think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
> > preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
> > aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
> > about this.
>
> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.

Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

> It is
> only rational to highly value the opinions (subjective evaluations) of
> those for whom you have an overall high value for the purpose of
> interaction. Generally this is because the thoughts and evaluations of
> those people will generally be more logical and more compatible to
> your own subjective preferences than are the evaluations of the
> others.
> (Note: I have made this evaluation of others here only relate to their
> benefit to you for the purposes of interaction, precisely because you
> were specifically discussing the reactions to you of others with whom
> you are relating. This is quite different than one's evaluation of the
> statements of someone knowledgeable with whom one does not relate.)

I acknowledge the distinction.

> So it is not correct to go from great caring about the opinions of
> others to not caring at all.

Right, one should evaluate the *degree* to which one should care about
the opinion of another. This sounds correct.

> In the end, the degree of caring for
> others and their opinions about your actions are both integral parts
> of the evaluation of the contribution of that action toward your
> lifetime happiness. However, it is also important to use all actions
> and all reactions of others towards you as tools by which to
> continually reevaluate your measure of their worth to you.
>
> > Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
> > or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
> > my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
> > preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
> > re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
> > is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
> > therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
> > I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
> > confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
> > my time thinking about other things.
>
> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
> lifetime happiness.

Correct. This is what I meant.

> Again what I think that you are missing is that
> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.

I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

> But you are correct
> that it is not time well spent (ie not conducive to your lifetime
> happiness) to dwell on actions that can only possibly have a minor
> effect on your lifetime happiness. My approach to such minor things
> (most actions) is to make them into habits that I only occasionally
> reconsider - generally when something brings it to my attention.

This seems like an effective way to reduce the amount of time required
by such small decisions.

> >> There is no need to always have something with which to replace a
> >> "whatever" that you decide is not as valuable as you formerly thought
> >> (or more correctly, "emoted") it was. Rather you can simply spend more
> >> time on "whatevers" that you already know you value highly and enjoy.
> >>
> >>> Furthermore, I have been frustrated in my attempts to make a distinction
> >>> between those preferences of mine that I derive enjoyment from that are
> >>> not harmful or destructive, with those that are harmful or destructive.
> >>> An easy way by which to make the distinction is to evaluate the
> >>> long-term implications of holding each preference. If the long-term
> >>> outcome of an attachment to a preference is negative, then one must do
> >>> one's best to eliminate that preference.
> >>>
> >> If it is negative, yes. But often one "whatever" is merely less
> >> beneficial than another "whatever", rather than being actually
> >> destructive/harmful.
> >>
> >> [In regards to food that is highly pleasurable tasting but is of
> >> little nutritious value, one need not entirely eliminate that food
> >> from one's intake, never partaking of it again. There are many
> >> desert-type foods of which I and Paul take a small amount on the
> >> infrequent occasions that we eat out. Since they are so rarely eaten,
> >> I can enjoy a bit then - the chocolate volcano cake (small amount) was
> >> one this past Thursday when we ate out on Paul's 71st birthday.
> >>
> >> For many of those we saw at the restaurant, it is clear that their
> >> eating practices are mostly harmful. **Kitty]
> >
> > Good point Kitty. I think it is wise to keep a longer-term perspective
> > on the "treat foods" that one only occasionally eats. One can eat these
> > "treat foods", which have high pleasure and low nutritious value, and
> > still be very healthy. It is the *frequency* with which one eats these
> > foods that determines whether eating them is unhealthy.
>
> Agreed, of course :)
>
> [It is probably more the combination of frequency *and* amount of the
> intake of low nutritional value food that can be detrimental to one's
> overall health. A *very* small amount of such food taken frequently
> (eg. every other day) will likely be of less harm (if any at all) than
> a generous serving (pig-out) once a month. The "trick" I need to keep
> in mind for myself is not to let those "very small" amounts get larger
> and more often. ;>) **Kitty]
>
> >>> One example of this is my habit of,
> >>> and preference for, lifting weights. I have regularly lifted weights
> >>> for most of my life. Doing so makes me feel good, physiologically.
> >>> For me, it has the effects of reducing stress, improving sleep,
> >>> increasing motivation for other activities, and some others.
> >>>
> >> These last benefits are related to the physical exercise and
> >> accomplishment aspects of lifting weights, and are all highly valuable
> >> results that you need to continue gaining. What you need to ask
> >> therefore, is "Is lifting weights the best overall way to gain such
> >> results?" - "Might there not be some other activities that will cause
> >> the same results and be beneficial in other ways also, or not have some
> >> of the detrimental effects of lifting weights?" You might ask yourself:
> >> "what am I doing with my mind while I am lifting weights?" - "Is that a
> >> valuable mental activity?" Perhaps you find lifting weights to be very
> >> mentally relaxing and good time for reflection and analysis of problems
> >> that you have been working on - as I do when taking a relaxing shower -
> >> at which I definitely take more time than I need in order get clean -
> >> which results in the negative effects of extra usage of my time, costs
> >> of water and electricity, but wrt which I long ago decided are
> >> worthwhile expenditures - ie the long showers give me a net gain of
> >> lifetime happiness. The result of this is that I do not think of the
> >> negatives of the longer showers, but only enjoy the whole in degree to
> >> the net sum of benefit.
> >
> > The above analysis is a good example of how one might analyze a given
> > preference for an activity, and I find the example useful. Your
> > comparison of the positive and negative aspects of long-duration showers
> > is one that looks familiar to me, as I have analyzed some behaviors of
> > my own in this same way. This leads me to think that it is not my
> > ability to reason effectively, but my lack of confidence in my
> > conclusions, that cause me to re-evaluate these behaviors too often. If
> > this is true, then I have a confidence problem, which fits with other
> > characteristics I have identified about myself.
>
> This is not something to be highly concerned about at your age. One
> generally gains more confidence about one's evaluations as one gets
> older and finds them to work out to one's benefit - after learning
> better just how to effectively introspect and really determine whether
> or not one has actually benefited.

This is very encouraging to read. I have been especially concerned
about my lack of confidence in some of my conclusions. However, when I
evaluated this lack of confidence, I concluded that I really have no
reason to be confident, since there are still (for me) so many aspects
to consider. Your explanation makes sense, in that, as I accumulate
more experience in evaluating whether I have benefited, my confidence
in estimating my future benefit from some action will grow.

> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
> this aspect of reality all the time.

I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
"studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
depressing.

> The various readings I've done in the past 8 years have been extremely
> helpful in improving my introspection and communication - some of the
> books/articles were a reread but many of them were new to me, most of
> which I've shared in various posts. **Kitty]
>
> > This is a little discouraging to me, as I know I have struggled with
> > this issue for a long time. However, one must identify a personality
> > issue properly before one can effectively and efficiently improve it.
>
> Absolutely. And having done so and "owned" it (to use Nathaniel
> Branden's great term), you are already past the most difficult part of
> the process.
>
> >>> In the past I have often
> >>> lifted weights with "lifting buddies", and our experience together
> >>> were enjoyable. Even now, when I lift weights alone, I often recall
> >>> these fond experiences of lifting weights with others.
> >>>
> >> Have you analyzed just *why* those experiences were "enjoyable" and
> >> whether there were valid reasons for them being enjoyable, in light of
> >> your new thinking? If you now find that the reasons for enjoyment were
> >> *not* valid, then you must logically quit thinking of them with
> >> enjoyment. There can be events in your past that you remember enjoying
> >> (the memory is still there and certainly should be, otherwise you are
> >> evading), but when you think of them now, it is with the thought of
> >> "what a stupid thing to do and to enjoy". I think likely everyone
> >> (at least every self-honest person) has such memories.
> >
> > This is a great question to ask Paul. I have considered this question
> > in regard to my positive weight lifting experiences with my lifting
> > buddies, and I concluded that I enjoyed the camaraderie and the fact
> > that others shared my goal of improving one's body composition and
> > overall health. I have also considered that this last may be a positive
> > aspect to me because I feel mostly alone in my dedicated effort to
> > constantly improve myself and my life.
>
> Well even though I and Kitty are rarely physically near you, you need
> no longer consider that you are alone, since we are with you in our
> thoughts and our encouragements whenever you need us.

Reading the above line compelled me to smile quite happily. I
appreciate your encouragement. :)

> I can say that
> unequivocally, precisely because I know that your sense of responsibility
> will not allow you to abuse our time (ie. seek to gain more of our time
> than value that you return for it).

Right. I frequently consider value-for-value with regard to your (or
anyone's) time.

> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
> and having her physically with me most of the time.

I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
lack of hir physical presence.

> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.

I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

> My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
> the other. **Kitty]

The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

> > So I think I found my social
> > weightlifting experiences encouraging that people other than myself
> > have a desire to grow and improve. My weightlifting buddies and I also
> > learned a lot from one another about weight lifting, health, and
> > exercise physiology, as each of us were interested in improving
> > different aspects of our bodies. So we had the opportunity to share our
> > knowledge with one another - an activity I found enjoyable. However,
> > my goals for "muscle-development" are now much lower than theirs, as I
> > think I am at a satisfactory level in this regard. This means that I
> > do not require the amount of weight, or the number of weightlifting
> > sessions per week, to reach my goals, as they do. Therefore, I have
> > spent a greatly decreased amount of time with my weightlifting buddies
> > in the last six months, since our once-shared goals have mostly diverged.
>
> I see the above as all entirely reasonable. My expression for this is
> that you had a "tiny perfect" relationship with these individuals for a
> beneficial period of time that has now ended.

Yes, I agree.

> What you need now is to
> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
> perfect relationships.

After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
(like the color one girl painted her toenails), while others were more
interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
one would enjoy to make a living).

> For example we have such relationships with our
> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
> better term or even simply friends) ,

I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
with this idea.

> I have had few buddies in my
> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
> Kitty have ever remained in that status.

I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
definitions (yours and mine):

1 a: companion , partner b: friend
2: fellow —used especially in informal address

> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
> tiny-perfect relationship.
>
> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
> foundational basis that we have developed.

Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
(by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
uses the word below).

> Such a basis is something
> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,

Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.

> but
> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]

Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
describe.

I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
relationships.

> >> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
> >> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
> >> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
> >> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
> >> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
> >> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
> >> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
> >> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
> >> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
> >> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
> >> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
> >> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
> >> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
> >
> > I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
> > waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
> > couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
> > is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
> > firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
> > how they are doing or to influence them.
>
> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.

This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
want to "check-up on". On the contrary, I know of some people who have
convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
people I make no effort to contact.

> This is my
> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>
> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]

I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.
Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
speak with them again. But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
discussion on this above).

> > Perhaps a better behavior would
> > be to: when I have this desire to ask about them, I should instead
> > decide to make an effort to meet someone new instead. This would enable
> > me to get to know someone new and possibly interesting, rather than
> > continuing to interact with the same people that have repeatedly
> > disappointed me in the past. This seems like a healthy habit with regard
> > to reducing the amount of time wasted on disappointing people, while
> > increasing the frequency with which I meet new people - both positive
> > changes for me.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> >> [However, I also have
> >> hundreds of photos (almost all neatly in albums) and dozens of hours
> >> on video tape that I can - if I want to spend the time - view for my
> >> own pleasure or show to others. **Kitty]
> >>
> >>> However, our
> >>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
> >>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
> >> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
> >> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
> >> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
> >> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
> >> useful in its accomplishment.
> >
> > I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
> > days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
> > systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>
> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?

I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently). Having
a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
than what is required. Should I be at a level of strength that is
lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities, I think
I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
harm.

OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

> > I do take many
> > opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
> > wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
> > the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
> > However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
> > motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
> > in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
> > flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
> > of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
> > understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
> > falls, so I want to correct this.
>
> You are "putting the cart before the horse".

Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
lower the risk of accidental injury.

> If you do maintain your
> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
> be maintained sufficiently to do so.
>
> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
> pursue it. **Kitty]
>
> > However, I don't think my current
> > bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>
> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?

I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
stronger than I need to be. Taking the time and effort to maintain
this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
time.

> > So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
> > I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>
> So what?

From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
non-use. Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
rarely use. Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?

I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
for anything.

> Any healthy young
> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
> that we do

I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.

It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
developing muscle mass. So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),
at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
*less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
less muscle mass at the same age.

> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html

I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

> This is done upon arising
> before starting the day because I can easily remember to do them by
> making it a part of my day. The purpose is as I've said on that page -
> to keep my abdominal muscles particularly strong so as to protect my
> lower back that was abused during my early nursing career days (and
> with which I did continue to have problems up to the early 2000s when
> I received treatments from an excellent chiropractor in Toronto, and
> began these daily morning exercises).
>
> My daily routine is much like Paul describes for himself. I take every
> opportunity to move horizontally and vertically. I've changed entirely
> my way of thinking from one in which a person tries to economize
> movement to one in which every movement is viewed as natural exercise.
> I sit only when the activity requires it - transporting myself in the
> car (or as a passenger when Paul is driving), much of our eating time,
> working on the computer, and reading before going to sleep are the big
> 4 I can think of. All the rest of the time I stand with as much
> horizontal and vertical movement included as is appropriate for the
> location. And at dancing events (special and regular) I get in lots of
> both (it is rare that either of us ever sit at a dance event). Also
> when the music being played at home is conducive to dancing, I take
> the opportunity during my frequent breaks from the computer.

I think I would benefit from taking frequent breaks from the computer
(where I spend most of my time reading and writing). I'll keep this in
mind.

> And I too take the basement steps upward 2 at a time ;>) - except when
> I'm carrying something heavy. **Kitty]
>
> > I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
> > the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
> > intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
> > per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
> > (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
> > lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
> > lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
> > immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
> > systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
> > neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
> > shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
> > the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
> > due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
> > training has improved this also),
>
> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.

I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

> However, I
> want to mention that I too had lower back problems in my late 20's but
> with use of better posture, particularly when lifting boxes or other
> heavy objects during normal activities this totally want away and I have
> had no sign of such problems for over 30 years now. In addition, since
> meeting Kitty, and being reminded by her to stand up straighter
> (something that I did not think would accomplish much because of my
> natural "bird neck" - comes out more towards the front of my body), I
> have been amazed to find that that also can be largely corrected. Of
> course it also helps that life with Kitty has so greatly enhanced my
> self-esteem and confidence that I very naturally go around feeling
> straight and tall rather than slumped and depressed.

Again, it's wonderful to read how another person can have such a
positive effect on one's life (and posture *smiles*).

> > and my upper back (I had never
> > developed this area very much while previously weight-training, and I
> > think it is important to have well-developed back muscles to support the
> > spine).
>
> Again (as above) simply standing straight and supporting your spine will
> automatically cause such muscles to be sufficiently developed. I think
> that what you are missing here is that the human body is a wonderfully
> self-organized and self-ordered system that will totally look after
> itself if not abused and given the right nutrition.

Again, perhaps you are correct and I am overestimating the amount of
time and effort I need to put towards muscle development.

> > I am happy with my current weight-lifting protocol, as I don't think it
> > stresses my body very much due to the lower-weight compared to what I
> > previously used (I once bench-pressed 300 lbs - excessive, I know),
> > doesn't take up very much time, and it exercises those muscles that,
> > with time, tend to be neglected and result in injuries.
> >
> >> The trick is to find useful physical labor in this day of so many
> >> labor saving devices and a general trend toward reducing physical
> >> labor for productive purposes. However, that is why I and Kitty always
> >> eschew taking the easy way to do many things as long as we can afford
> >> the time. For example I use hand saws for most of what I saw as long
> >> as there is no necessity to get a very straight cut.
> >
> > Yes this is a good trick. On the rare occasion that someone helps me
> > with my house projects, I often get asked why I choose to use a hand-saw
> > for 2x4's instead of using the electric circular saw. I'm surprised to
> > see most people eschew such an opportunity to get a little extra
> > exercise and accomplish something by doing it.
>
> [I haven't yet gotten to creating that page of photos showing all the
> wood cutting and splitting we did at the cottage this past October.
> (I'm just now organizing the page showing the downing of 3 large dead
> trees.) But the vast majority of it was done by us manually - great
> exercise! **Kitty]

Yes! And I assume you'll be using the wood you gathered, which is great.

> >> When I "make" the water every few days (25 gallons of water after
> >> reverse osmosis treatment), I always have to carry out the pails of
> >> effluent water (slightly higher concentration of impurities than from
> >> the tap - totaling about 100 gallons - 10 -10 gallon pails) one in
> >> each hand and water the fir trees with them. (This is in addition to
> >> their regular drip irrigation.) As I do, I lift each up with one arm
> >> to get my other hand underneath it in order to pour it. That gives me
> >> a little natural weight carrying and lifting activity.
> >
> > I think this is a great practice. I try to do something similar when I
> > buy groceries. I only shop every few weeks to "stock up", so when I do,
> > I usually get a fair number of things. When carrying them into the house
> > I try to get them all in one trip, which can get quite heavy. But I
> > think having both hands full of grocery bags is good exercise for one's
> > arms and shoulders. However, I don't do this when I purchase eggs
> > *laughs*. I had an accident doing this with eggs once and I'd rather
> > avoid it in the future.
>
> Yup. Often on the way to the car from the store (we only use a cart on
> those rare occasions when we have bought more than we can physically
> manage to carry) , I will lift each bag in my hands up and down as I
> walk along (ignoring the stares of any onlookers, of course - usually
> all pushing carts).

This sounds like a healthy practice.

> [It's a rare occasion in grocery stores in Arizona that we use a
> wheeled cart, but rather make use of a hand basket. In Ontario,
> however, because we only shop every 2 weeks, a wheel cart is a
> necessity in the 1 of the 2 large grocery stores in Bancroft. And then
> we most often use our backpacks and walk between the 2 health food
> stores, and smaller errand stops in Bancroft itself.

I have considered using a backpack for produce, especially once the
weather is nicer out and it is comfortable to ride to a nearby produce
market. I have considered getting most of my food from this market,
but it is a little far to ride when it is freezing out.

> It's been an
> annoyance that one of the 2 large grocery stores (Price Chopper) is
> built on the northern outskirts of the town and is not at all a
> reasonable walk from the center of town containing No-Frills, bank,
> the health food stores, my hairdresser, post office, etc.
> Interestingly, many other people must think the same because the
> traffic at Price Chopper is always much less than at No-Frills. **Kitty]
>
> >> When coming back from the basement, I only go up the 14 steps one at a
> >> time if I am carrying something heavy and/or awkward, otherwise I go 2
> >> at a time. Unfortunately with most of the buildings being only one
> >> floor, Arizona presents little opportunity for taking stairs instead
> >> of elevators and escalators - although there are certainly lots of
> >> rocky hills to climb.
> >>
> >> When in the supermarket I generally use a hand basket instead of a
> >> cart, and it is also faster to get around through the aisles that way.
> >> I and Kitty also always carry our groceries in cloth bags that we
> >> bring into the market (to save on plastic bag waste - and sometimes to
> >> get a reward for doing so), back to the car, which in turn is parked
> >> at the far end of the parking lot (again, unless we are in a hurry).
> >>
> >> [We've gotten into the habit of looking at the need to make an extra
> >> walking trip (down to the basement, or in a store looking for
> >> something, or back out to the mailbox, etc) as "opportunities", rather
> >> than a nuisance. **Kitty]
> >
> > This seems like a good perspective to have about a brief, physical
> > errand. Currently I try to minimize my *time spent* on these types of
> > errands, as I think I get enough cardiovascular exercise by riding my
> > bike to class four times per week. But for someone who gets relatively
> > little exercise this is a healthy way to look at such an opportunity.
>
> [This is the concept of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise. One need
> only stop and think about physical activity by the regular Jane/Joe
> 100 years ago. If coupled with nutritious eating, restful sleep and
> reasonable practices of cleanliness, they were in decent physical
> condition. The idea of stopping productive activity to purposefully do
> "exercise" would have been bizarre.

Yes, I imagine that doing so would seem bizarre to people at the time.

> All the activities each of them
> did each day provided a wide array of opportunities for all their
> muscles used to perform the tasks that were part of their
> responsibilities. Children grew up participating in these same
> activities and developed those muscles that were needed. Boys
> naturally have more upper body strength, but I'm sure that plenty of
> girls and women in rural areas chopped wood and performed other
> strength-requiring tasks at times when the "men" were unavailable.
>
> It was the idea of being wealthy enough to hire someone else to do the
> work and eventually to purchase "labor-saving" devices that has
> contributed greatly to the demise of natural exercise. So now large
> numbers of people pay money (often large amounts) to health clubs to
> have a place where they can move weights (owned by the club)
> vertically and horizontally and move their entire body in various ways
> - all for the purpose of using muscles they do not use in their
> regular daily activities. **Kitty]

All of the above is true. It is interesting to think about, and a bit
ironic by the way you describe the situation. Labor saving devices
were invented that enabled many people to reduce the amount of time
they spend on daily exercise. Due to this, the average amount of daily
exercise performed by many people decreased enough to warrant going
out of the way to perform extra exercise. In this way, many labor
saving devices could be seen as silly, since this "saved labor" may
need to be replaced by other exercise to maintain optimal health. This
replacement exercise also requires time, so no real saving of time by
use of many time-saving devices occurs.

> >> [Even our manual garage door is an opportunity for me
> >> to weight lift - Paul does most of the driving here in AZ and I get
> >> the door honors ;>) The heavy double door had an automatic opener that
> >> was not working when Paul started living here half a year at a time,
> >> but neither of us has had any interest in seeing if it can be fixed
> >> and even less in replacing it.
> >> I think far too many people fail to make opportunities for physical
> >> activity in their regular daily lives, and spend money to let a
> >> fitness club, they hope, make them fit.... **Kitty]
> >
> > I emphatically agree with your very last comment Kitty. Nearly everyone
> > I interact with at the university think it is strange that I ride my
> > bike to school. They say it's strange because it's winter and can get
> > quite cold. Some of these people pay for gym memberships and make
> > frequent trips out of their way to get exercise. However, some of these
> > same people could ride their bike to class without undue risk of harm
> > and perhaps save money on a gym membership, and additionally save the
> > time they would otherwise spend driving to and from the gym. I'm really
> > happy with my decision to ride my bike to work/class (both at the
> > university). I get approx. 2 hours of bike-riding per week, spend an
> > average of approx. $60/year on gasoline, and save time by riding my bike
> > (compared to driving). It was a great decision for me to do this.
>
> With you driving so little and the cost of insurance being not
> sufficiently related to the miles driven, would it not be actually
> cheaper for you to rent a car for those rare times that you use one?

I have seriously considered this possibility. I have already changed
my insurance coverage to the minimum possible, and emphasized to my
insurer that I wanted a rate to reflect the amount I drive. They have
a use-category called "recreational driver". I explained that this
would be appropriate for me, since I ride my bike to school and work.
Groceries are a bit more difficult to obtain without the car, and I
pay a higher cost at the produce market nearby. However, I also save
money by not having the car.

> But
> I suppose this would not be true, particularly with the time and delay
> necessary to rent a car, if you are making many, many very small trips.

Yes, and additionally, I would need to transport myself to the place
where the rental car is located.

> I have known people who lived in a downtown area of a large city
> (Toronto) and wisely did not own a car, but rented one when they wanted
> to take trips outside the city. The only reason that I have never done
> this is because I have always needed a car either for my work or for
> frequent trips outside the city.

I am very happy with my situation, being able to ride to school and
work on my bike. I infrequently take trips outside of the city.

> [And vehicle parking in a large North American eastern city can also
> be a real hassle and big expense. **Kitty]

Parking at the University I work and go to school at costs over $100
per semester. I thought this was totally outrageous, and started
riding my bike instead. I made it through my first winter, and have
been riding at least 3 days per week since August 2008, so I'm happy
with myself for sticking with it. Lower car maintenance and gasoline
costs are nice too.

