A Basic Overview of Transegoism

A General Overview of the Principles of Transegoism
“C.E.’s Another Heaven,” by Gale Titus.
Although this explanation of the tenets of Transegoism is quite basic, there is an even shorter, more basic explanation that can be found here. Transegoism can also be explained in one sentence: it…

Реклама

WE ARE EVERYTHING

IMG_0663Short Story by Ari Juniper.

I remember a time when I felt powerful, and the world, the universe, vibrated at my feet. I was a sunflower sprout, stretching, reaching toward the bright energy above, drawing me in magnetically. A natural pull that made me know I was growing tall.

It all began with a seed, a thought pushed into the dark and fed by the world. The little idea began to shake, tumble, like a snowball pushed down a hill by gravity, the little seed gained momentum as it grows, gathers nutrients from the soil, and explodes.

The first step is hardest, we want to test the water before we jump. What if it’s cold? Hesitations and justifications like stones weighing our feet to the ground. But the seed, as it’s nurtured, pushes its little head toward the sky, slowly unveiling the light. Then we jump.

Head first is best, we’re thrown into the chaos, sending ripples resounding around us. Waves rock our bodies as we gain balance. But we can’t stop here. We choose now to swim, or sink.

Engulfed in idea, we begin to transform our visions into reality. I push my arms into the water surrounding me In any direction, I pull myself closer toward somewhere new.

I move slowly at first, as I feel how the water surrounds my body and how to best move through it. I roll over onto my back, breathe air into my lungs, and float in peace, letting thoughts and waves rock me. My arm is a pinwheel and my cupped hand is submerged, and I am moved. Then my other arm follows lead and begins to act in patterns, thoughts guiding actions guiding thoughts. I slide gracefully over the surface.

I appreciate the sky and begin to wonder what lies below the surface. I have almost forgotten what it was like before the jump and remembering makes me see how far I have come. I flip, taking in air as I submerge my body, reaching my arms below me into the darkness. I pull, like a rope guiding me up a wall, and my eyes are adjusting to the lightless world below.

lake sunsetI come up for air, keeping my eyes open to take in the light. Small steps give introduction to the unfamiliar, and as I explore, I am not afraid, for fear will pull me back to the shore. The little sprout never feared, for the sun was always there, telling the sprout, “all you must do is reach, then rest, and you will grow tall.” And so the seed stretched and shivered as it inhaled the life from the light, and when the light had gone to teach others, she would rest, awaiting another lesson.

As the seed grew into stalk, she learned about leaves, from her ancestors who speak to her through her own body. She found the leaves helped her to grow faster and stronger and so she made many. And at the center was the bud, the flower waiting to bloom.

As I float, moving through the water, this new world begins to feel natural as my body discovers and learns to be one with the medium. I begin to realize that all along I knew how to move but I just needed to throw myself into the waves and remember to move to stay afloat. my ancestors taught me how to swim as I mimicked their fins and trained my lungs to hold my life.

I dive again and see a fish dive below me, shaking his tail and body to propel himself. I see his way of moving is effective and try new methods of movement, slowly discovering better ways. I practice movement and reflect on my progress, and then resurface to rest and breathe.

Breath to energy; photosynthesis to light. I begin to see how I am the seed, slowly reaching and becoming more than a seed, but a stalk, a trunk, leaves, petals and more seeds. As I grow, my thoughts grow and I am able to know that one day I will send these new seeds, grown from another seed, out into the world, scattered in the soil to be nurtured as I was.

man-on-beach-at-sunsetAs the sunflower opens herself to the light each morning, her bright eye follows her muse across the vast blue ocean above and she shines, they shine together. I reach forward, my body submerged and moving toward the other shore. I am thankful for land and rest. As I pull my body, emerge from the depths, water droplets cling to my skin like burrs, soaking into my pores. I may be moving on from this pond but the pond has become a part of me now, just as the earth and sun become and create the sunflower.

I am the seed, the sun, the swimmer, the sea. I am my ancestors, the ancient biological knowledge that pulses in my veins. I am this place, the land below and sky above that nurture my body and soul and are home. I am the fish that shows me the way, I am the rain that quenches my thirst as I grow. I am myself, I am you, I am the universe, the stars and sand and energy. I vibrate at your feet, I am the world, we are all the world. We are everything. So, jump!

RELIGION BASHING — EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL

6578_200Article by the Red Nail.

Syndicated from the Red Nail’s Awareness Act account.

(This was brought over from another site; if there are any Tobies here, I am not referring to you, specifically…)

EDITOR’S NOTE: «Toby» is another Awareness Act member.

Well.  I’m not singling anyone out (Toby…just kidding) but I do see a lot of religious…well…»bigotry» is the right word for what goes on when talking religion; both from people who dislike or don’t believe in religion and from one religion to another. Some may believe (based on my user photo) that I am a Christian. I was born and raised that way but I don’t necessarily believe in the Christian god (although I tend to lean in that direction); in reality I suppose I would best be labeled as «spiritual» with a bias toward Christianity. I have much love for Native American/Pagan/Far-Eastern and various tribal schools of thought.

