I was just stating a tendency. I wasn't putting down specific individuals for
having "edu" in their e-mail addresses. It's like if some races have higher
crime rates than others, this doesn't mean anything about specific individuals.
Reed later wrote:
>So why not try to change the institutions that already exist?
You mean like using institutions that already exist in a different way--like
turning them into amusement parks? I guess there are all kinds of ways to use
that space.
> If
>you would
>just stop insisting that the Objectivists have cornered the market on
>rationality and
>all logical objtctive thinking eventually reduces to the application of
>three axioms
>I think we would have lots less to argue about.
Actually, I don't think objectivism as presented by Ayn Rand will necessarily
corner the market on objective thinking. I think that Rand was successful at
putting her ideas out through fiction, but there might be better methods. For
instance, Neo-Tech draws people through aggressive marketing tactics.
Pancritical rationalism has the fundamentally interactive nature of
conjecture/refutation. Languages such as Lojban may appeal to people who want to
start a new country.(Hey, that's an idea.) Things that I might not be aware of
in my current database of knowledge might have their own advantages and the same
is true for hybrids of all of the above.
> It isn't the essence of
>your posts
>that I disagree with...it's the dogged defense of the structure and your
>insistence
>that everybody use your axioms and definitions. Funny, isn't it, that in
>this post
>you point out how institutionalization of structure leads to stagnation?
As Jim G. once said, "your sweeping use of the word 'is' really weakens your
argument."
-David Rosdeitcher