> >>> This change of
> >>> habits, behavior, or disposition toward a preference has been difficult
> >>> for me. It is less difficult when the negative consequences of a
> >>> preference are obvious to me (such as being fat). However, when
> >>> evaluating some preferences, I find that it is difficult to clearly
> >>> determine the net, long-term outcome, such as with lifting weights. I
> >>> know I very much enjoy lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> But have you fully analyzed the rationality of all the reasons why you
> >> "enjoy lifting weights", rather than merely the possible long term harm
> >> of having unnecessary muscle (which I agree is not black and white)?
> >
> > I appreciate your bringing up this important question to me. I think I
> > have given the subject a thorough enough evaluation to justify my
> > current level of weight lifting frequency and intensity.
> >
> > There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
> > me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
> > a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
> > what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>
> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
> details.

I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.
Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
exercise alone.

> > I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
> > session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
> > limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
> > use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
> > protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>
> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
> gluconeogenesis for energy production.

Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
biochemistry reading to do!

> > And since there is no
> > exogenous source of amino acids (subjects exercised while fasted and
> > remained so for some time after the exercise), endogenous protein must
> > have been recycled (i.e. proteolysis and recycling) to achieve a
> > positive protein synthesis value.
>
> The muscle cells are the body's major place for protein storage (just
> as fat cells are for storage of triacylglycerols) and will largely be
> tapped for amino acids required for protein building during fasting.

> The value of exercising during fasting is that this also increases the
> push to build muscle protein and thus puts pressure on the system to
> get the necessary amino acids from elsewhere.

Right. And if anaerobic weight lifting causes an even greater push to
obtain amino acids from elsewhere (as I described above and I
understand it does), then my hypothesis that weight lifting
(especially while fasting) is of even greater benefit with regard to
protein recycling.

> Which unfortunately can
> be from other non-exercised muscles, so I guess perhaps that is a good
> reason to exercise all muscles groups when you do exercise particularly
> when fasting.

Agreed.

> [I like to use my entire body when dancing and this is why I find the
> (occasional) interludes in trance and house music very conducive to my
> style. I make use of those periods to stretch in all directions, and
> this is one reason why I do not enjoy being crowded in when dancing.
> And of course when the tempo is up, I really move - as anyone who has
> seen me can verify ;>) **Kitty]

Yes, I need to develop the habit of using all of my muscle groups,
especially in activities such as stretching in all directions, as you
describe. I have been trying to make a habit of taking breaks
approximately every hour while at the computer to stand, stretch,
relax my eyes, and lean in all directions for a few minutes. I have
found this "stretching break" to be refreshing.

> > I have not studied this hypothesis as much as I'd like, but I have seen
> > some evidence that it may be true. I am currently working toward a
> > better understanding of biochemistry, so I can better evaluate evidence
> > related to hypotheses such as this one. If anyone would like to study it
> > further and report it here I would appreciate it. I have spent some time
> > trying to find the article and finally found one that sounds familiar (I
> > have not read it in a while). Here is the link to the Pubmed abstract:
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252485
>
> The problem with amino acid balance measurements is that they cannot
> determine which areas of the body the protein is coming from and going
> to. This would need extremely complex measurements of all muscle
> strengths and even then would be lacking in other axes of the body for
> which the protein content cannot be measured.

This is a good point you mention about non-exercised muscles being a
possible source of amino acids for the exercised ones. I didn't think
this was the way one's body works WRT protein metabolism.

> > Additionally, I understand that exercise, especially weight-lifting and
> > other anaerobic exercise, strongly enhances insulin sensitivity and
> > glucose disposal.
>
> Do you currently have low insulin sensitivity, high fasting blood
> glucose with particularly high post-prandial spikes and a high HbA1C
> measurement?

To my knowledge, no, to all of the above. My fasting blood glucose is
fairly low (83mg/dL), and I think my insulin sensitivity is high (my
fasted insulin is low). I don't know about HbA1C, as I haven't had it
measured yet.

> If so, then lifting weights would benefit you. If not, then
> at your age, you do not need to lift weights for this purpose. Remember
> that none of the CR experiments show any increase in longevity with
> weight lifting,

I didn't know there were CR experiments that included weightlifting or
other resistance exercise. I thought it would be difficult to get mice
to lift dumbells (*smiles*) so I never looked for such experiments.
Perhaps there are ways to test such a hypothesis. I read about one
study that tested muscle protein synthesis rate by attaching a weight
to one of the two wings of a bird and compared the muscle mass and
strength of each wing after a duration. The mass of small weight
attached to the single wing was increased over time.

> and only those on very mild CR show any advantage to
> exercise beyond that normal in any healthy active individual in addition
> to the CR.

Yes, you could be right. I will continue to consider this.

> > I have read several articles that specifically
> > advocated strength training as a treatment for type 2 diabetics to
> > improve insulin sensitivity. This is another benefit I see for
> > maintaining a strength-training protocol.
>
> Are you a type 2 diabetic with low insulin sensitivity?
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

*Laughs*. Yes, you have a point. I assumed that higher insulin
sensitivity is better, and that these same protocols to treat insulin
sensitivity will also help to *maintain* insulin sensitivity.

> (which is very different than
> preventing it from getting broke, but the methods for the two are not
> necessarily the same).

With regard to weight lifting and exercise preventing insulin
insensitivity, my understanding is that its prevention and treatment
methods are the same (at least with regard to weight lifting and
exercise).

> <Snipped some text not needing a response.>
>
> >>> It brings me happiness. However, does
> >>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
> >>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
> >>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
> >>>
> >> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
> >> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
> >> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
> >> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
> >> is harmful.
> >
> > Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
> > books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
> > continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
> > harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
> > consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
> > is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
> > one's self.
>
> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
> is a point that I made above.
>
> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
> stiffle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]

Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
fall short of this goal.

> <snipped more text not needing a response>
> >
> >> [It is quite reasonable to get pleasure from encouragement and praise,
> >> but reasonably encouragement and praise should mean little from those
> >> one has little respect for (just as negative criticism from someone
> >> for whom you have no respect means little). **Kitty]
> >
> > I have found this to be true, and is generally the perspective that I have.
>
> But this is something that I went over again above, since your remarks
> there suggested that you really do not fully understand or have not
> fully adopted that approach.

I think I have not fully adopted the approach, and it is something
that I frequently think about and work on. Perhaps this would have
been clearer if I had written "I have found this to be true, and I
generally apply this perspective, although sometimes I fail to do so".

> [Maybe that is why Max/Steve wrote "generally"...he appears to
> recognize that he has not fully integrated the concept. **Kitty]

This is right, Kitty.

> >> [In contrast, the praise
> >> and encouragement will mean far more from someone highly valued (as
> >> will also any negative expressions from such a person be more
> >> hurtful). So if you want to retain this type of pleasure, I suggest
> >> cultivating and/or increasing friendships with those you admire and
> >> in beneficial activities that you both/all enjoy. **Kitty]
> >
> > That is good advice. My current organic chemistry professor did to me
> > recently in class. First, I usually answer his in-class questions
> > correctly. However, I skipped class twice in the last two weeks and he
> > came to the lab I work in and asked me (playfully) if I was dropping his
> > course. I told him no, and that I was studying independently. The next
> > class session I answered some relatively difficult questions and he said
> > to me in front of the class: "Okay, Steve, you are the only one who is
> > allowed to skip my class". *laughs in enjoyment*. That felt good, even
> > more so because I know I worked to earn the praise.
>
> Good!
>
> [Here's a demonstration of the *earning* of self-esteem to which I
> referred above. **Kitty]
>
> >> [Paul and I are praise/encouragement sources for each other. **Kitty]
> >
> > This praise from other individuals whom I admire and respect is
> > something that does not come frequently for me, mostly because there
> > aren't many people regularly involved in my life whom I respect. So
> > that's great that you and Paul are a source of praise and encouragement
> > for one another.
>
> We also get little praise from others about things that are really most
> important to us (mainly only related to dancing abilities relative to
> our ages), except from one another.
> However, you now have the addition of us from whom to get praise and
> encouragement and vice versa (which is a major purpose for having good
> friends).

True. I'm very glad to have you as friends, and to be a friend to each
of you.

> >> [We do enjoy the praise we
> >> get from others when we dance, an activity that we have evaluated as
> >> being truly beneficial, partly because it has so many facets to it,
> >> and we certainly enjoy the praise more from a good DJ and/or other
> >> good dancers than from those who simply stand on the sidelines. **Kitty]
> >
> > Yes, I'd bet many DJs have seen quite a few dancers, so to receive
> > praise might be more pleasurable, given the DJs assumed experience.
> >
> >> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
> >> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
> >> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
> >> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
> >
> > Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
> > encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
> > how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
> > encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>
> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
> discuss? It's obvious."

I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
conversation.

> So life since Dec 1999 has been an enormous
> pleasant change. **Kitty]
>
> >>> I have been trying to evaluate
> >>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
> >>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
> >>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
> >>>
> >> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
> >> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
> >> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
> >> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
> >> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
> >> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
> >> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
> >
> > I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
> > that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
> > infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
> > find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
> > schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
> > of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>
> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.

Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.

First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
many things I *wanted* to do.

Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
such as watching movies, television, or playing video games. The form
of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games. This form of
entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
was becoming sleepy.

While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
entertained. Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
brings me happiness.

Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
activities". It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
meaningless, random, and even foolish activities. When I observe such
behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
> relationships.  **Kitty]

Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
and did not find it. I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

> >>> One positive
> >>> aspect that must be weighed against the negative aspects of a
> >>> given habit is the enjoyment derived from that habit.
> >>>
> >> Absolutely true. But in the end your emotional response to the activity
> >> must become an integrated whole habit, rather than fragmented into
> >> negative and positive aspects depending on your thoughts. Perhaps you
> >> are still at the stage of constantly fragmented thoughts about the
> >> activity rather than having fully reprogrammed your emotions to become
> >> the subconscious and automatic *net results* of these thoughts.
> >
> > This describes exactly how I feel about many of my habits: that I have
> > not yet fully reprogrammed my emotions to be the automatic net result of
> > my thoughts about a given habit. There are some habits I have concluded
> > that I enjoy, and emotionally appreciate them when I engage in them. One
> > example is my enjoyment of ground flax seed, which I have a few
> > tablespoons per day of.
>
> Just be careful that either it is fresh when you buy it and then
> stored in the refrigerator or, best, you keep the seeds in the
> refrigerator and you only grind it when needed.

I keep them in a sealed container and only grind them when needed.
Once ground, I keep them in a container in the refrigerator.

> > But, my special enjoyment of flax seed is the
> > aroma. I remember when I first started losing weight when I was 210 lbs
> > I decided that flax seed would be helpful in getting healthy fatty
> > acids, and fiber to keep me feeling fuller. I remember smelling the
> > ground flax, and the aroma was strange to me, as I had never eaten it
> > before. I was a little wary of eating it at first, since it was foreign
> > to me. But at the time I decided that I would lose the excess weight,
> > even if I had to "resort" to eating things that were foreign to me. Now,
> > the smell of flax seed reminds me of my previous determination to change
> > my habits, and that I have maintained those healthier habits. Knowing
> > this, and that flax is quite healthy, makes my eating flax enjoyable
> > to me in several ways.
>
> That's an excellent approach. We have the same for several things. There
> can be many reasons to enjoy things and interestingly enough those other
> reasons can even enhance the taste over time. This is the way that an
> integrated, non-contradictory body and mind work together.

I see what you mean, by mind and body working together. It *does* feel
good.

> --Paul
>
> >> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
> >> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
> >> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
> >> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
> >> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
> >
> > I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
> > portions of treats.
>
> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]

*Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
health (as I hope mine are also not).

--Max Peto / Steve Floyd

> >> But if
> >> one is mostly consistent in hir values (no one is 100% consistent),
> >> and they have a foundation of principles valid for reality, then hir
> >> emotions and ideas/values will quickly come back into accord. **Kitty]
> >
> > ---
> > Max Peto / Steve Floyd

This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.

This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
not beyond the powers of many others.

We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
profound social ideas in practical human social action.

--Paul


[The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)

As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
headlined article. **Kitty]

Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>
> This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
> and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
> particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
> Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
> and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
> piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
> helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
> ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
> not beyond the powers of many others.
>
> We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
> then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
> understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
> and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
> profound social ideas in practical human social action.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> [The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
> its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)
>
> As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
> purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
> Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
> while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
> even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
> all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
> there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
> view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
> finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
> managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
> submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
> headlined article. **Kitty]

Thank you for sending the notification about, and link to, Kitty's
article on OpEdNews. I spent some time to create a profile on the site
so I can comment on someone else's comment. I enjoyed the article. The
following is an excerpt from Kitty's article that I will comment on:

(begin-quote)"Today (2009), electronic access to countless sources of
information (many not even available 40 years ago) and rapid lengthy
communication with virtually anyone else can be had by the vast majority
of those in the industrialized areas of the world and much of what is
still on the road to "development". It is a rare person (adult and
child) in the US who does not have access to, if not actually own, hir
own computer; many have computer features in their cellular phones. For
an individual in the US (and much of the world) these days to be
informed on everything that happens currently or in the past and on
ideas published by anyone currently or in the past is now mostly a
matter of interest/desire/time rather than purely technical and/or cost
availability.

So the questions can and should be asked, "Why does the individual still
need to be ruled by others? Is there not a better way now to achieve
social order than by some centralized governing body to which an
individual can, at best, only have an effect if part of a majority
casting votes for a particular candidate/bond/referendum in a particular
election?"" (end-quote)

Meta
A standard old method of quoting a long piece (as above) is to use
"guillemets", which are either ">>" or "<<" marks at the beginning and
end of the quote (see Kitty's example of this in her response to one
of the commenters on OpEdNews). You could also use something equivalent
to my Meta tags as: "Quote" and "/Quote" (which originate from the
methods used in markup languages).
/Meta

I am commenting on this passage in particular because when I read it, I
integrated several ideas which I hadn't previously considered (see my
comment tonight to JonmarkP, where I discuss these ideas). More
specifically, I hadn't considered the idea that the functions of
government may be obsolete *because of* communication technologies
such as the Internet. When information exchange is as fast and
readily-accessible as it is now (and may continue to improve), it
greatly facilitates cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.
However, such cooperation can't take place unless *both* (or all)
parties pursue the same outcomes. Pursuit of an outcome requires
motivation, motivation requires interest, interest requires recognition
of a need or desire, and such recognition requires *paying attention
to reality* - i.e. *being responsible for one's life*.

I have read about the "democratization" of China, where such
communication technologies are enabling individuals to discuss ideas
that are "forbidden" by the government. However, I hadn't applied the
same idea to the United States and other "Western, developed" countries.
Kitty's article explores this idea by discussing government,
inter-individual cooperation, and both of the previous, in the light
of the historical lack of efficient communication technologies.

I recommend the article.

--Max Peto/Steve Floyd Jr.

Meta
The previous message on this thread is far too long, involving several
distinct subjects. It would have been best to have already broken my
own last reply into parts, but better late than never. I will do so
now. I will also snip as much as possible form both parts. This is my
response to part one which is directed at the psychological and social
parts of the previous message. My response to the physiological parts
of that message will come separately.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
>>> am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
>>> days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
>>> read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
>>> of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
>>> initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
>>> to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
>>> proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
>>> one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
>>> some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
>>> who has never read it.
>>>
>>> This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
>>> own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true
>>> However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
>>> writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message)
>>
>> Meta
>> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
>> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
>> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
>> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
>> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
>> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.
>
> I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
> the nature of composition of a message.

By using "should" above, I did not mean to imply that you ought to
have done so (which would have been unreasonable on my part since I
only just began to use the Meta tags here myself), but rather that it
would have been best (clearest for communication) if that comment had
been placed in Meta tags. Here once again is the ambiguity of meaning
problem which is so prevalent in natural languages, particularly with
words like "should".

> Since this comment is directly related to your Meta comment above, I
> have placed it here, within your Meta tag.

That was correct. Same for these comments. And if I made a comment
about the nature of your meta comment, then is would properly go
inside another set of meta tags inside the first set.

> I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
> time I have such a comment.

Excellent. Such usage will help you fully understand its meaning (and
test such understanding), which I think is quite important for fully
understanding reality and particularly the usage of symbol/languages -
representatives in general.

Note below that I realized that the "snip" comments were also Meta and
so have now enclosed them in Meta tags.

>> /Meta
>>
>>>> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
>>>>
>>>> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
>>>>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
>>>>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
>>>>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
>>>>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
>>>>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
>>>>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
>>>>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
>>>>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
>>>>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
>>>>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
>>>>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
>>>>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
>>>>> makes things enjoyable in the present.

Meta
Snipped my own previous comment not responded to.
/Meta

>>>>> At the same time, I understand
>>>>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
>>>>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
>>>>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
>>>>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
>>>>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
>>>>> what do I replace it ?"
>>>>>
>>>> There are several things here.
>>>> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
>>>> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
>>>> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
>>>> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
>>>>
>>> I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
>>> emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
>>> reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
>>> preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
>>> negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
>>> preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
>>> rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
>>> behavior/action/situation.
>>>
>> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
>> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
>> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
>> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
>> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
>> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
>> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
>> preference (a conscious choice and action).
>
> I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
> and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
> emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
> *conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

It is good that you see this most important difference. However, too
many people still continue to equate the two and make their decisions
about far too many things based on subconscious emotion rather than
conscious preferencing. Now I am the first to agree that it is
impossible to make all choices by fully consciously evaluating all the
pros and cons before taking action. Life is simply far too complex and
the number of choices made everyday far too large to be able to
consciously dwell on each one. So the way that one must practically
operate is to go through this process (of conscious evaluation) a few
times initially with all important choices and then automate such
methods of choice into habits. The trick to make this work well,
however, is to also lay down as part of the habit, the environmental
circumstances under which the automated methods can be relied on to
produce a good result. And if these environmental circumstances do not
hold, to consciously intercede with a "Whoa, wait a minute here!".

>>>> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
>>>> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
>>>> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
>>>> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
>>>>
>>> The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
>>> lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
>>> example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
>>> predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
>>> or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
>>> changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
>>> Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
>>> activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
>>> an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
>>> better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
>>> activities.
>>>
>> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
>> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
>> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
>> possible meanings.
>>
>> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
>> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
>> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
>> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
>> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
>> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
>> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
>> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
>> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
>> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety.
**Kitty]
>
> Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
> improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
> possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
> felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
> experienced this.

[I sure hope not, but it is very possible that many people do not make
/take the time do this evaluating. It seems to me that very many
people do all sorts of things that eliminate the opportunity to
actually think about what they are and/or have done/thought. I think
of this very often when I see people engaging in cellphone discussions
or listening to music on headphones while walking/jogging, an occasion
that could be used for some introspection, choice evaluation, etc.
Many modern conveniences are used as avoidance mechanisms for
beneficial activities, which in the wider range, longer view will
likely be detrimental to the individual doing so. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped previous comments not responded to.
/Meta

>>>> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
>>>> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
>>>> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
>>>> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
>>>> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
>>>> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
>>>>
>>> Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
>>> will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
>>> preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
>>> action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
>>> with regard to one's lifetime happiness.

I think that after the confusion of meaning it is worth commenting
here on your original attempted definition. The confusion arose
because you attempted to use the very same word "neutral" to define a
"neutral preference". Upon re-reading the above, I realize that I
would not have mistaken your meaning if you had *not* tried to define
that phrase. However, when you then went and used the phrase "neutral
with regard to one's lifetime happiness" (which implied to me neither
increasing nor decreasing in absolute terms rather than having little
effect on the amount of change) then I certainly got the wrong idea of
your intended meaning. Part of the reason for this is that a constant
increase in lifetime happiness is not guaranteed and should never be
taken for granted. It always requires effort on the part of the
individual.

[I think of it as an extension of the old phrase (which those less
that 50 may never have heard), "The world doesn't owe you a living." -
The world doesn't owe anyone happiness. (A more modern equivalent is
the libertarian loved phrase - originating in Heilein's important
novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - TANSTAAFL - "There ain't no
such thing as a free lunch".) Unfortunately in the current US society,
government - and those who support the more recent Western ideas of
ruler/ruled - is viewed by the majority as the proper provider for
"the general Welfare". And what a Pandora's box that wording in the US
Constitution has created. **Kitty]

>>> Some examples of a neutral
>>> preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
>>> preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
>>> video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>>>
>> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
>> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
>> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
>> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
>> in One Lesson").

Again I stated the above because of my (at that time) misunderstanding
of your intended meaning of a "neutral preference". OTOH, once again
your examples actually strengthened that misunderstanding because I
did not see (and still do not see) that having facial hair is neutral
with with respect to the amount of lifetime happiness generated.
Either having facial hair (or not wearing a tie, etc) clearly gives
you more pleasure or it does not. And if it does clearly provide more
pleasure to you, then it should be worth some costs with respect to
its social effects. Whereas if it is truly neutral (has a trivial
effect on your lifetime happiness) then it is not worth any cost at
all and you would not even be discussing it here.

>> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
>> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
>> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
>> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
>> decrease.
>
> If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
> preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
> always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
> increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct?

Yes, except that if by "neutral" one means neither increasing nor
deceasing one's lifetime happiness (which is what I originally took
your meaning to be), then I would rephrase your statement above as "a
rational preference choice or action can never be neutral because
there is always some other action or choice that one would judge to be
likely to increase one's lifetime happiness" I put it in terms of "not
causing one's lifetime happiness to decrease" rather than "increasing
one's lifetime happiness" to account for the situation where one
rationally judges that continuing to live will only cause a decrease
in one's total lifetime happiness. (An example might be a person in
constant pain with no foreseeable hope of cessation of the pain). OTOH
now that I think of it, the very idea of any action being neutral (as
I originally understood your meaning) is actually impossible for such
a person, so I guess my completeness of the statement was not really
necessary in this instance.

Of course, now that I realize (from your later remarks) that your
meaning of "neutral" was simply that taking one decision or another of
a few possibilities would make minimal difference, if any, to your
lifetime happiness, I need to withdraw my statement altogether, since
you are quite right, many choices related to things of very small
importance are neutral in that sense.

>  In other words,
> there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
> preference?

The definition of "opportunity cost" is the value to one of the next
best alternative to the choice and action that one takes. There is
some notion in the minds of some that such a value is "forgone" or
"given up" when one makes the choice/action of higher value. Of course
it should be clear that such a notion is totally irrational because
one did not ever *have* the alternative value and one cannot logically
give up or forgo something that one has never had in the first place.
Put another way, if one were to think of the next higher valued choice
as a "cost" or "loss" as a result of the choice actually made, then
why not the one next higher below that, and so on. Since it is most
often the case that the values of alternative choices are not highly
different (at least as seen at the time of choosing), it would then be
clear that the sum of all these "costs" or "losses" would quickly
overwhelm the value of the actual choice taken. Therefore, if one were
to be logically concerned about "opportunity cost", one should never
make any choice at all, because doing so would always lead to a net
loss of value.

Certainly there are real costs in making any decision, if nothing more
than the time taken to make the decision and take the action, but the
values of all the other things that might have been done with that
time are certainly not part of these real costs. For this reason, I
consider that entire notion of "opportunity cost" to be an irrational
idea and an obfuscating red herring foisted upon the innocent by
pseudo-intellectuals so that they can both confuse the innocent and
appear erudite to them.

So my statements above most certainly did not relate to any silly
notion of opportunity cost.

>> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
>> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
>> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
>> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
>> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
>> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
>> happiness over the rest of your life).
>
> I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
> difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
> far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

Rest assured that it gets easier as you do it more and more, until it
becomes pretty automatic. I now rarely find that I have any need for
so-called "will power" in order to prevent myself from taking the
short range more immediately gratifying choice. Part of the reason for
this is that I have learned to not require myself to always worry
about the most long range optimal choice for every single little
thing. For those things that make little difference (are essentially
neutral to use your terminology) I simply go with my current desires
and enjoy the results rather than attaching any blame or having any
pangs of conscience. Anyway some variety is beneficial and a little
bit of a bad thing can have a positive hormetic kind of effect, both
physiologically and psychologically.

