RaIse Books, LLC
Breaking News

Oat oh. Gary just made another biggee discovery:

        Hope is a psycHHological concept filled with phhilosophhical meaning.
Or, that is, here is where another of Ayn Rand's observations/assertions should be considered.

That observation/assertion is: The truth or falsehood of all ... [your] ... conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of ... [your] ... definitions ... that is, definitions are at the base of all (your) knowledge.

Hope, as I define the term to match the reality of my experience, is the state of being one enters into when one is convinced that his or her goals are in fact achievable. When one can, "see the light at the end of the tunnel", one feels hopeful.

When a man is adrift in an endless ocean of water and then spots land off in the distance, the thing that wells up inside of him and overtakes his psyche is, hope .

However, it doesn't follow that "Hope springs eternal". If it did there could be and would be no: "loss of hope".

As the feeling of hope is positive, so too, is the, "loss of hope" negative.

I personally have felt both so I know that both exist.

Hope is good.

But.

Recall our definition: Hope is the state of being one enters into when one is convinced that his or her goals are in fact achievable.

And.

Notice, this definition does not say--as it is not obligated to say-- what the person's GOALS are.

My goal is for a 100% ofc ( objectivism-fair-capitalistic) society. When I feel this is actually achievable in the not too impossibly distant future I feel "hopeful".

President Obama as the current leader of the Democratic Party is feeling very hopeful (that is, hope exists in degrees) so that, "they"--the current President and his party and "their" sympathizers--are feeling very very hopeful that their goals for the society that they live in are in fact achievable.

And since I am personally convinced that the best, broadest based description of their "goals" is captured by the word, by the concept "socialism", which as described/defined by Ayn Rand (and with which I agree because it makes eminent sense) is as follows (in black; red is my comments),

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to ... the use and disposal of property ... is vested {not where it should be: in the individual, but rather it is vested where it should NOT be} in "society as a whole," {see Environmentalism laws; see some Christian's views of "stewardship" } ... with production and distribution controlled {not by whom it should be: by the individual, but rather it is controlled by whom it should NOT be, that is ... } by the state {see anti-trust laws and see your own soul's sense of freedom or lack thereof when it comes time for you to consider acting on your own human action impulses for you producing and distributing the products of your dreams and aspirations--that is, are your first thoughts, "what would I have to do to make this work in reality" or are they "what government licenses and/or environmental approvals et. al "permissions" from others do I have to get before I even begin"} ... .

The red, {bracketed} comments are my for-me comments that permit me to conclude:

I do not have to endlessly keep proving to myself that professional Democrats are more socialistic then they are capitalistic. (And, the fact that, the professional Republicans, are against "separation of economics and state" is a little bit of a different issue, that is, it is beyond the SCOPE of this current thinking so we can't pursue it right now.)

Rather, "we" repeat: "I do not have to endlessly keep proving to myself that professional Democrats are more socialistic then they are capitalistic."

But what I am obligated to do, and will do, is to look for some evidence--even one piece would be good--that suggests I am wrong in my assessment (remember, Einstein said it takes only ONE experiment to prove his theory ... wrong).

So this I plan to do and would even like to solicit your help. If you see any factual evidence that President Obama and Party and Friends are leaning towards a 100% ofc society please leave word at my blog: here (I will post this PR there for you to have a place to attach the evidence to, which of course I am very very skeptical in that I do not believe there will be any evidence so that the comments to this blog entry will forever be, 0). However, if you do find evidence and don't mind please also leave either a link to that evidence and/or directions on how to get to it so that I can read/see it with my own two eyes.

Thanks ahead.

Regards,

Gary Deering .... etc

PS
If you need some insight into what I think 100% ofc means go
here = my initial thoughts on the subject written back in the late 1990's.

PPS
While we're at it, if you, qua reader of my webstuff want a free copy of my book Yes. (Is BiO Spiritualism the answer?) [a $29.95 + free shipping and handling value] register your name and mailing address here www.raIseBooks.com before the ides of April (4/13/2009) and I will send you one. But hurry because I only have 9 left and so the first 6 people to register will get them. I'm keeping 3 for myself to write notes in as I am still prepping the manuscript for the Volume II follow on book. (The 3rd copy I just keep around and periodically reread it as I just love to read my own writing.) The 2nd of these softcover easy to write-in-the-margin aBooks I keep to write/record any new introspective thoughts I have about a topic that has really really high up there priority meaning to me and that "pops" up as I reread the book.

That is, since even I find my writing (a little bit) pedantic when I--(only a little? ... Yes.) ... when I-- reread it there are all kinds of opportunities for me to do margin-writing from which I can then later study and think about its meaning to me and how good I am in area x, or y, or z, (e.g., an unblocked consciousness of high degree) and/or "bad" in area z, or y, or x, (e.g. lazy researcher and not good enough giver of examples in my writing) and so then what (good) needs to be owned by me and/or what bad changed.

Remember, Man is a being of self-made soul. Improve yourself, improve society.

 

Gary Deering
PsycHHology Engineer
(helping phhilosophhy
build better humans)
03/16/09

RaIse Books LLC
Gary Deering

Copyright 2009 RaIse Books, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. RaIse Books, LLC is a for profit organization. Contributions to RaIse Books, LLC are not tax-exempt. gdeering.com, egoAerodynamics.com, theREALinconvenientTRUTH.com and certain other dot coms are owned by Gary Deering. All material on Gary's dot com websites and websides, including RaIseBooks.com is copyrighted. Reproduction in whole or part is prohibited without express permission. If you are interested in publishing any of Gary's material, please contact him at gary@raisebooks.com with the details to request permission. Thank you.

Email Marketing by