Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "One Sentencing" and will be moderated by Brad Wilson. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Brad. This technique is used to help you learn to summarize ideas clearly and concisely. You take the ideas you want to express, and form a short, simple sentence. And, it should be noted, this is harder than it seems at first. I've been practicing all week :) Our first question: "Why is it important that you always pass moral judgment?" you can't treat evil and good as the same Because every "is" implies an "ought" - you'd never know the "ought" unless you pass judgement. Because you need to decide who you are going to deal with. You need to know whether the people you deal with are good or bad for you. Your life depends on the judgments you make about the action of others. Because to avoid passing judgment is to give a sanction to evil. You guys have been practicing, right? :) They're good, aren't they. ;-) Yep :) Everyone seems to agree ... anyone have anything else to add? Are we voiding the "complete sentence" requirement? (grammarian) Every fact has some bearing on your existence. Well, yes ... most people type slowly, so we can let that go for now :) ok The whole idea of having a subject and predicate is that you focus on existents (subject) and their attributes or actions (predicate). Good point. Okay, so, no short cuts then. :) Betsy , so the best method is to identify a subject and pick an essential action? and form an idea of the two with as little unecessary stuff as possible between them. It's important to convey all the ideas you wish to convey, and to convey them in a clear, simple manner. Well, actually, the idea is to cram the essential part of what you want to say into a simple sentence. Since everything you want to say won't fit, you have to focus on essentials. if you can't think in a clear directed manner, you certainly can't *act* in such a way. You should always pass moral judgment so you know how the things around you will affect your life. hi Colby Moral judgement refers to man only, not everything else. er, things=people Hi, colby, long time no see. Approximating the knowledge of your listener helps you excise the extraneous. Mencken: We're trying "one-sentencing" -- a technique for thinking in essentials by summing up an idea in a single simple sentence. Okay, this one was intentionally easy to get us started. Our next question: "Why is capitalism moral?" Hi guys (and yes, I'm using this discussion to help us refresh our basic philosophy ideas :) Because it allows people freedom to produce and retain the profits of what they produce without coercion. because it is the only system consistent with man as a rational being. It is the only system which doesn't allow individuals to be used as means to an end. Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition of man's right to exist for his own sake. Cpitalism is moral because it is the only system that recognizes that individuals create wealth, and ought to be able to keep it. Capitalism is moral because it leaves men free to apply their thinking to their actions. Capitalism is system based on the principle of justice, you get what you deserve . There's a lot of ideas in there ... justice, individual rights, creating wealth, production. Capitalism is moral because it is the only system that rewards man for his productive effort. How did you all decide which is these was most important? Since reason is man's basic means of survival, his most crucial value is freedom to act on his thinking. Capitalism is moral because it allows and protects man to be moral. BradW: since man must create the good required for his survival, "production" or "creation' are more fundamental. That is capitalism's basic feature, which no other social system possesses. capitalism is moral because it regards man as an end in himself. The relationship between individuals is the key. It's a political/economic system, so the focus has to be on the production and exchange of values. Capitalism is the only system that says that this production and exchange must be free from coercion. The sentence's thrust would depend on its audience. Not an isolation of characteristics here, as in a definition. Sube, you took the words out of my keyboard :) :) Mencken, obviously, we are the audience for tonight. So, you can assume a lot about us, I think. I developed "one-sentencing" to help me clarify and organize my own thinking. Any time you share ideas, what you say will be contextual, based on all parties involved. the question indicated a more sophisticated mindset than the "average" audience. BradW: My response was to Subetai's "the focus has to be." More than one focus is possible when you aren't creating an objective definition. I usually use it when I am preparing to write something to help me focxus on my main messgae and motivation. Yes, these questions are geared for all of you. Mencken: I used "has to be" in the sense of identifying the most essential characterstic. The goal is to identify the most essential ideas and express those. if someone knew nothing else about capitalism, I picked what I'd want him or her to know. Ah, I wasn't aware of that second goal. Sorry, maybe that wasn't clear. In some cases, we'll be