[I too no longer have to exercise "will power" - or at least very
rarely - for the same reasons that Paul has given. **Kitty]

>>> All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
>>> to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
>>> preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>>>
>> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
>> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
>> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
>> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
>> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.
>
> Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
> spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
> *doing* anything.

This will ameliorate as you develop more efficient methods and gain
confidence in your ability to evaluate. Realize that for now with your
limited experience, and the fact that so many evaluations are highly
personal and/or highly dependent on current environmental conditions
(and therefore that for these you cannot use the experiences of others
to aid your decision), you often have little choice but to go with the
reasonable best choice that you can, after trying your best to see any
major problems with it, and then learning by experiencing the results.
In the end, the experience of the "school of hard knocks" is the best
teacher and often the only effective one. I am convinced that for most
people who appear to have "made the right decisions" and "gained
success", luck played more of a role in the process than did wise
planning. That does not mean, of course, that such people have not
earned or do not deserve the value that they have gained. They have
earned such value precisely because the result of their choice was the
production of great value for other people, whether or not it was the
result of good planning on their part or entirely fortuitous. Still I
must admit that I personally feel a certain amount of annoyance at so
many very wealthy people who do not use their wealth in what I
consider to be a rational manner. Much of this annoyance is because I
know that a very large number of such people (perhaps the vast
majority these days) have only arrived at such a wealthy state because
of the irrational state of government interferences and regulations in
current society.

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
>>> example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
>>> not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
>>> facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
>>> hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
>>> outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>>>
>> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
>> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
>> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
>> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
>> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
>> ought to be?
>
> This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
> with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
> However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
> conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
> clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains.

Then look for employers who have such requirements only within
reasonable limits (cleanliness and tidiness appropriate to the nature
of the job). Realize that any such unreasonable requirements should be
viewed as a kind of fraud or deception perpetrated on their clients
and is not a mark of a truly honest, forthright company. Here is an
example of where you should always look *beyond* the immediate example
of irrationality to find the more general and more fundamental error,
illogic and even unethical characteristic of which that simple,
seemingly unimportant example is merely the immediate symptom. For
this reason (that such irrationalities are not isolated by are related
to more philosophically fundamental negative practices), you will
generally find those who have no such unreasonable requirements to be
more rational and compatible in other ways.

[Sometimes if one makes a counter well-presented argument in a
courteous manner, the other party will see the logic of their
positions. Not guaranteed of course, but worth a try. And if nothing
more it gives you practice in presenting the points. **Kitty]


Or, better still by far, develop areas of expertize wherein you can be
self-employed. Particularly since the late 1980's, when I operated a
successful full service computer business in support of several medium
sized business clients, I have realized that being employed or being
in many service areas (not all), essentially means that one is
promoting projects and activities that others think are important
rather than those that oneself thinks are most important. This
realization came from continuing to be bothered by the fact that the
business activities of two of my major clients were not ones that I
thought should exist at all, in the sense that a rational person would
have no interest in the products and services provided by those
businesses. It was not as bad as when, 10 years earlier, I was
instrumental in the computer control of a major Canada Post parcel
processing plant, since that was supporting a government monopoly
organization, but it was still not acceptable to me.

Since that realization, I have always sought to only work at those
projects that I personally thought were most important (and it should
go without saying that my estimation of importance is solely based
upon whether or not I think the success likelihood times the success
value of the project will increase my lifetime happiness more than any
other project of which I can currently conceive). It is also
necessary, of course, to find a way to enable any such project to also
be sufficiently income producing in the near term, that one can
continue to satisfy one's basic necessities. Either that or to be
fortunate enough or to have saved enough from previous work to be able
to live off the income from one's assets alone for some major time
until the project gets to a stage where sufficient number of others
appreciate its value to them.

> I see two
> opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
> find employment while having facial hair.

If this is truly the case, then it is clear that you need to either
change location to where employers in your your area of knowledge are
more reasonable, or you need to change areas of knowledge. As with
"Atlas Shrugged", do not sanction such practices by continuing to
associate with those who practice them. Remove your expertize and
abilities from their control and thereby diminish their power.

> Since employment has been
> the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that
> I have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
> appearance.

Again you need to take the long view and avoid such employers, even if
it means satisfaction of fewer of your needs for a while. At your age
you can afford to do with less until you reorganize your life.

> OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
> narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills
> that I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
> conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
> actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
> appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
> that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
> *them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
> the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
> almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
> employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

But the effort would be worthwhile, even if the choice of facial hair
itself is not that important to you, since you would be socially
preferencing and refusing to sanction such irrational behavior. In
this regard it would be important to publicly declare just why you
made the choice of employer that you did and the philosophical basis
for that choice (which is actually the deception - faking of reality,
rather than the mere ability to have facial hair).

>>> Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
>>> preference is not critical to my life happiness.

Actually in view of several things now discussed above, I think your
statement above is wrong. In making such a statement you have not
fully evaluated the importance of some of these personal practices to
your lifetime happiness (they must be far from "neutral" or you would not even
have raised them here) and you have not realized the full
depth what such restrictions on the part of employers say about them.
I would maintain that it certainly *is* critical to your lifetime
happiness (in the long run, which at your age is most likely a very
long time) to not sanction such behavior and to not associate with
such people (and to explain why to the world).

Meta
Snipped more text to which a reply is not now appropriate.
/Meta

>>> But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
>>> situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
>>> frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
>>> I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
>>> preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
>>> preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
>>> without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
>>> place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
>>> preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
>>> think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
>>> preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
>>> aspect of life which affects my happiness.  I will continue to think
>>> about this.
>>>
>> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
>> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
>> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.
>
> Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
> never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
> think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
> opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
> peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

I expect that you will now be altering this lack of long-term
perspective and will realize that the opinions of others only matter
to the extent that those opinions lead to the use of force against
you. The irrational people in the world (at least in North America)
are not yet such a large majority that you cannot find sufficient
numbers, with whom to associate, who understand well that your
personal choices are your own business, as long as they have no
reasonable negative effects on the productive work for which they are
paying you, and who fully appreciate and esteem the rational,
self-responsible approach that you take to reality.

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>> Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
>>> or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
>>> my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
>>> preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
>>> re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
>>> is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
>>> therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
>>> I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
>>> confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
>>> my time thinking about other things.
>>
>> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
>> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
>> lifetime happiness.
>
> Correct. This is what I meant.

Meta
I leave the above in only to show that it is because of this that I
needed to change some of my statements above.
/Meta

>> Again what I think that you are missing is that
>> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
>> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
>> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
>> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
>> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.
>
> I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

Even more, it is often impossible to tell beforehand whether a
choice/action will have little effect or will have a major effect. And
this is independent of the also important fact that the best planned
choices and actions may prove highly detrimental, if only because of
some chance or completely unforeseeable event which totally eliminates
any possibility of benefit. In the words of the Scottish poet Robbie
Burns: "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley,", which
translated into English says: "The best laid plans of mice and men go
oft astray" (a line in a famous poem: "TO A MOUSE - ON TURNING HER UP
IN HER NEST WITH THE PLOUGH"). Still, planning to the best of one's
ability using an amount of time appropriate to the reasonable
expectation of the likelihood of value gained or lost by the action,
is the best that can be done and is always better on average than no
planning at all.

Meta
Snipped more text either not requiring a response or not responded to by
Max/Steve.
/Meta

>> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
>> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
>> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
>> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
>> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
>> this aspect of reality all the time. **Kitty]
>
> I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
> "studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
> to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
> foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
> discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
> someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
> forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
> partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
> think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
> depressing.

It is not only "depressing', not constantly attempting to better
understand reality (to study it) is contrary to life. Babies, toddlers
and young children are all enormously eager to learn everything about
the world in which they have recently come to exist. This is the
fundamentally natural human condition and method for maintenance and
promotion of life - to understand one's environment so that one can
control and mold it to optimally increase one's lifetime happiness. As
I argue in my essay about Social Meta-Needs, there really can be no
other possible purpose for any human, which is consistent with hir
nature in reality. How it can be that so many seemingly intelligent
people do not understand this, is beyond my comprehension. However, I
have given up being concerned about it, but instead look to associate
only with those for whom it is not so.

[This nature of very young children is one of the fascinations
experienced by parents/guardians who have chosen to be in that role. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
>> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
>> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
>> and having her physically with me most of the time.
>
> I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
> presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
> happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
> helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
> the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
> fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
> wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
> lack of hir physical presence.

Yes the immediate sharing of experiences and immediate ability to
comment and respond is what is mainly necessary. The physical nearness
is simply a necessary prerequisite for that immediacy, and when a
romantic relationship is also enough physical presence is "icing on the cake".

>> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
**Kitty]
>
> I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
> relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
> month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
> supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
> think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

Well you simply have to keep looking, never get "hard boiled"
(unreceptive and unopen to others) and never give up. As my mother used to say
to me when I was in my late teens and never had even had a
"girl friend": "your time will come". At age 22 I thought my time had
come when I married my first wife and two years later started a
family, only to have the whole thing fall apart 12 year later. Little
did I or my mother know when she told me that in the late 50's that it
would be more than 50 years before my time really did come (when I
found Kitty). Unfortunately my mother never lived to see it happen and
to meet Kitty.

In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete relationships that
are each of benefit in an important but different
area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
have a more complete relationship. I have always been amazed (and
delighted, of course) that Kitty was so totally ready to leave a good
job, a husband, a lovely home, a climate and social environment she
had known for over 25 years, and even her native country, to join me
in my one bedroom apartment in downtown Toronto. Boy, did that tell me
how much she esteemed and loved me! (Note that I used both words
because so often today the word "love" is used without implying
concurrent great esteem - a usage totally irrational in my view.)

>> [My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
>> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
>> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
>> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
>> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
>> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
>> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
>> the other. **Kitty]
>
> The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
> to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> What you need now is to
>> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
>> perfect relationships.
>
> After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
> two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
> two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
> However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
> unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
> often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
> (like the color one girl painted her toenails),

I am left to wonder about the type of girl that would even bring up a
topic of such minor importance and totally subjective value, particularly to a
man. Part of the trouble may be that you are likely
a little older (and certainly far more matured) than most of those in
your undergraduate class).

> while others were more
> interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
> one would enjoy to make a living).

This indecision about what young people want to do for a living seems
to be much more rampant in society than when I was in my teens. I
wonder if it is perhaps because there is so little of anything
practical and avocation related that is currently taught in the
schools.

Personally, I always knew that I wanted to work in the area of
mathematics, science and engineering. It was only later when I matured
much more that I realized the philosophy is really the basic of
everything and that the philosophical basic of mathematics and science
is of paramount important both to their usefulnes, but even to their
very meaning. Still later I realized that the human condition was so
inoptimal that social and psychological philosophy must necessarily be
my work. And since it is the hardest of all (at least to make progress
with change), it is also the most enjoyable to me - I have always
sought out the most difficult and most important task as also being
the most enjoyable to pursue as my major work.

>> For example we have such relationships with our
>> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
>> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
>> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
>> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
>> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
>> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
>> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
>> better term or even simply friends) ,
>
> I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
> for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
> with this idea.

Yes, you are right about my previous discouragement. The reason for
that was a difference in the scope of the use of the term. I am very
cautious about who I call a friend (with nothing more stated), but if
I include another word, such as "dance friend", then I tend to use
"friend more loosely. But as I stated above, perhaps "associate" would
be a better term so that I could be more consistent and less ambiguous
in my usage. Since our main social activity right now is dancing,
while I and Kitty have very few friends (less than fingers of one
hand), we do have many, many (probably 20 or so) dance associates with
whom we converse in the limited way possible over the music (or even
just wave, hug - a few, or glad-hand) when we attend dance events.

[Paul gets more of these expressions of friendliness and admiration
from dancers than I do. Including hugs from young women. :>) **Kitty]


When we are in Ontario at the cottage, our social life is virtually
non-existent because there are no dance events anywhere near. But I
think neither of us really misses that lack of social life, since from
a real friendship pov the dance associate relationships are
inconsequential compared with the depth and breadth of our
relationship with each other.

>> I have had few buddies in my
>> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
>> Kitty have ever remained in that status.
>
> I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
> friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
> simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
> definitions (yours and mine):
>
> 1 a: companion , partner b: friend
> 2: fellow —used especially in informal address

Yup. It's another example of ambiguities in the English language - and
its getting worse every year - to the end result where every word will
mean the same as every other! Now won't *that* be a real tower of
Babel situation, particularly since everyone will still think that
they understand what the others are saying.
The phrase "buddy-buddy", in particular, as a description of closeness
definitely implies a strong and fairly complete friendship. To me a
"buddy" is someone upon whom you can really count when you need hir,
but then that is also true for a true friend. I also think that my
sense of its meaning was greatly influenced by some popular songs
using the term and perhaps some movies and fiction early in my youth,
which used the term. In addition, my boyhood dog was named "Buddy",
which naturally makes me think of a loyal and understanding companion.

>> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
>> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
>> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
>> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
>> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
>> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
>> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
>> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
>> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
>> tiny-perfect relationship.
>>
>> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
>> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
>> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
>> foundational basis that we have developed.
>
> Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
> (by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
> perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
> of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
> trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
> discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
> value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
> a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
> serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
> escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
> uses the word below).
>
>> Such a basis is something
>> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,
>
> Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
> person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
> previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
> existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
> the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
> thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
> relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
> same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.
>
>> but
>> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
>> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
>> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]
>
> Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
> friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
> describe.
>
> I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
> serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
> around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
> relationships.
>
>>>> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
>>>> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
>>>> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
>>>> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
>>>> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
>>>> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
>>>> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
>>>> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
>>>> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
>>>> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
>>>> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
>>>> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
>>>> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
>>> waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
>>> couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
>>> is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
>>> firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
>>> how they are doing or to influence them.
>>>
>> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
>> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
>> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.
>
> This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
> better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
> other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
> are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
> encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
> want to "check-up on".

I agree, and an occasional "check-up" would show that you care, which
should give them both more confidence in their own worth and more
appreciation for your worth and ideas, both of which should help them
change in the right direction. Unfortunately, very few of the people
that I have ever "written off" had shown any willingness to change or
any thought that I might possibly be correct, and them wrong.

> On the contrary, I know of some people who have
> convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
> people I make no effort to contact.
>
>> This is my
>> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
>> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>>
>> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
>> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
>> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
>> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
>> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]
>
> I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
> describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
> relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
> necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.

Unless such people continue to bother you, then any such formal
"severing" is quite unnecessary. It would only be useful if you are
stating all the reasons in order to give them one last chance to
change (and that would be only useful if you really do think there
still is some chance for change). I have done this a few times,
particularly when I had had some previous good relationships with such
people (or so I thought), but it has never worked to effect any
change.

> Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
> the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
> possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
> speak with them again.

I don't think that actually clearly telling them that you were
severing relations with them would preclude them coming back to you
again.

In most situations where a person has stopped interacting with me it
has been clear to me that they do not wish to hear from me again, so I do not
try to contact them. Partly this is because in most of these
same situations, even though the other party ceased/broke off the
relationship, I was nevertheless convinced that the major part of the
harm within the relationship was from them harming me, and they broke
off the relationship because they would not accept my contention. With
such people I do not try to restart things since I think that unless
they first see the light and apologize to me, any attempted contact on
my part would be effectively admitting that I had changed my mind and
now accepted their previous action as at least tolerable. This is the
essential situation with my daughter. With my sister, just "down the road" in
Tuscon, the situation is different. She has apparently broken off the
relationship with me in order to side with my daughter, to
whom she has always been very close as a kind of surrogate mother. I
have sent her a birthday card and one other contact over the last 7
years, and I even got an email from her husband (new, so we never knew
each other well) about the death of their pet dog, which I knew well, but there
has never been any response from anything that I have sent
to them. In my experience, each case of a break-off of an old
long-term relationship is highly unique and needs to be considered
separately.

> But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
> with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
> benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
> me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
> discussion on this above).

Don't forget that most people have such busy lives and so many others
around them to interact with that they don't even think about long
gone people that they once knew. OTOH, if this takes place then it
clearly means that they did not see anything really special about you
to remember and to want back again. So the continuing disconnection is
probably in your own best interest anyway.

Although I still feel sadness for what might have been, that is the
way that I currently think of my daughter - I am convinced that she
never did really understand and appreciate my most important and
self-cherished qualities (and those which Kitty so quickly saw,
understood and esteemed). As for my older brother and younger sister,
each in their own way they too never appreciated me for what I really
am (but, of course, they might say the same in reverse). So I have
determined through experience that it is best to forget these
potentially good but broken past relationships and simply continue to
be open to new people coming along who *do* appreciate the qualities
that you most cherish about yourself.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to and text about exercise
physiology,biochemistry and psychology, to which I will respond in part 2
/Meta

>>>>> It brings me happiness. However, does
>>>>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
>>>>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
>>>>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
>>>> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
>>>> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
>>>> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
>>>> is harmful.
>>>>
>>> Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
>>> books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
>>> continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
>>> harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
>>> consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
>>> is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
>>> one's self.
>>>
>> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
>> is a point that I made above.
>>
>> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
>> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
>> stifle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
>> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
>> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
>> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
>> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
>> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]
>
> Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
> themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
> development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
> that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
> development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
> that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
> would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
> fall short of this goal.

[Making sure that children and young people have the natural
opportunities for self-responsibility will provide them with the
opportunities for building and nurturing their own self-esteem. And
here is where governments have created the problem they then try to
"solve". This can be a whole 'nother thread. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
>>>> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
>>>> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
>>>> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
>>> encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
>>> how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
>>> encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>>>
>> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
>> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
>> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
>> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
>> discuss? It's obvious."
>
> I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
> conversation.

[You bet! And was a major deteriorating factor in the relationship.
The initial reason for our introduction to each other by mutual
friends was that we both admired/read Ayn Rand, but it took a number
of years for me to realize that this "admiration" was not particularly
philosophically deep on Ed's part. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>>> I have been trying to evaluate
>>>>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
>>>>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
>>>>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
>>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
>>>> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
>>>> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
>>>> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
>>>> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
>>>> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
>>>> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
>>>>
>>> I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
>>> that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
>>> infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
>>> find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
>>> schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
>>> of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>>>
>> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
>> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
>> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
>> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
>> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
>> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
>> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
>> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.
>
> Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
> in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.
>
> First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
> realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
> indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
> comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
> of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
> many things I *wanted* to do.

If, after a little consideration, you can't decide what activity to do
next, then it is a waste of time to continue trying to decide. Simply
use your *whim* and pick any one of the choices and *get at it*. It is
*not* always necessary to have carefully calculated all the pros and
cons to death before you take action and it is not always necessary to
have a full rational justification for every action that you take.
Life is simply too short and full for that. It is perfectly okay to
sometimes act just because you "felt like it". Particularly this is
correct if you constantly work to get your "feelings" to be consistent
with your consciously held principles and methods. Just getting
started and doing the activity is often more happiness conducive than
spending addition precious time in evaluating.

When you need a break from that one activity (usually it is best to
take breaks because the subconscious will proceed with the thinking
anyway), then *get at another one*, preferably one that uses a
different combination of your body and mind. It is like one of the
humorous dance songs says: "What fxxk are y'all standing around for?
Get in there and DANCE!!"

> Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
> the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
> throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
> participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
> such as watching movies, television, or playing video games.

Unfortunately this is true for the vast majority of people in current
society. It is why the government has so little problem with protests
to its actions. This keeping the masses happy was the function of
gladiator tournaments in ancient Rome, whence the notion that
providing "bread and circuses" is all that is necessary to keep a
dictatorial regime in power.

> The form
> of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games.

Video games are, at least, active rather than totally passive. I find
the logical, non-action games (such as patience and sudoku) to be
mentally stimulating and a pleasant diversion at times. Although I
must admit that playing them a lot is also a sign to me that there is
something else important that I really ought to get done, but find
somewhat unpleasant in its immediate execution work.

> This form of
> entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
> end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
> was becoming sleepy.

I have also been in the same state with respect to the game Patience
(particularly related to the reason described above), but I eventually
get out of it and I no longer beat myself up over it as I often used
to do about such things (which then made things worse). IOW, I have
learned to forgive myself for my indulgences and, lo and behold,
because of that I actually indulge far less often. I have been working
on the wiki stuff so diligently (and enjoying it so much) that I have
not played patience or sudoku in weeks now.

> While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
> previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
> much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
> habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
> recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
> mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
> noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
> their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
> and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
> one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

Mentally stimulating games are not all bad, but you might try finding
games where the stimulation comes from yourself directing the game
rather than the game directing and entertaining you.

> So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
> slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
> entertained.

You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of all action is
happiness. Entertainment is merely one means to gaining pleasure,
which is a very important form of happiness. You need to learn that
there is nothing more pleasurable than the experience of your own mind
reading, thinking and understanding.

> Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
> rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
> feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
> working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
> brings me happiness.

Ah, but that is far too distant and theoretical a goal for you to be
able to sustain it. You must also enormously enjoy the immediate
activity and derive great pleasure from each step. Otherwise, as I
said you will not be able to sustain your efforts. I made that mistake
many years ago, but it is now why the vast majority of time is spent
doing things which I intrinsically enjoy as I go along (as well as the
completed product of course). I could not possibly do that wiki
development work if I were only thinking of the end result as being
beneficial. It is imperative to get great pleasure from all the
intermediate steps.
In fact, that is why I do little exercising per se (none at all this
year in Casa Grande), I dislike the process even though I realize that
the end result is beneficial to my health. I would be so much happier
to simply do only dancing or go for long interesting hikes (but I find
the very local desert environment here to have insufficient interest).

> Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
> very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
> to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
> similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
> activities".

Yes, it is. Entertainment is an escape from having to think and focus
one's mind on important things in life/reality. It is what Ayn Rand
termed "blank out". Or in the words of the Alfred E. Neuman character
"What, me worry?"

> It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
> nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
> and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
> meaningless, random, and even foolish activities.

I maintain the major reason for this (and the shame of it) is because
they were never taught and helped to experience the enormous pleasure
to be gained from the efficacious use of one's mind. One cannot change
the behavior of anyone by merely trying to persuade them that if they
do odious tasks A, B and C (or for some even if these are merely less
enjoyable tasks than D, E and F), then the result will be an
ecstatically wonderful end result G. Rather, they must also highly
enjoy (for most and at least somewhat for all) the intermediate tasks
that end in G.

> When I observe such
> behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
> philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
> is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
> are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
> also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
> continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
> while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

This it the only thing to do. Finding others more like yourself is
your best road to happiness. But not total clones, else nothing new
and different will be forthcoming. While I and Kitty are very close,
we are nevertheless different enough to be able to provide stimulating
ideas to one another.

>> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
>> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
>> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
>> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
>> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
>> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
>> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
>> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
>> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
>> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
>> relationships.  **Kitty]
>
> Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
> and did not find it.

It is far too obscure and intellectual to find there. Besides I cannot
believe that you could get much from merely listening to someone else
reading it.You need to be able to study the written words and deeply
think about them in order to fully comprehend them and see their
fundamental truths.

> I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

I also doubt that either of them will have this book. But there is no
need, except to have a handier copy, since the full book is available
for downloading at: http://mises.org/books/thinking.pdf

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
>>>> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
>>>> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
>>>> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
>>>> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
>>> portions of treats.
>>>
>> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]
>
> *Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
> effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
> in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
> health (as I hope mine are also not).

No, the occasions are infrequent and small enough in quantity that I
am highly confident that no detriment from them will occur. :>) **Kitty]

Meta
This is the separated second part of my response to the previous, much
too large message.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> However, our
>>>>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
>>>>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
>>>> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
>>>> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
>>>> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
>>>> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
>>>> useful in its accomplishment.
>>>>
>>> I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
>>> days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
>>> systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>>>
>> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
>> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?
>>
>
> I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
> point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
> accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently).

This is true, but what you do not realize is that the body does that
naturally (ie maintains level of strength sufficiently in excess of
normal activity levels to enable the needed occasional excursions and
to prevent accidents). You do not have to attempt to order and direct
from on-high what is an age-old far more optimally ordering system
than you can possibly do with your conscious mind based on very
limited knowledge of its detailed intricacies. What you are trying to
do for your body is much the same as governments trying to direct the
naturally self-ordering free market. This is far different than what I
am doing with respect to my nutrition and supplements. Here I am simply
providing to the body everything that I think might be useful to
it. The body is left to its own decision making whether and how much to
use that which I provide for it. My view is that the body knows best -
at least at the present level of knowledge - and will do far better
than anything that I can currently direct it to do.

> Having
> a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
> daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
> than what is required.

Yes, except that if your daily living activities are not enormously
variable in strength requirements, then it is simply impossible for
your strength to be too low to do them effectively and safely, with
the possible exception of when a person is very old. As I said above
and previously, the body will look after itself extremely well if you
simply give it the necessary substrate, are sensitive to its wants for
activity and leave it look after itself.

Kitty and I were discussing this need for exercise and strength
training as a readiness factor and the only current occupation in
which we could see that as necessary was with firemen and emergency
rescue personnel. These people are often doing nothing relative to
their direct work for many days (or even sometimes weeks) and then are
suddenly required to have enormous strength, stamina and endurance.
Therefore, it is imperative that they be in constant training to be in
a state of readiness for such a crisis situation.

> Should I be at a level of strength that is
> lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities,

The normal healthy young body *cannot* be in such a state, unless
after a period of sickness and/or other cessation of those daily
activities.

> I think
> I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
> harm.

Forget this "possibility", since it cannot happen!!

> OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
> activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
> execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
> strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

That is correct. You *can* only struggle with some activities that are
in fact quite a bit *above* those of your normal daily level. And to
the extent that you do start doing such activities and struggling a
bit with them, then in no time at all (2 or 3 weeks at most) your
strength will increase above the level necessary so that you are no
longer struggling. You will effectively have increased the level of
your daily activities to a higher plateau.

>>> I do take many
>>> opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
>>> wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
>>> the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
>>> However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
>>> motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
>>> in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
>>> flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
>>> of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
>>> understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
>>> falls, so I want to correct this.
>>>
>> You are "putting the cart before the horse".
>
> Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
> level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
> lower the risk of accidental injury.

Yes, but the healthy young body maintains that naturally without any
special attention and "forcing" on your part.

>> If you do maintain your
>> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
>> be maintained sufficiently to do so.

Note that I have been saying the same thing all along, but you still
are not getting the message (or perhaps simply don't "believe" me).
Once again the healthy young body is an enormously complex and highly
optimal self-ordering system in all its aspects. All that it needs is
the right substrate (nutrients), environment  (sleep, clean air,
appropriate temperature and humidity) and stimulation (constant daily
physical and mental activities appropriate to the state that it needs
to be in for your ongoing requirements of it) and then to be left
alone to work its own amazing and wondrous self-ordering processes. It
is totally arrogant of anyone to think that s/he knows better than
millions of years of evolutionary development about what the body
should be doing. Note that I am talking here about the normal healthy
young body that is in a high state of homeostasis. I am not talking
about diseased states including aging decline and dysfunction. In the
short run the body knows best, but in the much longer run (dozens of
years) then it will have to be tweaked in many ways to prevent so much
change that the potential for homeostasis is eventually lost.

>> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
>> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
>> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
>> pursue it. **Kitty]
>>
>>> However, I don't think my current
>>> bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>>>
>> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?
>
> I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
> more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
> stronger than I need to be.

You certainly do. Worse, you have this crazy idea that *you* must
order your body what to do because it (your body) is too stupid to
know how to look after itself. Instead, you need to do less thinking
and ordering and more listening and observing. I do not "exercise" at
all and my body, even at 71, still responds beautifully to the need
for a high rate of activity.

[An explanation - we have not this 6 months in AZ made use of the
exercise equipment in our basement. We have been so busy that we
haven't wanted to take the time to do so and Paul does not enjoy it
anyway. I've instead a number of times purposely gone out in the yard
to do maintenance work just to breakup the computer sets and at times
Paul has joined me. (We have some of the best manicured creosote
bushes around and the remaining rose bushes are in plentiful bloom
right now.) Despite this lack of purposeful artificial exercise, we
have not at all lacked for lots of energy when dancing at numerous
regular and special events. Remember, we make use of all the
opportunities for natural exercise everyday and they are numerous. Our
every 3 month order from LEF just arrived and there was lots of
lifting, bending, stretching, stair climbing with just that! **Kitty]

> Taking the time and effort to maintain
> this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
> time.

Absolutely! I hope that you will really start to understand that and
respond to it. There are so many other important and much more
mentally stimulating things to do with the time.

>>> So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
>>> I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>>>
>> So what?
>
> From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
> non-use.

Not until much later years, not likely till 80-90 plus if you maintain
excellent health. Certainly at 71+ I still have no sign of any such
aging decline. In any case if you do not use them, then what does it
matter if they decline in strength beyond just above what is required
for your normal daily activities? As for muscle *mass*, I can only see
negatives to any rational evaluation of that.

> Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
> that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
> group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
> design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
> rarely use.

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself. Once again what does it
matter if you lose strength in those muscles which you use very little
in daily activities and only maintains a little more than sufficient
strength for those activities, which, as I said before, the body will
do quite will without your *enforcement*, thank you.

> Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
> range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
> work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
> use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
> use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
> do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

In that case (you are about to significantly change your level of
activities) you can either get them ready beforehand by exercising
them or simply do so "on the job" when the time arrives. I am reminded
here of the old Chinese Kung-fu martial arts movies, where a young lad
comes to the Shoalin temple to learn martial arts and they accept him,
but all he is told to do is to clean the whole place from top to
bottom. Of course, this is all very hard work carrying large water
pails, washing floors, etc, (all important muscle groups, I expect)
and he struggles with it very unhappily because he so wanted to learn
martial arts and become an expert fighter (often to right a wrong done
to his family). However as the picture progresses we soon see him
lifting the pails and washing the floors with speed, joy and high
agility and ability. He is *now* ready to begin martial arts training!
Again the body will do what is appropriate to your situation if you
only provide the situation and leave it to do so.

>> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
>> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
>> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?
>
> I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
> I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
> for anything.

Wait until you know if you will need some more muscles rather than
wasting your time (not to mention stressing your whole system
unnecessarily) preparing for something that may never come.

>> Any healthy young
>> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
>> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
>> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
>> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
>> that we do
>
> I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

No. The only weights I ever use are 5 lb hand dumbbells, one in each
hand when I am running or dancing around the basement and swinging my
arms around. My upper body strength is a bit lower than I would like
by which I mean it is not really sufficient to do some lifting
activities that I am very occasionally (once every few months) called
on to do. Unfortunately, I do not do these frequently enough that my
body keeps itself read for them (not like my dancing, which I only do
it once a week but my body keeps fully ready for). If you have some
such exercise then it would perhaps make sense to exercise to keep
your strength ready for it. But I really don't have the interest in
doing so. I can either simply struggle with those occasional
activities (not a big deal and soon over with) or I can use a carrying
cart, levers or get help from Kitty. It is not worth all the ]
preparation time to have the strength ready to do them since it is not
a matter of life and death.

>> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
>> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
>> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
>> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
>> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
>> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
>> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
>> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
>> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
>> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.
>
> It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
> for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
> activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
> think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
> especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
> home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
> the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
> do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
> it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
> this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

Now you are thinking more the right way. Your body will respond to
produce the necessary strength when and as necessary.

> I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
> prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
> since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
> developing muscle mass.

And that muscle mass is a continuous drain on the servicing resources
of your body. You would be better rid of it.

> So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
> muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),

Not until many decades from now and perhaps not then if you use the
correct prevention methods. You are taking what is true for the
average person on the SAD (standard american diet) as *necessarily*
being also true for you!! I *never* accept what is true for the
average person as being true for me. I am a unique individual in every
way and am determined to continue to be far different than the
average. Who wants to be average? - YUCK!!

[Especially when the average is derived with currently so many in such poor
state of physical well-being. **Kitty]

> at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
> muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
> *less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
> less muscle mass at the same age.

Again you are planning too much (yes one *can* plan too much,
particularly when you have so little knowledge and control over what
will happen in the future). You have bought into a bill of goods on
this silly notion that sarcopenia for no good reason must necessary
happen to everyone. Nonsense!

>> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
>> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
>> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html
>
> I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
> think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
> that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
> morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
> forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

The dumbbells that you seen in my hands in the one picture are the 5
lbs ones mentioned above (hardly lifting weights). However, while I
did last winter here (2007-2008) use the gym equipment downstairs
reasonably often (still disliking it but mainly accompany Kitty who
enjoys it more), this last winter I have had far more important things
to do and neither of us have been down to use the basement gym once or
even fast walked/jogged around the block for that matter. I am
particularly negative on doing the exercise because I find that not
doing so (as this year) makes no difference on my readiness ability
to dance very hard and long when I feel like it and get the chance. So
if there is no sign of benefit and need of the exercise then why
should I waste my time (and time of very reduced happiness rate) doing
it?

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
>>> the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
>>> intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
>>> per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
>>> (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
>>> lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
>>> lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
>>> immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
>>> systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
>>> neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
>>> shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
>>> the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
>>> due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
>>> training has improved this also),
>>>
>> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
>> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.
>
> I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
> weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
> weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

If this were not fixable by any other method then it would be a good
reason to lift weights. However, I think it is more likely that this
is a result of your high BMI (due to all the muscle mass sitting
there) combined with bad posture or at least insufficient constant
attention on your posture - head high, chest out, belly in, back
straight, bounce in your step, air of great lighlness and confidence.
Think of the image of Howard Roark - and can you ever imagine him
*exercising*?? NO. he had no need of it. His body was always ready
because his mind and spirit was. (Mind you, he also needed to provide
it with good nutrition, something unfortunately for her about which
Ayn Rand knew nothing and paid for it by death at a far too early age.)

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
>>> me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
>>> a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
>>> what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>>>
>> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
>> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
>> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
>> details.
>
> I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
> function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
> to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.

Only because weight lifting is more damaging to proteins, but that is
not any kind of benefit. The proteins that it damages and has to
recycle are not the functional proteins that contribute to aging
dysfunction (those are mostly structural and enzyme proteins). If
anything, the aerobic exercise should promote more building of new
enzymes because these are part of the necessary pathways of aerobic
metabolism and energy production. Aerobic exercise is much more
related to the whole body and to the energy production mechanisms than
is weight lifting. That is why it has been shown to be more health
promoting in general than weight lifting.

> Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
> protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
> would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
> exercise alone.

Yes, weight lifting is a great way to first damage your specific
muscle fiber proteins, to break them down to their component amino
acids and to then use those amino acids to construct new proteins to
replace the ones that were damaged and eliminated. Now I ask you to
explain to me what good does this do for you? More specifically, in
what way does it promote longevity?

>>> I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
>>> session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
>>> limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
>>> use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
>>> protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>>>
>> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
>> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
>> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
>> gluconeogenesis for energy production.
>
> Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
> biochemistry reading to do!

In rereading my statements above, I don't think I was sufficiently
clear. Let me try again.
1) The human body cannot use any form of nitrogen which is not part of
an amine group of an amino acid for any anabolic purposes, although it
does make great use of other nitrogen compounds, notably NO.
2) The human body cannot make any amino acids from other nitrogen
compounds, although it has a limited ability to transform some amino
acids into others. But this still leaves about 20 unique amino acids
which it must get from food and these are what are called "essential".
3) OTOH, the human body does not need much of these amino acids in its
daily diet because it can simply recycle the ones in the proteins that
it has on board. This is so as long as it is not forced by lack of
sufficient energy sources in carbs and fats to turn those on-board
amino acids into fuel and thereby make them no longer available for
protein regeneration.
4) Note that while it is generally stated that the human body does not
store amino acids as it does both carbs and fats (which makes many
people think that one must have a constant daily input of them - I
used to think that), this is highly misleading if not dead wrong! In
fact, the body does have an enormous store of amino acids since it is
composed mostly of proteins the components of which are all amino
acids. One can look at proteins as the store of amino acids in the
same way that fat cells are the store of fatty acids and glycogen is
the store of glucose.
Yes is true that amino acids from proteolysis are not as quickly
available as is glucose from glycogen (fatty acids from fat cells is
somewhere in between). But so what? If your body need the amino acids
from proteolysis then this will cause the proteolysis to be
upregulated and to produce them. That is the purpose and mechanism of
fasting macroautophagy and proteolysis. Not all of them are used for
fuel by any means.

Meta
Note that at this point, I have decided that I am really, really
getting tired of this discussion, which is not anything in which I am
highly interested. So I am going to skip all of what follows to get
through with this response and I will not be responding again to this
part of the thread, unless there are responses from others which
contain grave errors and misunderstandings.
/Meta

--Paul

Meta
After a social evening of dancing, last night in the shower (where I get
many of my best ideas), I had a thought about the portion of this
message which I address below having snipped all the rest.
/Meta

On 04/17/2009 02:09 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
> On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
>>> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
>>> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
>>> and having her physically with me most of the time.
>>>
>> I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
>> presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
>> happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
>> helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
>> the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
>> fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
>> wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
>> lack of hir physical presence.
>
> Yes the immediate sharing of experiences and immediate ability to
> comment and respond is what is mainly necessary. The physical nearness
> is simply a necessary prerequisite for that immediacy, and when a
> romantic relationship is also enough physical presence is "icing on the cake".
>
>>> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
**Kitty]
>>>
>> I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
>> relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
>> month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
>> supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
>> think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.
>
> Well you simply have to keep looking, never get "hard boiled"
> (unreceptive and unopen to others) and never give up.

Meta Snip of unneeded text /Meta

> In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete
> relationships that are each of benefit in an important but different
> area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
> relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
> relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
> have a more complete relationship.


You could use the Internet to search your area for groups and activities
where people more compatible to your character and interests might be
more easily found than merely during your normal daily activities.
Here are some suggestions in that direction:
1) There are "meetup" groups of all interest types in all major cities.
Check out http://meetup.com
2) Categories of interest that you might look for would be: libertarian,
liberal, humanist, objectivist, philosophy, activism, life extension,
cryonics. atheist, free thinker, utilitarian, Bright

There is an interesting one that I found right off, at meetup.com,
with the title of Positive Thinkers & Doers.

Good luck!

--Paul

Kitty asked in a private email whether Wes's doctors knew he was taking generic
Alagebrium.  A comprehensive file is kept on each patient, accessible by the
dialysis nurses and by the renal doctors.  This includes a list of
non-prescribed medications, including in Wes's case Alagebrium.  Wes's renal
specialist has never commented on any of Wes's non-prescribed medications. so I
suspect he does not know Wes is taking Alagebrium.

He did apologize some months ago for having said Wes had a bad heart.  In August
2007, he admitted Wes to hospital for a suspected heart problem.  The problem
turned out to be indigestion.  When I walked into the ward to see Wes, the renal
specialist and a cardiologist were positioned by his bedside waiting for him to
have a heart attack, and asking him if he wanted to be saved.  It would have
been hilarious if I did not have some lingering doubt whether Alagebrium would
protect his arteries as well as the research studies indicated.

These doctors could be excused for suspecting Wes had a bad heart.  People with
kidney disease and people with diabetes have a high incidence of cardiac
problems.  However, an angiogram performed the following day showed no plaque
and no heart problems, apart from a sticky valve that Wes has had for years that
had not worsened.  Wes had an ultrasound of the heart about 12 months later. 
This also received a good report.  The cardiologist's comment:  'You are a very
lucky man.'

I don't know whether the renal specialist has ever asked himself why Wes does
not have heart problems in spite of his medical history.  He has never discussed
it with us.  We are certainly grateful to have access to generic Alagebrium -
Jessie Neagle

Meta
Since the policy of both I and Kitty waiting at least 7 days before
responding to any message has not had any positive effect towards
promoting more responses from other group members, I have decided to
rescind that self-imposed restriction and simply reply when and if I
decide to. The group policy will soon be changed accordingly and a
formal special notice of this change will be sent, but I needed to place
this here, to explain my response at this time.
/Meta

On 04/17/2009 08:35 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
>
>> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
>> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
>> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
>> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
>> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
>> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
>> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
>> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
>> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>>
>> This article has come about because Kitty has thoroughly understood
>> and integrated the ideas of the Self Sovereign Individual Project,
>> particularly from the essay introducing the concept of Social
>> Meta-Needs  with it twin implementations through Social Preferencing
>> and the Natural Social Contract. I was particularly pleased that the
>> piece also required very little editing from me. Of course it greatly
>> helps that she was a part of the discovery and development of those
>> ideas, but such deep understanding and full integration is certainly
>> not beyond the powers of many others.
>>
>> We both look forward to a time when many more people (first a few,
>> then dozens and finally hundreds! :-) have accomplished this deep
>> understanding and full integration and are presenting their own unique
>> and persuasive examples and interpretations of these novel and
>> profound social ideas in practical human social action.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> [The RRND commentary webpage currently has my article at the top of
>> its list - http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary :>)
>>
>> As I wrote Tom when I sent him notice of the article's publication, I
>> purposely submitted this article, Tax/Regulation Protests are Not
>> Enough at OpEdNews.com because it is a "progressive" news site and
>> while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and
>> even in some ways what constitutes a better society, it is clear that
>> all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that
>> there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this
>> view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by
>> finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the
>> managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my
>> submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a
>> headlined article. **Kitty]
>
> Thank you for sending the notification about, and link to, Kitty's
> article on OpEdNews. I spent some time to create a profile on the site
> so I can comment on someone else's comment. I enjoyed the article. The
> following is an excerpt from Kitty's article that I will comment on:
>
> (begin-quote)"Today (2009), electronic access to countless sources of
> information (many not even available 40 years ago) and rapid lengthy
> communication with virtually anyone else can be had by the vast majority
> of those in the industrialized areas of the world and much of what is
> still on the road to "development". It is a rare person (adult and
> child) in the US who does not have access to, if not actually own, hir
> own computer; many have computer features in their cellular phones. For
> an individual in the US (and much of the world) these days to be
> informed on everything that happens currently or in the past and on
> ideas published by anyone currently or in the past is now mostly a
> matter of interest/desire/time rather than purely technical and/or cost
> availability.
>
> So the questions can and should be asked, "Why does the individual still
> need to be ruled by others? Is there not a better way now to achieve
> social order than by some centralized governing body to which an
> individual can, at best, only have an effect if part of a majority
> casting votes for a particular candidate/bond/referendum in a particular
> election?"" (end-quote)
>
> Meta
> A standard old method of quoting a long piece (as above) is to use
> "guillemets", which are either ">>" or "<<" marks at the beginning and
> end of the quote (see Kitty's example of this in her response to one
> of the commenters on OpEdNews). You could also use something equivalent
> to my Meta tags as: "Quote" and "/Quote" (which originate from the
> methods used in markup languages).

To continue here a bit more, your "(begin-quote)" and "(end-quote)"
are the right idea, but I contend that it is far better to use a set
standard for such indicators rather than for everyone to invent their
own method and thereby potentially confuse the reader with their
meaning and intention.

> /Meta
>
> I am commenting on this passage in particular because when I read it, I
> integrated several ideas which I hadn't previously considered (see my
> comment tonight to JonmarkP, where I discuss these ideas). More
> specifically, I hadn't considered the idea that the functions of
> government may be obsolete *because of* communication technologies
> such as the Internet.

This has been my thesis in all parts of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project, stated implicitly or explicitly several places therein.
Specifically, when I critiqued the founding documents, particularly the
Declaration of Independence, I observed that it: "was written with the
best of intentions and with all the knowledge and wisdom which was
reasonably possible to be held by the best of men at that time in
history." The non-technological environment (particularly with respect
to speed of communication over any distance) of the time was the major
factor limiting even the most brilliant thinkers from discovering the
ideas that I have presented in my Social Meta-Needs treatise and most
certainly would make my implementations of them not even considered
because of the total impracticality in that era of those implementations
to any significant size and extent of a society. This is why I can
both revere the founding fathers and yet find great fault with what they
wrote and did - fault, that is, with respect to any thought of its being
able to work effectively in the modern world.

In the past, and still today to some extent, in small isolated
communities the effects of information from town gossips and the service
people, who interacted with lots of locals, enabled the people of the
community to maintain a reasonable knowledge about and evaluation of
each other and thereby to effect a strong level of social preferencing
to the benefit of all. Unfortunately there were still many irrational
biases and misunderstandings used as part of that evaluation and
preferencing. The movements to eliminate such biases has had the
negative effect of also eliminating the rational aspects and beneficial
effects of such social preferencing - like the old saying "throwing out
the baby with the bathwater". In addition, once communities grew larger,
the rational aspects of social preferencing became harder to practice
and use, and nothing was left but the simpler irrational aspects (such
as one's religion, skin color, dress or hair style).

> When information exchange is as fast and
> readily-accessible as it is now (and may continue to improve), it
> greatly facilitates cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.

The Internet or successors of it will enable strong social preferencing
to once again be an effective source of social evaluation and ordering.
Just look at the current and growing enormous amount of information that
is available whenever you want to purchase a product. Eventually this
will become available for all paid services (if it is not outlawed by
governments) and then for all personal value for value services
including personal interactions of any kind. The Internet (the UCN of
my Natural Social Contract - which yes, will still expand enormously in
both speed and accessibility - it is only in its infancy as yet) will
enable all this to happen once people start to understand why and that
it is in their rational best interest to be fully open about themselves.

> However, such cooperation can't take place unless *both* (or all)
> parties pursue the same outcomes.

Yes, and this is the major stumbling point with most people. They say:
"if only *I* do these things that you ask then I will lose and others
will gain. So I am not even going to start unless and until sufficient
number of others (usually meaning at least a majority) also do so."  I
have little answer to such people other than to say:
1) If no one starts these actions, then they will never get accepted
and done by anyone.
2) You can gain personal psychological benefit from doing them by
knowing that you are acting rationally and optimally to the betterment
of society.
3) You can do them by stages starting with situations which will not
cause you that much hardship. For example do not quit your government
job today, but act to transition to honest work (where you are not
effectively the receiver of stolen funds and have no real way of
determining if you are actually worth the money you are getting) over
the next couple years.

In the end some of us are going to have to be like the early settlers
who opened up the west (and like those who began the revolutionary
war, for that matter, only we will not use violence), striking out
ahead of the others, and, yes, sometimes getting arrows in our backs.
Still I am convinced there is great happiness in the form of personal
satisfaction and self-esteem to be gained from being such a creator,
initial adopter and pioneer of a changing social paradigm, even though
I admit that the complacency and myopia of others can get very
discouraging at times.

> Pursuit of an outcome requires
> motivation, motivation requires interest, interest requires recognition
> of a need or desire, and such recognition requires *paying attention
> to reality* - i.e. *being responsible for one's life*.

But you cannot begin by exhorting someone to "be responsible for hir
own life". You must first lead hir to understand that the purpose of
hir life is optimally increasing hir lifetime happiness (many people
still think they are here to serve others and you need to convince
them that they their help for others will only be effective if they
first and foremost aim to help themselves to more happiness). Only then
can you begin to show hir why and that the only rational way to do
this based on the longest range and widest viewed thinking is to be
open, forthright and fully responsible for both the negative and
positive results of all hir choices/actions.

[I think that this point that Paul has emphasized is of extremely high
importance when interacting with others, and one I did not always
remember to use in earlier writings - that a person's purpose, even if
s/he does not recognize it) is to maximize her lifetime happiness. The
word as Paul and I use it means to seek to maintain or attain in life
all that is important, necessarily using long view, wide range thinking -
because that is the only means by which such maximization is possible!
Being self-responsible is a necessary method for this attaining and
maintaining, but recognizing and then beginning to proclaim the lifetime
happiness purpose to one's self and others is a prerequisite. **Kitty]

> I have read about the "democratization" of China, where such
> communication technologies are enabling individuals to discuss ideas
> that are "forbidden" by the government. However, I hadn't applied the
> same idea to the United States and other "Western, developed" countries.
> Kitty's article explores this idea by discussing government,
> inter-individual cooperation, and both of the previous, in the light
> of the historical lack of efficient communication technologies.
>
> I recommend the article.