dealing with a whole LOT of ideas that could be expressed... You can trace capitalism back to metaphysics, but if you're condensing what it *is*, you need to view it from the point of view of economics (i.e., production/exchange of valuess). In my experience, what's pithy and well expressed doesn't always note what's essential. To not do so is almost one definition of wit. But I note that and pass on. ...the idea is to categorize these ideas by importance, and ensure you're expressing them. Setting the contex for someone else is a separate technique that I also teach in my writing classes. I use "one-sentencing" primarily for organizing ideas. When we get to the more difficult ones, you'll see what I mean :) Does anyone have anything else to add about capitalism, or should we move on? Brad: So, whether I'm addressing an expert or a neophyte, the sentence would remain the same. We're assuming here the context of your peers. The expert would know what was left out and the neophyte would be getting the essence. Stephen: How you communicate to someone else depends on their context. What you communicate depends on your context and why you want to communicate. ok Okay, moving on, here's the next one: "Who is your hero, and what do admire about that person?" (people without heros are excused from this one :) I admire Benjamin Franklin because he was versatile and accomplished in so many fields. I don't have a single hero. I admire many individual characterstics of several people. Ayn Rand is my hero because she showed me how to be rational in all areas of my life. Bill Gates because he has created so much wealth and value. You could choose one, Sube, and do that one, if you'd like ... or a similar group. Voltaire should gain the admiration of anyone who despises the barriers posed by superstition to the human intellect. I haven't got a specific hero either. Nobody completely embodies everything I want to be. I have several but my favorite in a usenet context is Henry Spencer whom I've never seen act in anything other than a supremely rational manner. I guess. Well, I admire Ayn Rand, Feynman, Da Vinci, and the original Subetai. Among lots of others. My hero is Lester Bangs, the music critic, because he shunned nihilism re baz Ayn Rand is my hero because she created a revolutionary new philosophy and wrote breathtaking and inspiring fiction. in a limited way, one of my heroes is Scott Joplin because his piano rags are utterly cheerful, complex and incredibly original. I think I'd say my primary hero is my father Ayn Rand, Rachmaninoff, and Ella Fitzgerald are my heros because they came out of heel and created heaven. segelbe: Right on! :) =hell Did anyone find any difficulty coming up with a single reason, or feel like they left something out? I named two -- am I disqualified from the bonus round? *chuckle* BradW: If you have more than one reason -- and this happens a lot -- try to sum up what all those reasons have in common. I had no difficulty. I found an important reason, a dramatic one, a personally compelling one, but not the most essential one. Like Sarah said, I can't pick one person who is/was all I want to be, but I can pick and choose things I like from a whole bunch of them. I can't find the name of the man who decided to publish Atlas Shrugged, he's one of my heros. I don't have only one reason for loving Ayn Rand -- I have two. Mencken, well, it sounds like it was essential to you, which is what you're after here. Stephen: Bennett Cerf. Next question? Innovators in every area are heroic to me , because the metaphysically given is not good enough for them Mencken: A personally compelling reason is a wonderful place to start since it usually sums up many issues in your hierarchy of values. He'll be right back. Mencken: thanks I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few months ago saying something to the effect that people who are goal oriented and actively involved in suceeding don't tend to have "heroes" except in terms of specific characteristics they want to emulate. Mencken - really? I knew he had a wicked sense of humor, didn't realize he was the guy who approved AS for publishing All my heroes are people who are versatile "Renaissance men" -- Franklin, Leonardo, Jefferson, ... Betsy: and Noel Coward? why Noel Coward? segelbe: because he wrote plays, movies, songs, acted, directed, sang, etc. Lurch: Yep, head of Random House and longtime "What's My Line" panelist Happened to 3-4 people, Brad. Keep going. Yeah. Joe: I can't quite identify with Coward's sense of life. I'm ready. Betsy: a litle depressing. Must've been something temporary. Did you see the question? Because if he doesn't, he's cheating himself out of values he could have achieved. To the extent that he does not use it he will be acting against his own life. To live his life to its greatest extent he must. because he has no means of survival besides his mind. Brad: I don't know that man _must_ always use his mind to the fullest. In most contexts using your mind as best you can does help you make the most of your time and your life. I missed the Question too. The question was: You can't hit a homerun if you check every swing! "Why must man always use his mind to the fullest extent?" Stephen, that's a good saying :) I assume by "always" you mean "consistently" rather than every waking moment. Yes. Hell, you can't even get to first base. I don't quite get that saying, Stephen. Could you explain? man ought to use his mind to the fullest extend because it is his basic means of survival. To be able to recognize, acnowledge and integrate reality. segelbe, it's a baseball analogy. Then I'd say because of the reason I mentioned before - because if he doesn't he's losing out on things he could have had. I realize that. *notices analogy swinging over her head* Man's mind, as his primary survival tool, is necessary to ensure he's achieving all he can. segelbe:Not using you mind to its fullest extent is the same as pulling yourself back at the last moment each time the ball comes across the plate. ah, ok. I notice nobody mentions something I thought of earlier today... what's that? ...you mind is like a muscle: to keep it in shape, it should have constant exercise. Yeah. And unless you push it to its limits, you'll never get any better. Not using your mind is putting your life in the hand of God, others, or what ever whim happens to take your fancy. When you hold back on what ought to be said, because it's the truth, but you fear others' reactions -- you're checking your mental swings. because not using your mind always and to the limit causes its power to shrink. You guys are really good at this :) Okay, let's move on: "Why is adhering to philosophy important in your business life?" we are assuming the philosophy is O'ism, right? Yes. ok. (eg, are business interactions any different than personal interactions?) Because morals can't be switched on and off - that'd be pragmatism - a person who's "rational" at will is fundamentally irrational. is there a difference? Lurch, many people think so. Adhering to philosophic principles is important in business because business is trade and if one doesn't trade via principles, he's being cheated. For instance, some people think it's okay to "cheat" at business, but would never "cheat" their friends/family. Adhering to philosophy is important in my business life because the long-term success of my company and career depends on it. because dealing in the business world fundamentally means trading values, and philosophy teaches you which values are worth hanging on to. My philosophical principles keep me focused on my most important concerns when I am in a narrower context like business. Betsy: In effect, they're the same principles, applied to a specific area. or rather, it teaches you to be able to determine your objectives. Currently, my business is going to school, if I didn't adhere to O'ism I'd fall prey to every Kantian, whim-worshipping, subjectivist instructor here at SCCC. Yikes! Okay, the last two here are a little more difficult, I think. Business is all about setting goals and achieving them. So is life. I think it's important because the alternative (to not act rationally in some area of your life) is just that - being irrational. Being irrational kills everything you value. Next question: "What characteristics do you look for in friends?" And, if you have space, why? :) that *is* a hard one! BradW: I like friends who can inspire me, teach me, and/or make me laugh. The primary characteristic I look for in friends is the basic capacity for achievement and enjoyment of life. I primarily look for adherence to reason in my friends, but also many of my personal/optional values must be expressed. I like people who're strong and self-confident - they're the easiest to get along with. I look for people who have the same values (at least implicit Objectivists), interests and sense of life. Acceptance of reality, rationality, selfishness, and a devotion to laissez-faire capitalism. Keep going from there, Brad. I like people who enhance my enjoyment of life. I like people who take ideas serously...be they right or wrong I like people whose demeanor tells me that this person has a specific, defined and active personality. I like people who are serious about their work. I think you'll find that "one-sentencing" is particularly good for sorting out and organizing your own, unique, _personal_ values. I think we just did describe ourselves! :) serious about ideas. I'm a person who loves many, many things and works very hard to get them. ok... dashingly attractive; intimidatingly rational. Firm but amiable. I am a person who loves life, and attacks everything he does with passion and vigor. I am a man who loves life. midas, :-) here's my one liner: "Not to trust but to know." --Atlas (from the first ride of the John Galt Line.) Hmm.. I think I'd call myself "comfortable" Brad, the final question, in case you missed it, was "Describe yourself" What was the question? I look for low maintenance high payback models when shopping for friends. (and Tom too :) Energetic, enthusistic and intelligent. I am an egoist. BradW: You used two of the questions I ask people to answer in the conference yearbooks I edit. 1) I would describe myself as ... 2) I would like to meet people who ... I take that as a compliment :) (seeing how much I admire you) By the way, your house is great! :-) That concludes the scheduled part of the discussion. Thanks, Brad. :) Enjoyed it Brad! Thanks to everyone to making this easier than I could've hoped :)