Max, your comments on OpEdNews were well written and very helpful. I
am very pleased to see you stop holding back and spending unreasonable
amounts of time trying to decide what to do, but instead charging in
and ACTING! I would not say this for everyone, because many people
have fundamentally incorrect ideas, and action by them can be worse
than inaction. However, even without having fully read and digested
SMN and all related writings, you have shown that you have a very good
logical grasp of many of the right ideas. Therefore, it is time for
you to get involved and to learn as you go along. I look forward to
increasing amounts of such writings from you, so that you are included
among those "few" that I mentioned in my original message in this
thread (see above).

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This is to notify everyone that Kitty has written and had published on
> OpEdNews.com, http://tinyurl.com/dlzbug , an excellent article with
> the above title. When informed of the article, Tom Knapp, editor of
> RRND (Rational Review News Digest), replied that it was FANTASTIC and
> stated that it would be headlined in Monday's edition of RRND.
> Although we will also be placing this in the focus section of SelfSIP
> within the next few days, I decided that this message should be a
> special notice at this time because comments are only allowed at
> OpEdNews for a limited time after an item appears.
>

Meta
Snip of Paul's & Kitty's explanations.
/Meta


Meta
The following is a response I made to a commenter to my article at
OpEdNews.com. It covered some important aspects of the article and
touched on the commenter's reading of the SMN theory essay.
/Meta

It's not necessary that everyone... [Title]
------------------------
"be as smart as [me]", as you put it.

First off, thank you, Roy, for a very substantive comment. There are
far too few of them at those few OpEdNews.com articles, that I
actually read. I think the practice of 1 to 3 sentence comments is
common partly because the enormous number of articles that are
submitted and published every day tends to encourage soundbite types
of retorts and/or praises. It is in fact difficult, I think, for the
newbie or only occasional reader at OEN to distinguish among writers
and make time worthy evaluations about what to read, skim or just
ignore. I understand why the editors themselves do not wish to make
such essentially censorship type evaluations and publication
decisions, but the vast numbers alone makes it very hard to find the
gems among the chaff. But then this current overload is a major
problem with information on the Internet in general, which will only
be resolved when each user begins to return and gain value for all
aspects of his/her (hir) usage.

<< Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
concepts, <<

While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
inadequate for guiding social interactions. My practical suggestions -
the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
at all. The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
directly opposed to any practical application of social preferencing.
Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
interacts).

<< but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
implementation. <<

Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.

<< However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
for you too. <<

I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
evolving self-ordered society.

<< Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
People Problem." <<

No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
"school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
"practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
to those same people.

<< I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
and/or desire to understand. <<

It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
years in the late 70s and early 80s.

It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
:-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
social actions.

<< (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
beyond the scope of this article.) <<

Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.

We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/

<< I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
that there's more of them than there are of you. <<

The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
- granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
and voluntarily deal only with the latter.

Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
current government interference between parties - have a contractual
relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
(I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
"box".

Once again, thank you, Roy. The opportunity to elaborate on the
initial ideas in the article is greatly welcome. Hopefully some of
those who read the article *and* the comments will be motivated to
become more self-responsible and self-orderly, the earliest start
towards that far better and eventually optimal society that most
people seek.

BTW I noted your comment on 4/2 to another article, the last portion
of yours:
"There is no solution to the problem [of distortion of words by
politicians] as long as there are simple minded people and politicians
who want to exploit them. I don't see the balance of rational to
emotional thinkers changing anytime in the foreseeable future."
[addition mine]
Your entire reply was well worded, though cynical. Possibly now, after
reading my article and this exchange between us, you will rethink what
you wrote and see that there is a solution. Not one that will
immediately bring results, but is capable of bringing about meaningful
ones for the entire goal of the optimal society.

Lastly, I will be making this entire response of mine here at OEN into
a reply to the thread at MoreLife Yahoo that announced my article
publication. That is where continued dialog can take place on this
article and/or branch off onto the SMN theory and implications.

**Kitty

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

The upload to SelfSIP.org contains the new article that I wrote and was
published last Friday 4/17 at OpEdNews.com, "Tax/Regulation Protests are
Not Enough".

I made the time to finally wrap up another photo page from our
"adventures" in the north country - Harcourt Park Ontario :>) This one
is rather interesting with the details of dead tree felling on our
property by a professional team.

I had hoped to get all the photos from our 6 months in Ontario
transformed into pages during our time in Arizona.... but there just
never seems to be enough time. I still have a bunch showing our activity
in turning a fair amount of the 3 downed trees into 2 big stacks of fire
wood for out wood burning stove. Oh well, they are still on my list.

http://morelife.org
http://selfsip.org

As always, if anyone finds any errors of commission or omission, please
let me know.

**Kitty

PMID 16037305 (http://pubmed.gov/16037305) is titled "High-dose
thiamine therapy counters dyslipidemia and advanced glycation of
plasma protein in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats". It found that
thiamine had some benefits against AGEs that benfotiamine lacked (in a
rat model):

>We found hydroimidazolone AGE residues derived from glyoxal and
>methylglyoxal, G-H1 and MG-H1, were increased 115% and 68% in STZ
>diabetic rats, with respect to normal controls, and were normalized by
>both thiamine and benfotiamine; whereas N-carboxymethyl-lysine (CML)
>and N-carboxyethyl-lysine (CEL) residues were increased 74% and 118%
>in STZ diabetic rats and were normalized by thiamine only. The lack of
>effect of benfotiamine on plasma CML and CEL residue concentrations
>suggests there may be important precursors of plasma protein CML and
>CEL residues other than glyoxal and methylglyoxal. These are probably
>lipid-derived aldehydes.

I don't have access to the text but wonder how much thiamine was used.

StephenB

Kitty,
I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at OEN. I'll
focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you talk about
libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not fully up to speed with
the "in-line" thing.

[You have done great. --Paul]


It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a libertarian, but I
am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party. I feel that, as a rule, party politics
creates compromises that dilute or contradict founding principles. The
Libertarian Party is no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious
philosophical differences with their party platform.

That said, I do agree with the core libertarian principle that, "...all
individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
[bodies, and property] and have the right to live in whatever manner they
choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
others..."

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:

Meta
Snip by moderator of previous introductory meta comments.
/Meta

> It's not necessary that everyone... [Title]
> ------------------------
> "be as smart as [me]", as you put it.
>
> First off, thank you, Roy, for a very substantive comment. There are
> far too few of them at those few OpEdNews.com articles, that I
> actually read. I think the practice of 1 to 3 sentence comments is
> common partly because the enormous number of articles that are
> submitted and published every day tends to encourage soundbite types
> of retorts and/or praises. It is in fact difficult, I think, for the
> newbie or only occasional reader at OEN to distinguish among writers
> and make time worthy evaluations about what to read, skim or just
> ignore. I understand why the editors themselves do not wish to make
> such essentially censorship type evaluations and publication
> decisions, but the vast numbers alone makes it very hard to find the
> gems among the chaff. But then this current overload is a major
> problem with information on the Internet in general, which will only
> be resolved when each user begins to return and gain value for all
> aspects of his/her (hir) usage.

Agreed.

> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
> concepts, <<
>
> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
> inadequate for guiding social interactions.

Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.

The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in human nature
by recognizing the sovereign nature of human individuals, and guides social
interactions by defining "forcible interference" as the boundary between
acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

>My practical suggestions -
> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
> at all.

Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they sound very
libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on how a truly sovereign
(may I say libertarian) individual should avoid governmental interference and
reject governmental assistance.

>The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
> directly opposed to any practical application of social preferencing.

Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian thinking. It is
the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free choice without using
force against others.

> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
> interacts).

As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice. I believe information is owned
by the individual who created it. If personal information is an individual's
property, then unauthorized use of that information must, by definition, be
considered theft.

However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of absolute
anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it the cost of negative
social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing credit history information will most
likely result in distrust by lenders. But, if you want to be a social outcast or
hermit, it's your choice.

Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force. Misrepresenting
or withholding relevant information, so as to influence another's choice must be
considered a restitutionable offense.

Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or libertarians,
as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a basis for exploring your
ideas. I think our difference are probably more semantic than substantive.

> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
> implementation. <<
>
> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>
Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between what is
theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in the real world. I
believe the inability of many, if not most, to understand this difference, is
the primary source of both historical and current social tribulations. Any
social system that ignores, or seeks to somehow change, the reality of human
nature is doomed to failure.

> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
> for you too. <<
>
> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
> evolving self-ordered society.
>
And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the possible.

> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
> People Problem." <<
>
> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
> to those same people.
>
I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the "stupid." Maybe
someday there will be too few of them to exert control over our lives, through
their support of governments that are NOT inclined to let anyone just opt out of
their web of control without a fight.

> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
> precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
> and/or desire to understand. <<
>
> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>
> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
> social actions.

I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the Meta-Needs
treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns, and critiques than I
did before. But, I will save them for another thread.

> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>
> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>
> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>
> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>
> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>
> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
> "box".

All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm not saying
that it isn't worth the effort.

> Once again, thank you, Roy. The opportunity to elaborate on the
> initial ideas in the article is greatly welcome. Hopefully some of
> those who read the article *and* the comments will be motivated to
> become more self-responsible and self-orderly, the earliest start
> towards that far better and eventually optimal society that most
> people seek.
>
> BTW I noted your comment on 4/2 to another article, the last portion
> of yours:
> "There is no solution to the problem [of distortion of words by
> politicians] as long as there are simple minded people and politicians
> who want to exploit them. I don't see the balance of rational to
> emotional thinkers changing anytime in the foreseeable future."
> [addition mine]
> Your entire reply was well worded, though cynical. Possibly now, after
> reading my article and this exchange between us, you will rethink what
> you wrote and see that there is a solution. Not one that will
> immediately bring results, but is capable of bringing about meaningful
> ones for the entire goal of the optimal society.
>
> Lastly, I will be making this entire response of mine here at OEN into
> a reply to the thread at MoreLife Yahoo that announced my article
> publication. That is where continued dialog can take place on this
> article and/or branch off onto the SMN theory and implications.
>
> **Kitty
>
> MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
> Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
> Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
> Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
> individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

-roy

In between various activities, Paul wrote a critique of the 4/24 Mises
Daily Article, "The Principle of Methodological Individualism" -
http://mises.org/story/3409 - an excerpt from Ch. 2 of Mises' own
_Human Action_. All daily articles are also put in a blog enabling
readers to comment on them - http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp,
to which Paul submitted his critique late on the evening of 4/24. The
submission returned a screen message that the comment was being "held
for the blog owner's review", but did not appear after 24 hours, and
neither did a second attempt done some ~15 hours later. After some
correspondence with the blog owner including a first "there isn't
anything wrong at our end and there is no sign of your comment, so
just try it", and after this third attempt gave the same non-result,
he finally again acknowledged problems with the Mises Blog system.
Paul's lengthy comment was finally published on Sunday evening 4/26,
48 hours late and by then lower down in the comment list than it
could have been.

Today 4/29, Rational Review News Digest (RRND) -
http://www.rationalreview.com/news#commentary - carried this following
quote from Paul's critique (entitled by the publisher Tom Knapp  with
what I have used as the Subject line of this message) in its
newsletter today:

"Collective wholes are not any necessary part of a complete and
consistent methodological individualism. Collective wholes do not
'become, disappear, change their structures and their operation.' Only
individual actions cause these changes and not to any real existent
but merely each to hir own mental constructs which s/he refers to as
such collective wholes with various names."
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp#comment-536657

Both I and Paul were very pleased that Tom selected this portion of
the critique to highlight to RRND's readers, and I wrote him to that
effect. His response to me:

"Yes, treatment of collectives as actual existents (and moreover,
_volitional_ existents) is a weakness in many analyses. It's also an
easy habit to fall into. I occasionally make the mistake myself.
That's one reason the particular quote stood out to me in my reading."

This in itself is a significant area for discussion.

**Kitty

On 04/27/2009 11:26 AM, spboulet wrote:
> PMID 16037305 (http://pubmed.gov/16037305) is titled "High-dose
> thiamine therapy counters dyslipidemia and advanced glycation of
> plasma protein in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats". It found that
> thiamine had some benefits against AGEs that benfotiamine lacked (in a
> rat model):
>
>
>> We found hydroimidazolone AGE residues derived from glyoxal and
>> methylglyoxal, G-H1 and MG-H1, were increased 115% and 68% in STZ
>> diabetic rats, with respect to normal controls, and were normalized by
>> both thiamine and benfotiamine; whereas N-carboxymethyl-lysine (CML)
>> and N-carboxyethyl-lysine (CEL) residues were increased 74% and 118%
>> in STZ diabetic rats and were normalized by thiamine only. The lack of
>> effect of benfotiamine on plasma CML and CEL residue concentrations
>> suggests there may be important precursors of plasma protein CML and
>> CEL residues other than glyoxal and methylglyoxal. These are probably
>> lipid-derived aldehydes.
>>
>
> I don't have access to the text but wonder how much thiamine was used.


The dosages of thiamine and benfotiamine used were 7 and 70 mg/kg
weight. Since the rats used were about 250 grams, with scaling factors
the higher dosage (which was the most effective) amounts to a little
over a gram per day for a 60 kg human, which is a high dosage for a
human, but not high enough to be toxic if taken chronically.

The results were not a surprise to me, since I would not expect
benfotiamine, which is soluble and active in lipid phases of tissues,
to be a replacement for thiamine, which is soluble and active in
aqueous phases.

One of the good things about this study (likely because Paul
Thornalley was the principal investigator for it) was that it split
the control non-diabetic rats into three groups: one with standard
chow, and the other two with each of the high dosages of thiamine and
benfotiamine. Both dosages had beneficial effects on the normal rats,
but on somewhat different parameters as with the diabetic rats. This
last effect shows that both high dose thiamine and high dose
benfotiamine are highly likely to benefit healthy humans, even
synergistically if they are both are taken. Of course, quite
naturally, diabetic human will likely be even more benefited.

I have uploaded a copy of the pdf of the full paper for your further
reading and sent you the link. I have no time at this point (return
drive to Ontario Canada begins tomorrow evening) to say more about the
paper, but if you wish to elaborate on its results with another
message in this thread then go right ahead.

--Paul

Meta
[Welcome to MoreLife Yahoo, Roy - we're a few days later than planned
since we our phone here in rural Ontario was not operating per
scheduled seasonal arrangements when we returned (in the wee hours of
Monday 5/4 after leaving AZ early Friday evening 5/2) and therefore we
were without Internet connection until this morning.

First off, I want to publicly thank and commend you for taking me up
on the invitation to continue our discussion at MoreLife Yahoo. While
I have offered this invitation on numerous occasions at OpEdNews.com
and other blogs and forums in the past, you are the first person to
directly come forward and do so.

Since much of a reply to your message is fundamental to the Social
Meta-Needs theory, of which Paul is the discoverer/formulator, he is
responding directly to much of it. As is our practice and we've
described in the past, although we always edit each other's writings,
each individually takes "authorship" for any writing that s/he
initiates and organizes, which is typically any that falls into a
specific area of interest/expertise for that person.

Recently and in response to this message we have decided that we will
more often construct separate responses before then blending them
since in that manner neither of us will have hir thinking/creativity
blunted by reading the other's response first. In this manner better
overall responses should be forthcoming from our collaborative
efforts. **Kitty]
/Meta

Meta
I am going to split this response into several parts because each one
needs a lengthy explanation to be anywhere near complete and persuasive.
/Meta

On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> Kitty,
> I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at
> OEN. I'll focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you
> talk about libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not
> fully up to speed with the "in-line" thing.
>
> [You have done great. --Paul]
>
>
> It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a
> libertarian, but I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party.

Even though I always had some differences in thinking with other
libertarians (which differences were eventually crystallized in my
Social Meta-Needs theory), for want of a better description and
because my political/social philosophy was closer to that of
"libertarian" than any other currently used name, I also called myself
a libertarian from about 1975 until about 2000 when I met Kitty and
began to develop the foundation for social order that I now call
Social Meta-Needs theory. Although from about mid 80's I also used the
more explicit, but less known term, "Voluntaryist" (google it).

Before 1975, since 1962, I was an Objectivist (in philosophical
agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy), but even then also in
disagreement with some notions (which again were related to what
eventually became Social Meta-Needs theory). And before 1962 I was
essentially a utilitarian humanist without using those words, but
again those unformed thoughts of best social actions were later a
major driver for the development of Social Meta-Needs theory.

During the late 70s (before I knew better :) I was very active in the
Libertarian Party in both the Province of Ontario and the Canadian
federal political area, into which I also put a great deal of money.
However, by about 1981 my continuing reading and thinking (spurred on
by my being expelled from the Libertarian Party of Canada - long story
not worth the time) had already transformed me away from any possible
connection with a political party into a market anarchist. The
political/social structure implied by Social Meta-Needs theory is a
form of market anarchist society, but importantly one which is
effectively guided by a social contract voluntarily executed by all
members of the society (anyone who has not executed it is not a member
of that society and has none of the privileges granted to each other
by the members). I think of the social philosophy and operation of the
society so formed as being a synthesis of libertarianism, objectivism
and humanist utilitarianism.

> I feel that, as a rule, party politics creates compromises that
> dilute or contradict founding principles. The Libertarian Party is
> no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious philosophical
> differences with their party platform.

It is quite true that the nature of adhering to the format and methods
of a political party creates conflicts among those working within that
format. The reason for this is because the goal of any political party
and the methods of reaching that goal are not consistent with reality,
since the voting democratic process of majority rule by force is not
consistent with the reality of human requirements for optimum life.
Anything not consistent with reality is essentially invalid; and it is
a well known point of logic that assuming anything invalid to be true
necessarily implies results that are in conflict with one another.
However, the major reason why I disassociated myself from any
political party was because I became convinced that voting is a
fundamentally wrong method for a group of people to make any decision
affecting them all, mainly because of its implied notion of majority
rule. And rule necessarily implies that some individuals force others
to act as they decide and contrary to the wishes of those others. In
addition any centralized democratically organized arrangement attracts
those who want to wield power, if only over a few others (those within
the organization), but often do very little work of any use to anyone.

The big mistake of all political parties and of the social philosophy
behind them is to be convinced that for there to be societal order it
is necessary to have institutions making rules, and rulers enforcing
those rules uniformly on all. Even though it is the norm of systems in
reality, the notion that a society of human beings can be totally
self-ordered appears to be impossible for most people to conceive of -
ie to initially think of at all.

> That said, I do agree with the core libertarian principle that,
> "...all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over
> their own lives, [bodies, and property] and have the right to live
> in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly
> interfere with the equal right of others..."

[Before Paul responds in detail, I am inserting the response that I
created separately while we were (unplanned) offline before reading
his at all. I knew that he would reply in detail, but I wanted to
express the thoughts that initially came to my mind when I read this
excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform.

This excerpt, like libertarianism as a philosophy, is incomplete and
ambiguous. While the word "right(s)" is used as though everyone
supposedly understands what is meant by that word, it is a "concept"
itself without clarity, and therefore fraught with problems with its
use. The word "force" (or its derivative "forcibly") is ambiguous in
that it is not clear whether this is strictly physical and if so,
whether physical force is never to be applied. And what is meant by
"interfere"?  Beyond this there is the concept of "property" - how is
it defined? These are just some of the weaknesses in this small
excerpt, but they are indicative of many major statements supposedly
defining libertarianism (including big "L", the political party.) **Kitty]


I will start off by analyzing your quote above, that you say you
"agree with", to show you that and how it is ill defined, ambiguous,
totally hazy and yet still inconsistent with many actions that any
reasonable person, libertarian or not, would accept as being rational
and the correct thing to do.

First, I will analyze the possible meanings of the words/phrases in
your quote above:
"all individuals" - although "individual" has other meanings I will
assume from the context that a human being separate in mind and body
from any other human is what is meant by this phrase. If that is the
case it would be better phrased as "all human beings". However, human
beings (human individuals) come in many varieties. First, there are
the various stages of development and maturity. Second there are all
manner of individual levels and types of intelligence, capabilities
and characteristics. This enormous variety implies right off that any
specific characteristic that all of them have is going to be something
fundamentally biological such as the ability to interbreed, which is
normally the defining aspect of a given species and often all that its
members have totally in common.

"have the right" -  used in this manner, as something that one "has",
the word "right" appears to be a common characteristic or possession
of "all individuals", (better phrased as "each human being" and then
singularized thereafter). But then I must ask exactly where is this
characteristic or possession in relationship to the body/mind of a
human being. Any putative attribute of a human or existing possession
of a human being must be capable of being ascertained (effectively
measured) by some form of sensory input. Therefore if a right is an
existing attribute, characteristic or possession of a human being then
it must be capable of being sensed/measured for that human being and
if it is a common attribute or possession, then for all human beings.
Therefore anyone proposing that human beings have something called a
"right" must either describe how I might sense it, if it is a physical
characteristic or possession (such as fingers, running speed, the
approximate age of puberty, etc) or describe just how I might
indirectly ascertain it as a mental characteristic (such as
consciousness, intelligence, honesty, etc). I have looked and looked
for any human characteristic or possession to which many people refer
by the term "right" and I have never yet found any such. Because such
a characteristic or possession as a "right" also appears to be
self-inconsistent with respect to any description of it that I have
ever read, I have therefore decided that any such notion as a "right"
is mythical or illusory, and therefore, will be the source of great
confusion and harm in human thought. See my treatise "Social
Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

"to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, [bodies, and property]"
- This appears to be an attempted description of, not what a "right"
is in general, but of one kind of right (which of course is contrary
to the logic of definitions, which requires that the general category
be first understood before any element can be differentiated from
other members of that category). The phrase appears to maintain that
certain actions (a human being doing whatever s/he wishes to hir body
or property) is somehow forbidden to other human beings (the meaning
of "sole dominion") for that particular human and hir property.
However all such forbidding requires either the capability of person A
(the one who has "sole dominion over [hir own life]") to prevent any
such actions by others (or the hiring of an agent to do such
prevention) or the existence of an agreement between person A and all
other human beings to not take or prevent from being taken any of
those actions that are the "sole dominion" of person A, neither of
which possibilities appear to me to be any kind of intrinsic
characteristic or possession of person A. Certainly many human beings
would not have the capability to prevent such usurping actions of
others (or to hire an agent to do so) that are purported to be hir
"sole dominion", which leaves the only recourse for attaining such
"sole dominion" to be an explicit voluntarily agreed contract with
each other human being with whom one is concerned about hir potential
usurping of these actions of "sole dominion".
Another possible interpretation is that all human beings can or
*ought* to be able to "exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
[bodies, and property]". However, once again any such "can or ought to
be able to" depends on the actions of others and will, in general,
only be possible if those others agree. But why should they? - as I
will show below, there are many important situations where any
reasonable person will act against such "sole dominion".

"lives, [bodies, and property]" - Since a human being's body
(including hir brain/mind) and property are the only existents over
which s/he could compossibly (consistently by all human beings at the
same time) have "sole dominion", I will take it that those two
comprise the full meaning of "lives" (or for one human being hir
"life"). However, without a clear definition of "property" and a fully
reasoned argument about why such defined "property" is effectively an
extension of the "body" of a human being and therefore an essential
part of hir "life", it is entirely reasonable that some human beings
will not accept "property" as being in that category.

"and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose," - The
part of this after "right" (about which my previous comments again
apply) seems to be redundant since "to live in whatever manner they
choose" seems to have no essential difference from "exercising sole
dominion over their lives".

"so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
others..." - Here is the most contentious, ill-defined and
inconsistent part of the above quote.
First no definition is given for "forcibly", which unfortunately has
many variations of meaning for many people. Are we talking about
physical force (the definition of "force" used in physics and the only
type of force that a human being is physiologically incapable of
totally ignoring), about psychological force (the force of persuasion
resulting in alternate choices that frequently happens when some
person reads, hears or sees the actions of one or more other persons)
or about economic force (the effect on the choices of one person by
the actions of another relating to the exchange of goods and/or
services between them)?
Second, the word "interfere" is extremely nebulous, particularly when
juxtaposed with "forcibly". Is asking directions from a stranger on
the street a forcible interference with hir? After all it does use
force (the voice is a phenomena of physical force) and it does
interfere with the person being accosted, since hir consciousness is
diverted to needing to make a choice that was not there before the
voice (and perhaps gestures) interrupted hir thought processes.
Third, as I stated before there are many situations where "physically
forcible interference" is clearly the correct action, where correct is
defined as increasing one's lifetime happiness. The simplest such
example is the forcible restraint of children by their responsible
parents at certain times during the training period of the children.
Yes, for a parent to be doing the best possible job of nourishing and
training hir child such use of force should be kept as minimal as
possible, but most certainly parents have both the responsibility and
the privilege to use such force as necessary. However, even for adults
the use of physical force against the body or property of another
adult is sometimes best (again with "best" ultimately meaning "will
optimally increase the lifetime happiness of the actor).
Case 1. Person A is in a burning building unconscious and person B
forcibly picks hir up and takes hir outside away from the fire and
smoke (possibly even somewhat harming that person being saved).
Case 2. The automobile of person A is beginning to roll out into a
busy street where it will clearly harm others and will likely itself
be harmed. Person B seeing this, uses force on the property of person
A (perhaps even damaging it somewhat) to stop the car rolling onto the
street.
Case 3. Person A is lost in a wilderness and has run out of food and
water. S/he is convinced that without any change in hir circumstances
death is certain. Then s/he finds a cache (in the desert or simply a
cabin in the woods) with sufficient provisions to renew hirself and be
able to carry on to find hir way back to civilization and eventually
to hir good life. Clearly the correct thing to do is to break into the
cache and use the food and water there, rather than to simply say
"since doing so is against libertarian principle, I must leave the
cache alone and proceed on to what I am convinced is certain death".

In each case above the actions involving the *initiation of physical
force* could result in possibly grave damage to the other person or
hir property (in the last case it could be much more than merely
property, since the owner of the cache may be on hir way to use the
cache and might even die as a result of its not being there). Still,
the correct action in all of these cases (and many, many more like
them) is not to obey the libertarian principle, but rather to take the
life/harm saving action, to be responsible for any harm done by one's
actions and to, as quickly as possible, reverse (restitute) any harm
that is done by one's actions.

There are very obviously a myriad of other examples of the above kind,
but I can also reverse the situation and produce a vast number of
practical examples of actions that clearly cause harm, yet do not
involve any direct physical force by the actor on the person or
property harmed, but for which it is totally reasonable to hold the
person who is the effective cause of the harm to be responsible for
restitution of it. I invite readers to supply examples of this latter
type.

In conclusion, the core libertarian principle quoted above is simply
not fully enough defined and does not have an ethical basis that will
specify the correct actions for a vast number of human interactive
situations.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

Thanks for responding. Glad to hear that you're getting settled in without too
much headache.

> Meta
> [Welcome to MoreLife Yahoo, Roy - we're a few days later than planned
> since we our phone here in rural Ontario was not operating per
> scheduled seasonal arrangements when we returned (in the wee hours of
> Monday 5/4 after leaving AZ early Friday evening 5/2) and therefore we
> were without Internet connection until this morning.

Understood. Moving is always a pain.

> First off, I want to publicly thank and commend you for taking me up
> on the invitation to continue our discussion at MoreLife Yahoo. While
> I have offered this invitation on numerous occasions at OpEdNews.com
> and other blogs and forums in the past, you are the first person to
> directly come forward and do so.

No thanks needed. Value for value, remember. But, I wonder why others have not
accepted your invitation.

> Since much of a reply to your message is fundamental to the Social
> Meta-Needs theory, of which Paul is the discoverer/formulator, he is
> responding directly to much of it. As is our practice and we've
> described in the past, although we always edit each other's writings,
> each individually takes "authorship" for any writing that s/he
> initiates and organizes, which is typically any that falls into a
> specific area of interest/expertise for that person.
>
> Recently and in response to this message we have decided that we will
> more often construct separate responses before then blending them
> since in that manner neither of us will have hir thinking/creativity
> blunted by reading the other's response first. In this manner better
> overall responses should be forthcoming from our collaborative
> efforts. **Kitty]
> /Meta
>
> Meta
> I am going to split this response into several parts because each one
> needs a lengthy explanation to be anywhere near complete and persuasive.
> /Meta

Before I respond specifically to your comments, I think I need to make an
overall clarification regarding the libertarian statement that I referenced. I
consider this statement to be only a statement of PRINCIPLE, not a statement of
PHILOSOPHY. As a statement of Principle, it is only intended to summarize the
overall founding ideology of a political system of governance. In order to
appeal to a broad audience, by necessity, any statement of Principle must use
words with commonly understood meanings. Of course, these admittedly imprecise
words leave room for interpretation and debate.
From my reading, libertarian political/ideological principles appear to be based
on the philosophy of Objectivism. Although, I don't think that the leaders of
the Libertarian Party realize this.

> On 04/29/2009 01:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:
> > Kitty,
> > I wanted to respond more specifically to several points you made at
> > OEN. I'll focus primarily on one paragraph of yours first, where you
> > talk about libertarian concepts. I apologize in advance, if I'm not
> > fully up to speed with the "in-line" thing.
> >
> > [You have done great. --Paul]
> >
> >
> > It may be helpful to tell you that I consider myself to be a
> > libertarian, but I am NOT a member of the Libertarian Party.
>
> Even though I always had some differences in thinking with other
> libertarians (which differences were eventually crystallized in my
> Social Meta-Needs theory), for want of a better description and
> because my political/social philosophy was closer to that of
> "libertarian" than any other currently used name, I also called myself
> a libertarian from about 1975 until about 2000 when I met Kitty and
> began to develop the foundation for social order that I now call
> Social Meta-Needs theory. Although from about mid 80's I also used the
> more explicit, but less known term, "Voluntaryist" (google it).
>
> Before 1975, since 1962, I was an Objectivist (in philosophical
> agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy), but even then also in
> disagreement with some notions (which again were related to what
> eventually became Social Meta-Needs theory). And before 1962 I was
> essentially a utilitarian humanist without using those words, but
> again those unformed thoughts of best social actions were later a
> major driver for the development of Social Meta-Needs theory.
>
> During the late 70s (before I knew better :) I was very active in the
> Libertarian Party in both the Province of Ontario and the Canadian
> federal political area, into which I also put a great deal of money.
> However, by about 1981 my continuing reading and thinking (spurred on
> by my being expelled from the Libertarian Party of Canada - long story
> not worth the time) had already transformed me away from any possible
> connection with a political party into a market anarchist.

Interesting. It gives me some perspective on your intellectual background.

> The political/social structure implied by Social Meta-Needs theory
> is a form of market anarchist society, but importantly one which is
> effectively guided by a social contract voluntarily executed by all
> members of the society (anyone who has not executed it is not a member
> of that society and has none of the privileges granted to each other
> by the members). I think of the social philosophy and operation of the
> society so formed as being a synthesis of libertarianism, objectivism
> and humanist utilitarianism.

Thank you for the perspective on your intellectual growth. I started as
darwenist, evolved into libertarian, and just found out that I am an objectivist
too. However, I've got a real problem with the ethics behind the utilitarian
concept of, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." For a lot of
people, this translates into, "the good of the many, outweighs the good of the
one." Dangerous ground.

> > I feel that, as a rule, party politics creates compromises that
> > dilute or contradict founding principles. The Libertarian Party is
> > no exception to this rule. I have a couple of serious philosophical
> > differences with their party platform.
>
> It is quite true that the nature of adhering to the format and methods
> of a political party creates conflicts among those working within that
> format. The reason for this is because the goal of any political party
> and the methods of reaching that goal are not consistent with reality,
> since the voting democratic process of majority rule by force is not
> consistent with the reality of human requirements for optimum life.

Agreed. Majority rule implies minority slavery.

> Anything not consistent with reality is essentially invalid; and it is
> a well known point of logic that assuming anything invalid to be true
> necessarily implies results that are in conflict with one another.
> However, the major reason why I disassociated myself from any
> political party was because I became convinced that voting is a
> fundamentally wrong method for a group of people to make any decision
> affecting them all, mainly because of its implied notion of majority
> rule. And rule necessarily implies that some individuals force others
> to act as they decide and contrary to the wishes of those others. In
> addition any centralized democratically organized arrangement attracts
> those who want to wield power, if only over a few others (those within
> the organization), but often do very little work of any use to anyone.
>
> The big mistake of all political parties and of the social philosophy
> behind them is to be convinced that for there to be societal order it
> is necessary to have institutions making rules, and rulers enforcing
> those rules uniformly on all.

I also do not associate myself with any political party, and for all the same
reasons. Except, I do continue to vote. In the reality of today's world, I
believe it is important to "legitimize" your voice by voting, even if you're in
the minority. It forces those who would wield power over "the minority" to at
least acknowledge their existence. It certainly doesn't stop them from stealing
more and more of my liberties, but I think it may at least slow them down.

On the other hand, by voting you also legitimize the majority rule/minority
slavery system.

> Even though it is the norm of systems in
> reality, the notion that a society of human beings can be totally
> self-ordered appears to be impossible for most people to conceive of -
> ie to initially think of at all.

I don't have a problem with the concept, only with the practicality of its
implementation.

> > That said, I do agree with the core libertarian principle that,
> > "...all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over
> > their own lives, [bodies, and property] and have the right to live
> > in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly
> > interfere with the equal right of others..."
>
> [Before Paul responds in detail, I am inserting the response that I
> created separately while we were (unplanned) offline before reading
> his at all. I knew that he would reply in detail, but I wanted to
> express the thoughts that initially came to my mind when I read this
> excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform.
>
> This excerpt, like libertarianism as a philosophy, is incomplete and
> ambiguous. While the word "right(s)" is used as though everyone
> supposedly understands what is meant by that word, it is a "concept"
> itself without clarity, and therefore fraught with problems with its
> use.

Most people understand the word "right" to mean "having JUST control or choice
over." In the context of libertarian principles, the word "right" implies that
it is a "just right," since an "unjust right" is an oxymoron. I think most would
define a "just right" as, that which one has come to possess because of morally,
ethically, or philosophically justifiable reasons. What justifiable reasons?
Philosophically, rights are an extension of the self. They stem from the concept
of rational egoism. The freedom to freely control all aspects of the self for
the benefit of the self. "...endowed by our creator..." is the unfortunate way
that Jefferson put it. It's obvious that what he meant was that we are born
owning ourself, and therefore we are born having dominion over ourself. Rand
would say that "man, by his nature, is an independent being."

> The word "force" (or its derivative "forcibly") is ambiguous in
> that it is not clear whether this is strictly physical and if so,
> whether physical force is never to be applied. And what is meant by
> "interfere"?

By "force," it is understood that we are talking about coercive force, or that
which is against the will of the victim. This includes things like fraud, which
is a form of deceptive coercion.

> Beyond this there is the concept of "property" - how is
> it defined? These are just some of the weaknesses in this small
> excerpt, but they are indicative of many major statements supposedly
> defining libertarianism (including big "L", the political party.) **Kitty]

Property: Anything that is part of the self or produced by the self, including
both tangible and intangible extensions and creations.

> I will start off by analyzing your quote above, that you say you
> "agree with", to show you that and how it is ill defined, ambiguous,
> totally hazy and yet still inconsistent with many actions that any
> reasonable person, libertarian or not, would accept as being rational
> and the correct thing to do.
>
> First, I will analyze the possible meanings of the words/phrases in
> your quote above:
> "all individuals" - although "individual" has other meanings I will
> assume from the context that a human being separate in mind and body
> from any other human is what is meant by this phrase.

yes.

> If that is the
> case it would be better phrased as "all human beings". However, human
> beings (human individuals) come in many varieties. First, there are
> the various stages of development and maturity. Second there are all
> manner of individual levels and types of intelligence, capabilities
> and characteristics. This enormous variety implies right off that any
> specific characteristic that all of them have is going to be something
> fundamentally biological such as the ability to interbreed, which is
> normally the defining aspect of a given species and often all that its
> members have totally in common.
>
> "have the right" -  used in this manner, as something that one "has",
> the word "right" appears to be a common characteristic or possession
> of "all individuals", (better phrased as "each human being" and then
> singularized thereafter).

Correct so far.

> But then I must ask exactly where is this
> characteristic or possession in relationship to the body/mind of a
> human being. Any putative attribute of a human or existing possession
> of a human being must be capable of being ascertained (effectively
> measured) by some form of sensory input. Therefore if a right is an
> existing attribute, characteristic or possession of a human being then
> it must be capable of being sensed/measured for that human being and
> if it is a common attribute or possession, then for all human beings.
> Therefore anyone proposing that human beings have something called a
> "right" must either describe how I might sense it, if it is a physical
> characteristic or possession (such as fingers, running speed, the
> approximate age of puberty, etc) or describe just how I might
> indirectly ascertain it as a mental characteristic (such as
> consciousness, intelligence, honesty, etc). I have looked and looked
> for any human characteristic or possession to which many people refer
> by the term "right" and I have never yet found any such. Because such
> a characteristic or possession as a "right" also appears to be
> self-inconsistent with respect to any description of it that I have
> ever read, I have therefore decided that any such notion as a "right"
> is mythical or illusory, and therefore, will be the source of great
> confusion and harm in human thought. See my treatise "Social
> Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction at:
> http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

See my discussion of rights above. A right, as I define it above, is an
intangible, just as happiness is an intangible. It none the less exists. It's
existence can be deduced based on rationality. My argument is this: A human is a
human. It is part of the nature of humans to be independent. Independence means
that each individual human acts in a way that s/he believe will result in
greater "happiness." (however an individual defines happiness) A right then is
the expression of an individual human doing what is in the nature of humans to
do. And therefore, to deny this "right" is to deny the human-ness of an
individual.

> "to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, [bodies, and property]"
> - This appears to be an attempted description of, not what a "right"
> is in general, but of one kind of right (which of course is contrary
> to the logic of definitions, which requires that the general category
> be first understood before any element can be differentiated from
> other members of that category).

This phrase is meant to emphasize and clarify the point that no individual may
coercively control another.

> The phrase appears to maintain that
> certain actions (a human being doing whatever s/he wishes to hir body
> or property) is somehow forbidden to other human beings (the meaning
> of "sole dominion") for that particular human and hir property.

Again, for emphasis and clarity.

> However all such forbidding requires either the capability of person A
> (the one who has "sole dominion over [hir own life]") to prevent any
> such actions by others (or the hiring of an agent to do such
> prevention) or the existence of an agreement between person A and all
> other human beings to not take or prevent from being taken any of
> those actions that are the "sole dominion" of person A, neither of
> which possibilities appear to me to be any kind of intrinsic
> characteristic or possession of person A.

Yes, it is intrinsic, by way of the "nature of man" argument.

> Certainly many human beings
> would not have the capability to prevent such usurping actions of
> others (or to hire an agent to do so) that are purported to be hir
> "sole dominion", which leaves the only recourse for attaining such
> "sole dominion" to be an explicit voluntarily agreed contract with
> each other human being with whom one is concerned about hir potential
> usurping of these actions of "sole dominion".

This is where libertarians see a legitimate role for government -- protecting
individual rights from those who would infringe upon them.

> Another possible interpretation is that all human beings can or
> *ought* to be able to "exercise sole dominion over their own lives,
> [bodies, and property]". However, once again any such "can or ought to
> be able to" depends on the actions of others and will, in general,
> only be possible if those others agree. But why should they? - as I
> will show below, there are many important situations where any
> reasonable person will act against such "sole dominion".

Rational egoism will prevent rational people from initiating coercive force
against others. The irrational people however, must be met with preventive and
punitive force.


> "lives, [bodies, and property]" - Since a human being's body
> (including hir brain/mind) and property are the only existents over
> which s/he could compossibly (consistently by all human beings at the
> same time) have "sole dominion", I will take it that those two
> comprise the full meaning of "lives" (or for one human being hir
> "life"). However, without a clear definition of "property" and a fully
> reasoned argument about why such defined "property" is effectively an
> extension of the "body" of a human being and therefore an essential
> part of hir "life", it is entirely reasonable that some human beings
> will not accept "property" as being in that category.

The broader definition of property is the libertarian one. Everything tangible
or intangible that is part of, an extension of, a just possession of, or a
creation of an individual is "Property." Some individuals will indeed not accept
this definition of property. They are not "reasonable." And, they are not
libertarians, by my definition.

> "and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose," - The
> part of this after "right" (about which my previous comments again
> apply) seems to be redundant since "to live in whatever manner they
> choose" seems to have no essential difference from "exercising sole
> dominion over their lives".

Yes, redundant, on purpose.

> "so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
> others..." - Here is the most contentious, ill-defined and
> inconsistent part of the above quote.
> First no definition is given for "forcibly", which unfortunately has
> many variations of meaning for many people. Are we talking about
> physical force (the definition of "force" used in physics and the only
> type of force that a human being is physiologically incapable of
> totally ignoring), about psychological force (the force of persuasion
> resulting in alternate choices that frequently happens when some
> person reads, hears or sees the actions of one or more other persons)
> or about economic force (the effect on the choices of one person by
> the actions of another relating to the exchange of goods and/or
> services between them)?

I gave a definition of "force" above that most libertarian will agree with. It's
pretty clear what is and is not force. However, here is the second area were
libertarian see a legitimate role of government -- to peaceably resolve
disputes. Because, to envision a society without disputes between rational
individuals is a fantasy. (And by the way, it would NOT be a place I would want
to live.)

> Second, the word "interfere" is extremely nebulous, particularly when
> juxtaposed with "forcibly". Is asking directions from a stranger on
> the street a forcible interference with hir? After all it does use
> force (the voice is a phenomena of physical force) and it does
> interfere with the person being accosted, since hir consciousness is
> diverted to needing to make a choice that was not there before the
> voice (and perhaps gestures) interrupted hir thought processes.

The word "interfere" is deliberately nebulous because it is meant to include
virtually any coercive behavior.

> Third, as I stated before there are many situations where "physically
> forcible interference" is clearly the correct action, where correct is
> defined as increasing one's lifetime happiness. The simplest such
> example is the forcible restraint of children by their responsible
> parents at certain times during the training period of the children.
> Yes, for a parent to be doing the best possible job of nourishing and
> training hir child such use of force should be kept as minimal as
> possible, but most certainly parents have both the responsibility and
> the privilege to use such force as necessary.

Good point about children. They are in a somewhat special class. The libertarian
perspective is this: Parents have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their
children, ie to protect children's potential life long happiness. To the extent
that parents' use force for this purpose, it is justified, in fact mandatory. To
the extent that the use of force by a parent over their children diminishes
their potential life long happiness, it is not justified, and actionable.

> However, even for adults
> the use of physical force against the body or property of another
> adult is sometimes best (again with "best" ultimately meaning "will
> optimally increase the lifetime happiness of the actor).
> Case 1. Person A is in a burning building unconscious and person B
> forcibly picks hir up and takes hir outside away from the fire and
> smoke (possibly even somewhat harming that person being saved).
> Case 2. The automobile of person A is beginning to roll out into a
> busy street where it will clearly harm others and will likely itself
> be harmed. Person B seeing this, uses force on the property of person
> A (perhaps even damaging it somewhat) to stop the car rolling onto the
> street.

These two cases are easy. A rational egoist will understand the benefit of
living in a society where looking out for the welfare of others is accepted and
encouraged. A rational egoist, being confronted with the above two situations
would act according to his own rational self interest by attempting to prevent
or lessen harm to others. He may do it just because it makes him feel good,
which is of course also in his own interest.

But what if turn out that the people he saved from harm did not what him to
"interfere?" Our good Samaritan would be liable for the balance of damages done
vs. damages prevented by his actions. But otherwise his actions would be
considered by most libertarian as reasonable justified.

> Case 3. Person A is lost in a wilderness and has run out of food and
> water. S/he is convinced that without any change in hir circumstances
> death is certain. Then s/he finds a cache (in the desert or simply a
> cabin in the woods) with sufficient provisions to renew hirself and be
> able to carry on to find hir way back to civilization and eventually
> to hir good life. Clearly the correct thing to do is to break into the
> cache and use the food and water there, rather than to simply say
> "since doing so is against libertarian principle, I must leave the
> cache alone and proceed on to what I am convinced is certain death".
>
> In each case above the actions involving the *initiation of physical
> force* could result in possibly grave damage to the other person or
> hir property (in the last case it could be much more than merely
> property, since the owner of the cache may be on hir way to use the
> cache and might even die as a result of its not being there). Still,
> the correct action in all of these cases (and many, many more like
> them) is not to obey the libertarian principle, but rather to take the
> life/harm saving action, to be responsible for any harm done by one's
> actions and to, as quickly as possible, reverse (restitute) any harm
> that is done by one's actions.

I will answer this by telling you what I think I would do as a libertarian and a
rational egoist faced with this situation. First of all, yes, I would break and
enter to save my life on the assumption that any harm that I might cause can be
reimbursed, and on the assumption that the owner is a rational egoist, like
myself, and would surely approve of my actions considering the situation. But
what if I have knowledge that my actions will cause irreversible damage, or
death to another? I'd like to think that I would sacrifice myself rather than
"murder" another individual. But who knows what they might actually do when
faced with a life and death decision.
I don't think my actions would disqualify me as a libertarian. What would you
do, and how would your actions fit in with your meta-needs philosophy?

> There are very obviously a myriad of other examples of the above kind,
> but I can also reverse the situation and produce a vast number of
> practical examples of actions that clearly cause harm, yet do not
> involve any direct physical force by the actor on the person or
> property harmed, but for which it is totally reasonable to hold the
> person who is the effective cause of the harm to be responsible for
> restitution of it. I invite readers to supply examples of this latter
> type.
>
> In conclusion, the core libertarian principle quoted above is simply
> not fully enough defined and does not have an ethical basis that will
> specify the correct actions for a vast number of human interactive
> situations.
>
> --Paul


Libertarian principles, as summarized in this statement of principle, have been
fully defined by others much more capable than I. Your library is probably
bigger than mine. But it is my belief that the ethical basis for libertarian
principles can be found by using objectivist reasoning as an outgrowth of the
nature of humans and of rational egoism. In fact, I find it hard to understand
how anyone can call himself a libertarian without also subscribing to
objectivist philosophy.
--roy

Greetings:

I wanted to pass along this study as in the past Paul has stated that
more muscle seems to do nothing to extend life and might be even be
detrimental. This is the first study I have come across that seems to
suggest the opposite.

BTW, The BMJ is now available for free and the entire archives back to
the 1800s is now available for searching.

Erich Brueschke

Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective
cohorts
Conclusion: Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated
with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for
cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/jul01_2/a439

Meta
This is my response to the second portion of Roy's original message.
/Meta

On 04/29/2009 04:37 PM, r.roylutz wrote:

Meta
snipped portions already responded to and all previous Meta text.
/Meta

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:
>
Meta
snipped agreement portion.
/Meta

>> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
>> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
>> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
>> concepts, <<
>>
>> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are

>> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
>> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
>> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
>> inadequate for guiding social interactions.
>
> Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
> Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.

All libertarian text, that I know of, is ill-defined and ambiguous in
terms of the precise and clear meanings of the terms used (exactly to
what they apply and to what they do not apply).
No more examples, than those provided in Part 1 of this response, are
needed unless additional libertarian text is supplied.

> The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
> human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
> individuals,

What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
"nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
humans.

> and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
> as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.

1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
characteristics.
2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
libertarians against sex? :-)
3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
acceptable or found to be unacceptable?

>> My practical suggestions -
>> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
>> at all.
>
> Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
> sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
> how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
> avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.

[For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
privately;
2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
services";
3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
capacity;
4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
governments - positive social preferencing;
5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
preferencing;

Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
especially children and young people.

These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
has and will continue to point out.

While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
even while government lingers on. **Kitty]

Paul again:
In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.

>> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
>> directly opposed to any practical application of social
>> preferencing.
>>
> Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
> thinking.

Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.

> It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
> choice without using force against others.

At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
which are defined within the  formal part of its implementation by the
Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
(BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
problems).

1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.

2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner. But
again, it is first necessary to make a clear definition of just what
constitutes "force". ("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)
Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
(NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
"threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
used here is not specified. In addition, as my previous examples
showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.
Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
not correctly described as a principle at all.

[The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
"ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]

>> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
>> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
>> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
>> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
>> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
>> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
>> interacts).
>
> As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.

Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
aspects of a human Action:
1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.

Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
another human action described immediately above. The first involves
an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
second does not.

Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
Responsible Harm to another human.

> I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
> personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
> use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.

No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes (for one, the
ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
"should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
time.

> However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
> absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
> the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
> credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
> lenders.

Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
make such decisions. Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
(which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
libertarian principles do.

However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
that an Objectivist can make).

> But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.

Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
consequences. That is contrary to reality. The consequences of one's
Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
benefit.

> Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.

Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra. Please
tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
physical force initiated?

The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms. But
that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
for there to be optimal social order.

I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
in the NSC. The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under a
Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
Guilty.

> Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
> influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
> offense.

Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or not
s/he should be Restituted.

Here is an example:
I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely possible
situation:

I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set it
were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
was sold.

My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
if I had not taken that action.

Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.

In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
determined it (plus interest, of course).

It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle" (the
onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.

Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
come up with a clear definition of "relevant information" - relevant
to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
and complete definition. I certainly can't (but don't need to,
because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
differently).

> Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
> libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
> basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
> more semantic than substantive.

Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
this respect).

But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
decision of whether it is right or wrong).

>> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
>> implementation. <<
>>
>> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
>> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
>> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
>> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
>> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
>>
> Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
> what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
> the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
> understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
> and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
> seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
> failure.

You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
"theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
*theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.

Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.

Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):

"Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/

"I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
"new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
media stature, yet knows that it exists.

>> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
>> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
>> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
>> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
>> for you too. <<
>>
>> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
>> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
>> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
>> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
>> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
>> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
>> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
>> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
>> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
>> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
>> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
>> evolving self-ordered society.
> And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
> possible.

We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).

>> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
>> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
>> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
>> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
>> People Problem." <<
>>
>> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
>> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
>> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
>> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
>> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
>> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
>> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
>> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
>> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
>> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
>> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
>> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
>> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
>> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
>> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
>> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
>> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
>> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
>> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
>> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
>> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
>> to those same people.
> I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
> "stupid."

Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
SelfSIP project.

> Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
> our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
> inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
> a fight.

The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
currencies, etc).

>> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
>> precise and scholary (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
>> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
>> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
>> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
>> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
>> and/or desire to understand. <<
>>
>> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
>> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
>> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
>> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
>> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
>> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
>> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
>> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
>> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
>> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
>> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
>> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
>>
>> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
>> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
>> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
>> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
>> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
>> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
>> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
>> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
>> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
>> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
>> social actions.
>>
>
> I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
> Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
> and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
> thread.

Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org

>> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
>> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
>> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
>>
>> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
>> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
>> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
>> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
>> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
>>
>> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
>> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
>> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
>> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
>> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
>> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
>> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
>> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
>> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
>> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
>> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
>> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
>> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
>> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
>> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
>> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
>>
>> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
>> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
>>
>> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
>> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
>> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
>> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
>> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
>> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
>> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
>> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
>> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
>>
>> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
>> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
>> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
>> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
>> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
>> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
>> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
>> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
>> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
>> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
>> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
>> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
>> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
>> "box".
>
> All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
> not saying that it isn't worth the effort.

But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.

Meta
snipped the rest which was uncommented.
/Meta

--Paul

I think that the following summary, which I recently received, and
perhaps most of the linked full report will be useful reading to most
readers of this group.

--Paul

KLRI RELEASES 3rd ANNUAL REPORT ON YEAR'S TOP LONGEVITY RESEARCH FINDINGS

Vitamin D Deficiency Particularly Concerning in Older Americans


Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 12, 2009 --- Today the Kronos Longevity Research
Institute (KLRI) released its third annual report on top longevity research
findings over the last year.  Link to the report here:
http://www.kronosinstitute.org/publications/reports/sos_2009.cfm

Director S. Mitchell Harman, Ph.D. was joined by Carey Gleason, Ph.D., Associate
Scientist/Geriatric Neuropsychologist from the University of Wisconsin and
Arthur Weltman, Ph.D., Professor for the Department of Human Services and
Department of Medicine, University of Virginia to discuss the findings.  Leading
aging research institutes and advocacy groups attended the event.

"KLRI continues its mission to bring top longevity research from the laboratory
to patient care with the release of our annual report," said Harman.  "We have
seen many advances in our understanding of the aging process this year.  This
research is the cornerstone of our ability as scientists and doctors to help
people live longer, healthier lives."

The state of the science report "Grey is the New Gold 2009: Optimism in
Longevity Science" explored the following issues.

Vitamin D.  Vitamin D is turning out to be a critically important vitamin for
all aspects of health, particularly those related to aging.  Low levels have
been linked to urinary incontinence, problems swallowing (dysphagia), breathing
ability (increasing the risk of pneumonia), age-related macular degeneration,
dementia, influenza and several cancers, including colon, breast and prostate. 
Yet 40 to 100 percent of elderly men and women living in the community, and more
than half of postmenopausal women taking osteoporosis medication, have
clinically low levels of vitamin D.

Oxidation, inflammation and insulin resistance.  These are the "three horsemen
of aging," believed to underlie nearly all age-related diseases and processes. 
Current work at KLRI includes a study to see if insulin sensitizers can reduce
inflammation and oxidative stress.  Elsewhere in the country, researchers are
investigating the role of nutrition in stemming oxidation, inflammation and
insulin resistance, finding that powerful plant-based antioxidants called
polyphenols can prevent and reverse the effects of aging on memory brain cells
and function.

Telomeres and insulin resistance.  Telomeres are caps on the end of a cell's
chromosomes that help keep chromosomes stable, just as the cap on a pen prevents
ink from leaking.  With time, however, the telomere shrinks.  The shorter the
telomere, the worse the cell functions and the closer it is to death.  New
research suggests that, in addition to age, being overweight or obese can wreak
havoc on telomere length even in your twenties, thanks to insulin resistance.

Physical fitness and exercise training.  To learn more about the benefits of
exercise in preventing age-related declines, KLRI researchers have begun a study
to measure the response of fit and unfit older men and women to two acute
stressors: a blood pressure test, which increases oxidative stress, and a
psychological test, which increases neuroendocrine stress, releasing
inflammatory chemicals.  Researchers will also look for any link between
oxidative stress and neuroendocrine responses.

Calorie restriction.  Numerous studies have found that restricting an animal's
calories by 25 to 30 percent can extend their lifespan.  A five-year trial
called CALERIE (Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Restricted
Intake of Energy), which involves 250 healthy volunteers, ages 25 to 45,
assigned to either restrict their calories by 25 percent or be part of a control
group, has already produced some interesting data.  For instance, calorie
restriction reduces insulin levels, core body temperature, energy expenditure
and DNA damage.  It can also increase cellular resistance to stress proteins.

Hormones and aging.  While the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS),
designed to evaluate the effect of estrogen on heart disease in younger,
postmenopausal women, continues, ancillary studies underway could provide
interesting data on other topics.  These include menopause and age-related skin
changes and the effects of estrogen on blood cell function and the formation of
blood clots.  Meanwhile, KLRI's TEAAM (Testosterone Effects on Atherosclerosis
in Aging Men) completed recruitment and is engaged in the research necessary to
track the effect of supplemental testosterone on a variety of age-related
markers.  While both trials will examine the role of hormones in cognitive
function, research published this year from other studies found no effects from
either a low dose of estrogen or supplemental testosterone on cognition.

The Longevity Dividend.  The Longevity Dividend is based on the theory that, if
we can intervene scientifically to slow the aging process and delay the onset of
age-related diseases, trillions of dollars now spent on health care could be
redirected to schools, energy, jobs, infrastructure-the "dividend."  A group of
leading scientists hopes to convince the federal government to change medical
research funding from its focus on individual diseases to a focus that
recognizes the importance of research into the underlying biology of aging. 
Only then, they contend, can the Longevity Dividend become a reality.

KLRI Research in 2008/2009.  In addition to KLRI's longer-range studies on the
possible cardio-protective effects hormone replacement therapy in women close to
the menopausal transition (KEEPS) and the impact of testosterone on aging men
(TEAMM), KLRI conducted a number of other studies, including research published
in the Journal of the American Aging Association showing that statin use in
older adults does not negatively affect aerobic exercise or high-intensity
weight training; a March 2008 report published in the Hormonal and Metabolic
Research, which demonstrated that after 10 weeks on a high omega-3 fatty acid
diet participants demonstrated significantly greater insulin sensitivity and
lower levels of some circulating inflammatory markers, as well as releasing
fewer fat molecules; and a small pilot study that investigated the effects of
vinegar on hunger, fullness and glucose absorption over a three-hour period.


About the Kronos Longevity Research Institute (KLRI)

KLRI, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, is a leader in developing new
modes of prevention and treatment to enhance human longevity.  KLRI is the only
independent research institute devoted exclusively to translating basic
discoveries in the process of aging into useful tools, improved medical care and
healthier lives.  KLRI's research is conducted by its own highly regarded
scientists and through collaborations with some of the nation's leading medical
research centers.  Because KLRI conducts pioneering research in an area of
science that is poorly understood, KLRI offers the potential to make seminal
contributions that benefit not only the growing population of older Americans,
but people everywhere and generations to follow.

META
I never received the customary email from Yahoo that this message was
in the queue. Additionally we departed early yesterday (5/14), in rain
and squalls on an errand trip and when we returned in the latter
afternoon found that the power was out. It was only restored this
morning about 10:30am. Finding this message happened only when Paul
this afternoon brought up his Yahoo "My Groups" and therefore the
lengthy delay in its release from the queue. **Kitty
/META

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

Paul & Kitty,
Some of your new comments I believe I have responded to already. I
will indicate which ones they are rather than repeating myself. But
you made some new and interesting points here that I will attempt to
respond to the best I can. Please keep in mind, I am not engaging in
this discussion in order to win debating points. I am truly in search
of new knowledge and understanding. Likewise, I hope that my
questions, comments, objections and disagreements will foment new
ideas for you, or at least serve to sharpen your existing beliefs and
arguments.

> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@> wrote:
> >
> >> << Kitty, you present a very interesting and rational slant on the
> >> concepts of personal liberty and individual responsibility in a
> >> society. Your arguments are based on fundamentally libertarian
> >> concepts, <<
> >>
> >> While there are such things as "libertarian concepts", most are
>
> >> ill-defined, ambiguous and incomplete. While many libertarian notions
> >> are certainly in the right direction of thought and action, their
> >> ambiguous nature and lack of basis in human nature makes them
> >> inadequate for guiding social interactions.
> >
> > Ill-defined, ambiguous? Seems clear to me.?
> > Incomplete? Only in the details of its practical application.
>
> All libertarian text, that I know of, is ill-defined and ambiguous in
> terms of the precise and clear meanings of the terms used (exactly to
> what they apply and to what they do not apply).
> No more examples, than those provided in Part 1 of this response, are
> needed unless additional libertarian text is supplied.

Previously addressed.

> > The core libertarian principle (see above) establishes a basis in
> > human nature by recognizing the sovereign nature of human
> > individuals,
>
> What precisely does "sovereign" as a subcategory of "nature" mean?
> Where do I find it and how do I detect it? How do I differentiate it
> from other characteristics of human beings which one would call their
> "nature"? Specifically given any other set of characteristics that are
> of such nature, how do I determine whether "sovereign" is in that set or
> not? For example, blond hair is not part of the nature of human beings,
> but hair is. Smiling and crying seem to be part of the nature of human
> beings, but after some recent analysis of a remote amazon tribe there is
> some debate whether or not a sense of number is in the nature of all
> humans.

I assumed this was self-evident. Apparently not. I couldn't find your
definition of Self-Sovereign, but I think I can use your definition of
SELF-MASTERY ie:

Self-Mastery describes the fact of Reality that every Existent has
more direct Attributes of Possession and Control over itself, and more
direct access to Information Represented within itself, than does any
other Existent and that this "more" includes Attributes of Existents,
Information and Processes the Possession, Control or access of which
is physically impossible for any other Existent. In this regard a
Freeman can be thought of as a Self-Master.

On the topic of "Nature of Humans": I think I can comfortably define
this term (in the context of libertarian principles) to mean --
adhering to, or being consistent with "Social Meta-Needs" as I
currently understand your theory:

Social Meta-Needs - those properties of the Environment of
InterActions within Society common to all Members, which facilitate
the highest possible attainment of Lifetime Happiness by each.

> > and guides social interactions by defining "forcible interference"
> > as the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.
>
> 1) Precisely which actions are "forcible" and which are not? I don't
> want a list (which would be endless). I want clearly defining
> characteristics.
> 2) Same question for "interference"? Would not, even mutually voluntary
> sexual relations be an example of "forcible interference"? Are
> libertarians against sex? :-)
> 3) Acceptable or unacceptable by whom? And what is the action to be
> taken by whom if some action (by someone else?) is found to be
> acceptable or found to be unacceptable?

Funny! I am at least one libertarian who believes consensual sex is
NOT "Forcible Interfernce." I suspect I could find a couple of others
who agree with me on this.
But here again, I think I can comfortably replace the term "Forcible
Interference" with word DURESS as you define it in the NSC, ie:

Duress is the State of one Freeman-A (the Duressee) with respect to
another Freeman-B (the Duressor) when:

    1. Freeman-A perceives and Performs Defense against a Defendable
Threat to him by Freeman-B, or Freeman-B's Agent, and Freeman-B is not
currently a Duressee with respect to Freeman-A;
    2. Freeman-A formally Charges that Freeman-B or Freeman-B's agent
has Violated Freeman-A; or
    3. Freeman-A has received a Restitution Agreement or Restitution
Requirement from Freeman-B which is not yet Complete.

The only stipulations I will make are these: 1. I include non-physical
forms of DURESS. And, 2. I do not accept subjective assessments of
happiness as part of what you call RESPONSIBLE HARM which results from
acts of duress. Oh ya, and 3. I might want to change the term
"Freeman" with "Self-Sovereign Individual" just to make it more
universal.

> >> My practical suggestions -
> >> the listed 6 items - did not actually come from libertarian concepts
> >> at all.
> >
> > Your 6 items may not have come from libertarian concepts, but they
> > sound very libertarian to me. They are a solid set of guidelines on
> > how a truly sovereign (may I say libertarian) individual should
> > avoid governmental interference and reject governmental assistance.
>
> [For reference I am restating the 6 items from the article:
> 1. Do not make use of "government services" that can be obtained
> privately;
> 2. Initiate/support cooperative efforts that replace "government
> services";
> 3. Do not work for or do business with governments of any form in any
> capacity;
> 4. Preferentially associate with those who do *not* work for
> governments - positive social preferencing;
> 5. Do *not* voluntarily associate with those who continue to work for
> government despite being encouraged not to do so - negative social
> preferencing;
>
> Last but not least and actually primary to the preceding,
> 6. Practice self-responsibility and encourage the same by all others,
> especially children and young people.

Numbers 1 thru 5 are consistent with general libertarian
anti-government dependence principles, but a libertarian may or may
not engage in these tactics and remain true to his libertarian values.
However, #6 is pretty much a requirement, if you want to call yourself
a libertarian.

> These 6 likely have a libertarian "ring" to them because, as Paul stated
> previously, the theory of social meta-needs can be viewed as a synthesis
> of which classical liberalism (the forerunner of libertarianism) is a
> part. But the differences with libertarianism are significant as Paul
> has and will continue to point out.
>
> While a person who actually follows those 6 items will be rejecting
> much of government - especially the enforcers by way of voluntary
> disassociation - unless s/he understands and accepts the reasons
> underlying them (for why government is not only undesirable but
> actually unnecessary and why all forms of non-coercive rational social
> preferencing are both valid and beneficial actions), s/he will likely
> be hampered in attempts to persuade others, except merely by example
> of actions and results. Only when such a person understands and
> accepts the underlying principles - which may come about after simply
> practicing those items for some time, as would a insightful novice at
> any complex endeavor (an example of the inductive method by which most
> knowledge is gained) - will sh/e really be self-sovereign in thought
> even while government lingers on. **Kitty]

Lofty and laudable goal. But attainable?... maybe. I'd like to believe
so, but my rational side still has some feasibility issues to resolve.

> Paul again:
> In my experience with libertarians (not much in recent years), I have
> not seen any promote or practice either 3, 4 or 5 above and 6 is not
> particularly libertarian being also promoted by some other social
> groups that are far from libertarian - eg humanists.

Truth is truth.

> >> The idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians is, in fact,
> >> directly opposed to any practical application of social
> >> preferencing.
> >>
> > Social preferencing plays a very important role in libertarian
> > thinking.
>
> Kitty did not imply that social preferencing (not by that term, but
> rather called "the right of association") is not a major part of
> libertarian principle and action. What she stated, and you have not
> addressed, is that "the idea of privacy adopted by most libertarians",
> which includes anonymity, multiple unlinked pseudonyms and even, for
> many, a positive right to personal privacy, is inconsistent with any
> effective social preferencing between individuals in society. This is
> because, to be effective, social preferencing requires the ability to
> find out and monitor all possible information about the person who you
> are evaluating for the purpose of association (friendship or value
> exchange of some kind) and more generally, whose actions you are
> evaluating with respect to whether or not they operate towards an
> optimal increase in your lifetime happiness or not. Such effective
> monitoring/evaluation of another individual cannot take place if s/he
> is a "ghost" about whom only a little information is available or has
> the information by which s/he could be reasonably evaluated
> distributed between several unlinked pseudonyms.

I respectfully disagree. Your MoreLife group policies demonstrate how
social preferencing works without forcing any individual to give up
their personal privacy. You simply choose NOT to associate with
individuals who do not supply sufficient personal information. It's
not about the personal information per se, but about the use of DURESS
to get it.

> > It is the essence of how individuals are able to exercise free
> > choice without using force against others.
>
> At this point, because all these libertarian terms are ill-defined and
> ambiguous, I have no choice but to resort to the use of the clearly
> defined fundamental terms of the SMN theory (capitalized words below),
> which are defined within the  formal part of its implementation by the
> Natural Social Contract (NSC) - which is the effective replacement,
> within the future possible self-ordered society of full liberty that I
> am founding and describing, for the entire legal system within any
> current society (which is why the NSC is *not* a simple read). Please
> consult http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html for all definitions
> (BTW, you will not find a definition of "force" in that document,
> because in social terms it is a derivative word, fraught with
> problems).

See above response.

> 1) Social Preferencing is not the "essence" of anything. It is a
> practical method by which one individual communicates hir Evaluation
> of another individual to that other individual and, ideally, to all
> other individuals with whom that other one is Connected.

Sounds pretty "essential" to me.

> 2) Choice and force are totally unrelated things. Choice is something
> that takes place in the brain/mind. It is the Action taken as a result
> of the Choice which may or may not use force in some manner.

Okay...

> But
> again, it is first necessary to make a clear definition of just what
> constitutes "force".

See above.

("Action" and "Choice" are pretty clear.)

> Furthermore as I showed in the first part, not all initiation of
> force, even pure physical force, by one human being on another is bad
> and should be forbidden as it is by the most fundamental principle
> that libertarians hold (which most maintain is the essential defining
> principle of being a libertarian) - The Non-Aggression Principle
> (NAP), which states: "a human individual may do anything that s/he
> wants provided only that s/he does not initiate or threaten violence
> against the person or properly owned property of another". Once again
> the problems here arise from the fact that the meanings of 'Initiate",
> "threaten", "violence" and "properly owned property" are all highly
> ambiguous in the English language and which exact meaning is to be
> used here is not specified.

One could attempt to define these words more clearly. Or, one could
simply invent new words. I can understand why you chose the later
approach. But from a practical point of view, I think it's
problematic.

> In addition, as my previous examples
> showed (and uncountably many other examples are possible) even with
> totally reasonable meanings for those terms, there are many Actions
> contrary to the NAP that any libertarian would agree are correct ones.

Except for definitionally contrived conflicts, I have not seen an
action that I would condone that is contrary to the principle of NAP.
Just because someone could conceivable come up with a conflict that is
based on an obscure and generally unaccepted definition, does not make
the principle any less valid. If this were true, virtually every
principle ever conceived could be called invalid simply because
someone questions what the meaning of "is" is.

> Therefore, the "principle" is not a complete and sufficient basis to
> decided whether any human Action will or will not optimally increase
> the Lifetime Happiness of the Actor, and because of that, the NAP is
> not correctly described as a principle at all.

In my opinion, the NAP is consistent with your definition of a
"Violation," ie:
A Violation of Freeman-A by another Freeman-B is a Responsible Harm to
Freeman-A by Freeman-B or a Breach by Freeman-B of a Valid Contract to
which both are Parties.

> [The NAP formulation that Paul used above is a slightly modified one
> of Walter Block's in his article, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of
> Libertarianism" - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
> An even worse version is that of L. Neil Smith: "No one has the right,
> under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
> being, nor to delegate its initiation." The article at Wikipedia
> includes both these versions and includes the following sentence
> following Smith's: "This is considered an imprecise formulation, since
> it explicitly ignores context." In actuality all of the versions,
> including Ayn Rand's that is mentioned first are "imprecise" and
> "ignore context".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Formulations **Kitty]

I'm not sure what you mean here by "context." See, now you've got me
doing it.

> >> Even worse is the insistence on anonymity adopted many libertarians,
> >> which completely negates any possibility of social preferencing and
> >> consequently, of any advance to a society of self-responsible
> >> self-orderly individuals (which must necessarily also require the
> >> ability of each member to efficiently evaluate the self-responsibility
> >> and self-ordering actions of each other member with whom s/he
> >> interacts).
> >
> > As a libertarian, I defend anonymity as a choice.
>
> Roy, you (and many others) are confusing the two completely different
> aspects of a human Action:
> 1) whether or not a given human Action should be *Permitted* by all
> other humans, with "Permitted" meaning that the Action is neither
> prevented, circumvented, punished, has required Restitution or in any
> manner is opposed by an Action of Responsible Harm to the Actor, and
> 2) whether or not a human Action should be evaluated by each human
> with respect to its effects on hir ability to optimally increase hir
> Lifetime Happiness (for all humans at the same time), and to act in
> ways that do *not* involve any Action of Responsible Harm to the
> Actor, but are intended to effect a change in the Actor such that in
> future hir related Actions *do* promote the ability of each human to
> optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same time.
>
> Note the essential difference between those two human reactions to
> another human action described immediately above. The first involves
> an Act of Responsible Harm (initiation of physical force is one simple
> example of an Action that generally causes Responsible Harm), but the
> second does not.
>
> Attempting to Act in an anonymous manner is clearly an Action of the
> second kind, and any Action that does not involve Responsible Harm
> must be an allowable Action in response, or else one does not have
> full Liberty. So under the NSC any human may attempt to be anonymous,
> if s/he wishes, without Breaching the NSC, but any other human may
> also decide to not associate or in any manner interact with anyone
> attempting to be anonymous and to persuade others to do likewise (all
> of which are forms of Social Preferencing), also without Breaching the
> NSC. Since SMN theory implies that attempting to be anonymous has
> negative effects on the ability of all humans (including the Actor) to
> optimally increase their Lifetime Happinesses, I choose to Social
> Preference against anyone who acts in that manner. Note carefully that
> Social Preferencing includes any Action that does not Effect
> Responsible Harm to another human.

No confusion on my part. I agree with everything you say here. (in
concept at least, if not with some specifics)

> > I believe information is owned by the individual who created it. If
> > personal information is an individual's property, then unauthorized
> > use of that information must, by definition, be considered theft.
>
> No. Information has fundamentally different Attributes

Don't confuse "personal" information with "public" information. I
could provide a lengthy definition, but I think we can use the common
meanings here. I can define the exact dividing line later if needed,
but for now it is enough to say that they are objectively different in
my mind.

> (for one, the
> ability to make exact copies) than either Material Existents or Real
> Estate. In terms of the NSC metaphysics, Information is a Level-1 or
> greater Existent, or in vernacular terms one may describe Information
> as pure "structure". For that reason, the way humans should best
> interact relative to Information will not be and cannot be the same as
> the best ways to interact with respect to Material Existents and Real
> Estate (which are each also different from the other). Note that
> "should best interact" is defined as all Actions that will enable each
> person to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, all at the same
> time.
>
> > However, no rational libertarian will recommend a lifestyle of
> > absolute anonymity, precisely because it will likely carry with it
> > the cost of negative social preferencing. i.e. - not releasing
> > credit history information will most likely result in distrust by
> > lenders.
>
> Yes, anyone with *incorrect* notions will always find that the
> exigencies of practical reality will cause them to make exceptions to
> such notions. In fact, as a general rule of logic, if exceptions to a
> principle or axiom need to be made that is an indication that the
> principle or axiom is fundamentally invalid, usually because it is not
> dealing with the root and basis in reality of what is really needed to
> make such decisions.

Choosing to associate with someone who requires personal information
as a prerequisite for that association in one circumstance, while
choosing not to associate with another person who requires that same
information, does not negate the rationality of either choice. It
simply means that the value of the first association was deemed to be
more than the value of the information, while the value of the second
association was deemed to be insufficient for the price (ie-personal
information) that was required. The principles of free choice and of
social preferencing remain valid.

> Such a complete and consistent root and basis for
> making all ethical decisions is precisely what SMN theory supplies
> (which is why I think of it as an extension and correction of
> Objectivism making it consistent and complete), and which no
> libertarian principles do.

We might discuss the inconsistencies and incompleteness of Objectivism
some time. I think this is at the root of where I am having a problem
accepting your SMN theory.

> However, there is another problem with your statement above of which
> you are likely not aware. The word "rational" applied to Choices and
> Actions is a very slippery and tricky word to nail down. I had great
> difficultly myself arriving at any consistent definition for Rational,
> which I found that I could not do without (even though Mises in his
> seminal work "Human Action" totally eschews the "rational" notion). I
> have never seen any adequate definition of "rational" from either a
> libertarian or even an Objectivist (for the latter of whom it is very
> fundamental - being called "irrational" is the worst possible insult
> that an Objectivist can make).

The meaning of the word "rational" that I use, and that is consistent with
Objectivism is: "Any thought process that is objectively
logical." However, this does not imply that what is "rational" is
necessarily reality. Two people can objectively and logically arrive
at different "Rational" conclusions. But, this can logically only
happen when there is ambiguous or incomplete information. In other
words, two people can't have the same precise and complete information
and objectively and logically come to different conclusions.

> > But, if you want to be a social outcast or hermit, it's your choice.
>
> Yes, but no one can both take an Action and also not get the
> consequences. That is contrary to reality.

Exactly my point. It's a choice.

> The consequences of one's
> Actions bear the same relationship to the Actions as does a physical
> reaction to an action - recall Newton's third law of motion law: "To
> each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In the
> case of anonymity the consequences are both strong Social Preferencing
> against the person who attempts to be anonymous, and the loss of many
> contact and connection opportunities from which s/he might otherwise
> benefit.
>
> > Fraud is another matter. I consider fraud to be a use of force.
>
> Roy, excuse me for having to say this and not meaning to insult you,
> but you are merely spouting the standard libertarian mantra.

No offense taken...this time. You just don't know me very well. You
were simply unaware that I arrived at this conclusion independently
before I was ever exposed to libertarian ideas as such.

"Mantra" implies that I accepted it without question. I just mentioned
your comment to my wife. She got a chuckle out of it. She knows that I
don't accept the directions on a box of cake mix without a lot of
questioning, much less on matters of principle. She has chided me on
this aspect of my personality on many occasions.

I believe this particular concept first crystallized for me after
reading "Looking Out for Number One" by Robert Ringer, about 30 years
ago. Generally, most of my philosophical foundational beliefs were
arrived at independently, only to be reinforced later by others. I see
libertarians and objectivists as agreeing with ME rather than the
other way around.

Also, it is hard to completely agree with something, but find
completely different words to describe it. And even if this is is a
"mantra", that, in itself, is not an argument against its validity. So
then, why say it?

> Please
> tell me precisely **where** during a fraudulent exchange is any
> physical force initiated?

Force does not need to by physical. See above argument about DURESS.

> The standard libertarian (and Objectivist) answer (which I used to
> swallow too, because I had no better answer) is that fraud is force
> because if the defrauded person had known the truth, then s/he would
> have needed to be forced to make the exchanged on the same terms.

Okay, this logic works (sorta), but it's not the best argument I can
think of. As I said, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

> But
> that answer is logically a false description of what actually occurs,
> and thus skirts and prevents the discovery of a more fundamental
> reason for why fraud must generally be held to be a Violation in order
> for there to be optimal social order.
>
> I have not capitalized the word "fraud" because it is not even defined
> in the NSC.

Perhaps imprecise, but I like the word "fraud" anyway because most
people I talk to agree with me on what it means.

> The reason for this is because fraud is but one important
> example covered by the more general concept of Responsibility under
> a Valid Contract, which, in order to be valid, must have both
> Termination Clauses and Breach Penalty Clauses. Under the NSC, a
> Breach of a Valid Contract is grounds for a Charge of Breach of the
> NSC itself and consequent Revocation of all NSC Privileges if found
> Guilty.
>
> > Misrepresenting or withholding relevant information, so as to
> > influence another's choice must be considered a restitutionable
> > offense.
>
> Even if that were true, it does not equate such action to the
> initiation of physical force. But once again it is not always true
> that such a fraud is either a Violation (the NSC more general term
> replacing "offense") or requires restitution. In fact, Responsible
> Harm to a person is the more fundamental determiner of whether or
> not s/he should be Restituted.
>
> Here is an example:
> I will use the example where I roll back the odometer of my car,
> before selling it to you, because I want to get you to pay me more
> money than any reasonable person would consider the car to be worth
> based on the actual number of miles it has been driven.
> But I will not exhaustively consider all the different situations
> related to the NSC that might relate to this (whether under a Valid
> Contract or not, whether the Contract contains the odometer reading or
> not, all the harms that could result, the possible Breach of the NSC
> involved, etc). Rather I want to simply address one completely
> possible situation:
>
> I am as certain as I can be that the car is in such excellent shape
> that it will run and last as if the odometer reading to which I set
> it were true, and furthermore the car actually lasts even longer and with
> less cost than most cars that have the odometer readings at which it
> was sold.
>
> My question in this case is then why should such an action even if
> found out years later be deemed to be an offense? And what could
> possibly be the Restitution for such offense since the Lifetime
> Happiness of the purchaser is at least as high as it would have been
> if I had not taken that action.
>
> Now you may say: but the purchaser *has* had hir Lifetime Happiness
> reduced because s/he paid more money for the car than s/he would have
> if s/he had known the true odometer reading. However, this assumes
> that I would have been willing to sell the car at that lower price
> knowing full well that it was worth more, so the logic is invalid.
>
> In fact, this is one of those situations that can only reasonably be
> solved by assuming the full principle of value for value is understood
> and used by both parties. In that case, I would have not turned the
> odometer back. Rather I would have left it as is and done my utmost
> to persuade the buyer of its stellar condition even at that advanced
> mileage. Then the buyer could decide for hirself whether s/he wanted
> to pay me for the worth of the car now or later once s/he had fully
> determined it (plus interest, of course).
>
> It is also interesting that you said "withholding relevant
> information" because in my experience most libertarians do not agree
> with you here. Most of them invoke the "buyer beware principle"

Ah yes, Caveat Emptor, "Let the buyer beware." I see that I should
have been more specific above. Yes, the buyer does have a
responsibility for due diligence. However, if the buyer in your above
example had asked the seller (rather than just look at the odometer)
"How many miles does this car have on it?" Thereby fulfilling his
responsibility for due diligence. And then, if the seller had
knowingly lied about the car's true mileage, this would constitute a
"fraud" by way of INITIATING a MODIFIED EVENT by using DURESS (part
2.) and thereby causing RESPONSIBLE HARM.

Also, a VIOLATION is a violation regardless of how it may impact
positively or negatively on the future. For example: Lets say Ann is
walking home from work one night. She follows her usual route at the
usual time. Suddenly, from out of a dark corner a mugger, Bob, attacks
her. He brutally beats her to the ground and steals her purse.
Clearly, Bob has VIOLATED Ann. After the attack, Ann pulls herself
together and, with some pain, slowly walks the remainder of the way
home. The mugging attack delayed her arrival home by no more than 2
minutes. Unbeknownst to Ann or Bob, a gas leak has developed in Ann's
home. Throughout the day gas has been building up. Just as Ann turns
to up the walkway to her doorway, she is met with a horrific explosion
as the gas finally reaches a pilot light. Ann is thrown to the ground
by the shock wave of the explosion, but is otherwise uninjured. Her
house and everything in it, including her cat, Snuggles, is totally
destroyed.
I think you can see the dilemma here. Ann would have surely died with
her cat in the explosion had she not been delayed by Bob's savage
attack and had returned home on time. Ann's LIFETIME HAPPINESS is
clearly much greater than it would have been had she died in the
explosion rather than being mugged by Bob. Should Ann be thanking Bob?
Maybe Ann should pay Bob for the increase in LIFETIME HAPPINESS (she
would have to agree) that he caused her, albeit unintentionally. My
point is, you can't rationally rely only on restitution as full
punishment for all crimes. And you can't use future unintentional and
unknowable consequences as a basis for calculating restitution. A
crime (or VIOLATION) is a crime regardless of unrelated future
consequences. Bob should go to jail... at least.

> (the onus to find out information is on the buyer not the seller) to
> maintain that so long as you do not say or clearly imply anything
> false during a transaction you are within your "rights". I, of course,
> strongly disagree with that as I have done for over 30 years.

Ethically, I agree with you. But the, "What did he know, and when did
he know it?" question makes it impossible to enforce legally.

> Nevertheless your statement is fraught with problems unless you can
> come up with a clear definition of "relevant information"

Relevant was a less than precise choice of words on my part. What I
should have said is, "Factual material information as requested by the
buyer"

> - relevant
> to whom, when and in what way? In fact, I defy you to give any general
> and complete definition. I certainly can't (but don't need to,
> because the SMN and NSC handle this sort of potential harm entirely
> differently).
>
> > Please understand that I am not defending libertarian concepts or
> > libertarians, as such. I am simply using what is familiar to me as a
> > basis for exploring your ideas. I think our difference are probably
> > more semantic than substantive.
>
> Our differences are most certainly semantic, but only because of the
> multiple meanings that the words you use have in the vernacular
> language (my uneducated guess is that English is probably the worst in
> this respect).

I used to play the game of WHY when I was a child. My children and
grandchildren have played it as well. The object of the game is to
exhaust the questionee with continual questions of "Why?" to every
answer that is given. The first few "why" questions result in real and
useful knowledge and understanding being transferred. But at some
point, the questions become ridiculous and do not serve to advance the
knowledge of the questioner, but only to annoy the questionee.
In a way, this is how I feel about dissecting word meanings. It is
constructive and necessary to question the meaning of a key word,
perhaps even to question the meaning of the meaning. But I think it
starts to become counterproductive to question the meaning of the
meaning of the meaning of a word.

In responding today, I have tried to use the language and words of SMN
and NSC, but I have to tell you, I had a great deal of difficulty
following the multilevel labyrinth of meanings of meanings of
meanings. Is it just me?

> But more importantly than that, we have major differences because you
> are not basing your ethical statements on fundamental enough concepts
> to enable them to be consistent and complete (to not allow contrary
> actions that both fit your statement, and for any action, to enable a
> decision of whether it is right or wrong).

While you may see inconsistencies in my views, I do not. To me they
are internally consistent and based on fundamentally rational
concepts. So far the only inconsistencies you have shown me are in the
nuances of word definitions. However, I am holding out hope that I
will find something fundamentally flawed with my views. I love being
proven wrong. Being right may fluff the ego, but being wrong is the
source of new knowledge. Doesn't everyone feel that way? ;)

> >> << but you take them beyond principle into the realm of practical
> >> implementation. <<
> >>
> >> Yes, this article has taken principles into the practical, rather than
> >> simply repeating or lamenting as so very many articles do. However,
> >> any principle that cannot be made practical is not only useless but
> >> must, almost necessarily, be invalid. This is a point of logic and
> >> epistemology, too often forgotten, not understood or ignored.
> >>
> > Yes! It is extremely important to recognize the difference between
> > what is theoretically possible, and what is practically possible in
> > the real world. I believe the inability of many, if not most, to
> > understand this difference, is the primary source of both historical
> > and current social tribulations. Any social system that ignores, or
> > seeks to somehow change, the reality of human nature is doomed to
> > failure.
>
> You have said it very well. My only criticism is with your phrase
> "theoretically possible". I maintain that if some principle or theory
> cannot be brought to practical operation, then it is not actually even
> *theoretically* possible. It is simply invalid and meaningless.

By "theoretically possible" I meant, if your theory is correct, it's
possible. If I had simply said "possible" it would imply that I
believe your theory to be correct.

> Philosophy instructors delight in raising all sorts of theoretical
> examples such as unicorns, truth machines, people who cannot lie,
> people who always lie, etc. I reject all of these as useful for any
> purpose whatsoever. In addition, while I again totally agree with you
> about the futility of trying to change the reality of human nature,
> one has to very carefully examine human nature to ascertain just what
> is its *true* reality, before one decides whether or not something is
> contrary to that nature. I would maintain that the major problem with
> the world today is that the vast majority of people are acting
> contrary to their true nature, mainly because they have not yet
> discovered the fundamental aspects of that nature.

I do not have perfect knowledge of human nature, so I can't say with
absolute certainty what humans are capable of. However, I know what
I've seen. And I haven't seen anything to convince me that a society
of Self-Sovereign Individuals (as you describe it) is possible. I
would like to have a discussion to explore the true nature of humanity
at some point in the future.

> Kitty thought that the following quote from a story on MSNBC that she
> just saw today fitted right in here (and I agree):
>
> "Can Star Trek's non-violent utopia happen?" -
> Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention
> on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30626488/from/ET/
>
> "I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we
> don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia,"
> said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at
> the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it
> won't be because human nature changes
<http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080502-strange-humans.html>,
> or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon
> us, but because we manage to create new social structures more
> conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

"Fascinating" as Spock would say. I find this word useful when you
don't really have an opinion worth expressing, but feel obligated to
say something. Maybe that's why Spock used it so often.

> Naturally both I and Kitty strongly think that SMN theory and its
> twin implementations via the NSC and Social Preferencing *are* that
> "new social structure[] more conducive to satisfying human needs and
> values". Unfortunately neither Fox nor anyone else of academic, or
> media stature, yet knows that it exists.
>
> >> << However, as much as I might agree with your message, I can't
> >> envision it ever happening in the real world. There are simply too
> >> many ignorant, apathetic, and irresponsible people who WANT the
> >> government to make their decisions for them and to make YOUR decisions
> >> for you too. <<
> >>
> >> I don't envision "it" - large scale practice of the recommended list
> >> of items - happening in the *current* society. I and Paul are trying
> >> to find and encourage a cadre (nucleus or core group) of people to
> >> begin to use these methods and others to work outside government and
> >> lead the way for others to follow similarly. Some of the "ignorant,
> >> apathetic, and irresponsible people" will wake up and see that this
> >> works and follow suit, trying it out for themselves. But many will
> >> continue on and, like the dinosaurs, will eventually be resigned to
> >> oblivion. It is the young and even the children who are and will grow
> >> up, who are and will be open to these new ways and will become the
> >> greatest source of self-responsible individuals populating the newly
> >> evolving self-ordered society.
> > And here is where I see the practical getting in the way of the
> > possible.
>
> We are not saying that it will be easy. If it were that easy it would
> have occurred already. All we are saying is that it is possible and
> that it must be tried (all other ways have failed).

If you eliminate all that is impossible, everything that remains,
regardless of how improbable, must be possible. Does this apply here?

> >> << Who's the comedian who said, "You can't fix stupid." Well, that's
> >> exactly our problem. Unfortunately, to "Fix" society in the way you
> >> propose, you have to first fix "Stupid," at least for a majority of
> >> the population. I have recently started calling this the "Stupid
> >> People Problem." <<
> >>
> >> No, you don't fix "Stupid", and you don't even try to fix current
> >> society. Rather you build a new society completely intermingled with
> >> but largely ignoring the old one - gradually as described above - and
> >> you leave the "stupid" to fix themselves or get left behind and be
> >> eliminated by attrition. There have always been "ignorant, apathetic,
> >> and irresponsible people", but in the past they were few in number and
> >> either died off quickly or learned their lessons through reality's
> >> "school of hard knocks" and changed their behavior. The problem has
> >> only become so enormous because of the current and growing social
> >> practices (since at least the last 70 years) which enable
> >> irresponsible ("stupid") which have sought to eliminate the school of
> >> hard knock and to enable irresponsible thinking and behavior to arise,
> >> continue and even to flourish in terms of its number of
> >> "practitioners". The most recent and current economic mess is a direct
> >> result of this, though the vast majority of politicians and their
> >> supporters/encouragers are scrambling to place the blame for it on
> >> everything and anyone else than previous actions of government.
> >> Keeping the populace complacent and dependent is a necessity for
> >> governments to continue to exist; having self-responsible
> >> self-regulating individuals would lead to the obvious conclusion for
> >> vast numbers that governments are not just unnecessary but a hindrance
> >> to those same people.
> > I wish we lived in a world where we could simply ignore the
> > "stupid."
>
> Then first, start looking after your health by all possible methods so
> that you can have a very long life, and second, get involved with the
> SelfSIP project.

Thanks. Perhaps.

> > Maybe someday there will be too few of them to exert control over
> > our lives, through their support of governments that are NOT
> > inclined to let anyone just opt out of their web of control without
> > a fight.
>
> The key is to be subtle, slow, non-violent, mostly unseen, highly
> dispersed and to keep totally clear of hot issues (such as weapons,
> drugs, money laundering, overt tax evasion methods, replacement
> currencies, etc).

This is another area where I would like to have an in-depth discussion
-- on the practical application of the above strategy. I can see a
couple of major obstacles to be overcome. Rationality without
practicality is irrational.

> >> << I read your husband's treatise on Social Meta-Needs. It is a very
> >> precise and scholarly (sic) work, but way over the heads of average voters.
> >> I will admit I had to read parts of it twice myself. I enjoyed the
> >> intellectual workout, but how many people would. "The Compossibility
> >> of Ethical Egoism" is just one example of several concepts that very
> >> few of the people who show up at the polls will have the ability
> >> and/or desire to understand. <<
> >>
> >> It has never been Paul's or my thought that the majority of current
> >> readers would find his essay (and thank you for recognizing it as "a
> >> very precise and scholarly work", something that no current
> >> libertarian scholar appears yet ready to do) comprehensible. It most
> >> definitely should have taken you 2 readings of some parts - it sure
> >> did me (and more in some cases) when he was first creating it and then
> >> during revisions. Paul has always been best as a teacher for the
> >> highly intelligent and already knowledgeable, dating back to when he
> >> taught advanced software engineers about the intricacies of the
> >> super-computer hardware for which they were developing software, a
> >> course he developed himself and taught world-wide for a number of
> >> years in the late 70s and early 80s.
> >>
> >> It has always been our goal to locate those initial relatively few
> >> individuals who would be able to recognize the essential values in our
> >> ideas, now crystallized by the foundational presentation of the theory
> >> of Social Meta-Needs, through their own reading, and then
> >> question/discuss with us (in public) those areas where the
> >> implications are quite new and even radical. Our intended plan is to
> >> have many more people (first a few, then dozens and finally hundreds!
> >> :-) first accomplish this deep understanding and full integration, and
> >> then present their own unique and persuasive examples and
> >> interpretations of these novel and profound social ideas in practical
> >> social actions.
> >
> > I read some of your other foundational materials and reread the
> > Meta-Needs treatise again. I now have even more questions, concerns,
> > and critiques than I did before. But, I will save them for another
> > thread.
>
> Good, but I have already noted that your next message (in response to
> the first part of my reply to this message - which I realize now it
> was a mistake to post before this was ready), did not address any
> direct text or ideas within SMN, NSC or anything else on SelfSIP.org

I have tried to correct that (somewhat) in this post.

> >> << (I have some issues with the idea of Rights vs. Meta-Needs, and
> >> with the practicality of Victim defined restitution, but that's a bit
> >> beyond the scope of this article.) <<
> >>
> >> Now "victim defined restitution" is one of those ideas that is not at
> >> all part of standard libertarian thinking (and would be soundly
> >> rejected by most - likely for the same reasons that you are having
> >> reservations about it). And it is a pleasure to see that you have you
> >> picked up on this major item in the SMN theory.
> >>
> >> We would have been very surprised, Roy, (and actually disappointed
> >> too) if you did not have some questions/issues on what you read in the
> >> theory of Social Meta-Needs. This idea and some others did not spring
> >> fully formed into Paul's head. We had many, many months of discussions
> >> between the 2 of us - after many years of background thinking by Paul.
> >> Many conclusions held by Paul to be valid (and even more for me) were
> >> changed by his own thinking during this process. For instance,
> >> although victim-specified restitution appeared to be the only
> >> conclusion that would be consist with our discovery and full
> >> understanding of the nature of human beings, we too wrestled with the
> >> idea for quite a while before we were could accept it as workable, and
> >> only were able to do so when we began to understand the full
> >> methodology and strength of social preferencing. But I hope that you
> >> will raise your issue(s) at MoreLife Yahoo so that an in-depth
> >> exchange can take place - OEN is just not structured for this type of
> >> discussion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
> >>
> >> << I wish that more people were as smart as you, but the reality is
> >> that there's more of them than there are of you. <<
> >>
> >> The "ignorant, apathetic and irresponsible" do not really matter.
> >> These individuals are powerless without enforcers to do their bidding
> >> - granted that many of these are among the first. These latter must be
> >> negatively socially preferenced into oblivion (ostracized, to use an
> >> ancient term). It is the knowledgeable, concerned and responsible
> >> individuals who matter in the world (this is the thesis of Ayn Rand's
> >> novel "Atlas Shrugged") - and this in an essential point to keep in
> >> mind for one's self and in associating with others. Ignore the former
> >> and voluntarily deal only with the latter.
> >>
> >> Another item that could be added to the list in my article is to avoid
> >> all "voluntary" forms of taxes - those that are not built into the
> >> system such as sales taxes are in the current society. Be
> >> self-employed (a contractor) and preferentially associate with those
> >> doing the same, while encouraging others in the same manner. Strongly
> >> consider the practice of a profession or trade without yielding to the
> >> current government interference between parties - have a contractual
> >> relationship with those who want your services, which makes clear what
> >> is involved, and initiate such a contractual relationship only with
> >> those who are agreeable to the ideas in principle as well as practice.
> >> (I can imagine business cards that promote this idea...) We have many
> >> other ideas and I'm sure others can and will produce still many more
> >> when they break the habit of thinking within the government-society
> >> "box".
> >
> > All sounds good, but a whole lot easier said than done. Though, I'm
> > not saying that it isn't worth the effort.
>
> But you need to thoroughly understand the SMN and the NSC to fully
> understand that it can be done and how it actually is all done, there
> and with the addition of strong Social Preferencing.

Unfortunately right now, the more I understand about SMN and NSC, the
more questions I have.


--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.)

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 ).

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.

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 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. 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).

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]