This country was founded on the principals of freedom of religion and religious liberty. It has taken many other turns but that is still a big aspect of American society. We, as a nation, shouldn’t loose this. I understand that some people find religion offensive (primarily, in my opinion, because of how the people within those religions act). Please differentiate between the individuals beliefs and the religion itself. You may not agree with the other person’s beliefs but you should always respect them as a general matter. Just as there should be no hatred for someone because of their sexual orientation or race, there really should be no hatred because of someone’s religion.

religionAnd yes Christians that means every religion, including the ones you find unpopular (Muslim hating has been all the rage in this nation for far too long). Yes, they have their extremists and we have ours. If you look at the percentage of the religious populations on both sides which would have what is considered «extremist views,» a higher percentage of Christians support them within their religion than the number of Muslims that do. Check out the numbers yourself; you may actually learn something.

There is so much that other cultures can offer in the way of enlightenment — particularly in the realms of philosophy and the arts; we, as a people, should cease this divisiveness. We all need to work together. We are all (the entirety of humanity) experiencing the crisis together. In reality, I would encourage everyone to read and try to understand the religious texts of others and reread your own as well. You find new insights every time.

With Love,
The Red Nail

TRUE CHRISTIAN MODUS OPERANDI — JESUS LOVES PORN STARS

8205427Article by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

The Waikato Times ran an story on 22 January 2013 in respect to the Parachute Christian Music Festival held annually here in the Waikato which caught my attention (Porn Star Worships Gift Bible) because of its Libertarian idealism.   A church organization called «XXXChurch.com» is going to be at the festival with the Idea of starting a «fellowship» here in New Zealand.

0860d7772b18e61031fcce2f7c2d62c1_500“’They gave me a pretty pink Bible with silver edging,’ Vidis said. ‘They are really respectful, they don’t force it down your throat.’ They came up and said, ‘you do really wonderful work, but if you ever need help you can always come to Christ. Here’s a Bible.I loved that.”

I plan to make contact with them as they appear to be my kind of people; that is: Christians who don’t ride around on high horses like self righteous legalistic Pharisees preaching about how «God Hates Fags,» but instead preach the love and grace of God towards sinners.  This is how real Christianity functions: i.e. via Libertarian means, not by inciting mob violence or legalistic oppression, but via reason and compassion.

I salute them.

hooters-for-freedomEDITOR’S NOTE: The photo on the left is of Tim Wikiriwhi demonstrating for freedom in his home country of New Zealand.  It was taken by one of his detractors in order to discredit him.  He has posted it with pride in numerous places on the blog he co-founded called Eternal Vigilance.  Tim is an unapologetic defender of liberty.  Tim is an unapologetic advocate of hooters, and, like all of the men here at the Transegoist Daily Journal, is a big fan of women in general.  Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.  The Transegoist Daily Journal endorses the candidacy of Tim Wikiriwhi.

SOME PEOPLE JUST LIKE UGLY

Some People Just Like Ugly

Article by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

My mother took me out to buy shoes when I was I was maybe 9 years old, and while we were out I observed that there were a great many shoes that were functional, plain, ordinary but perfectly adequate, there were a few that were functional and pretty. And then there were a pair that were just astoundingly, inexplicably unattractive and dysfunctional as well.  As I recall they were some species of spike-heeled, platform wedge (yes, they were both), lace-up-the-side sneakers in a rainbow of baby-feces colors.  A lot of times, I can see something that I don’t especially like but I can, if I try, see how someone else might like it.  Maybe the color is not what I would choose or it’s more clunky or less practical than I like, but I can see how someone else might put less value on those qualities, but these shoes were just inexcusably unattractive, impractical and tortuously uncomfortable (yeah, I tried them on; I just could not wrap my head around them) to the point that I couldn’t even reason my way to how someone else could possibly find them desirable.  I showed them to my mother who said some of the most profound words I can ever recall hearing, «Some people just like ugly.»

I’m sure she was just expressing the thought that passed through her mind and never thought about it again, but I’ve thought about this innumerable times in the years since and they’ve explained so many things in so many situations.

Translation: «Some things that people believe simply cannot be explained in terms that make any sense.»

There are two issues that consistently get batted about that fall solidly into this categories: gun control and culturing uselessness among our citizens through redistribution.

make-models-in-ugly-clothesI’ll leave you with another pithy tome: A few years ago, I was the Controller for a logistics company whose safety coordinator was dead-set on purchasing «bump caps» for the forklift operators in the company as well as plexi-glass cages for the tops of the lifts.  This plan represented an outlay of capital in the neighborhood of twice the company’s best-prospect income for next three years.  I was strongly opposed to this «investment», not because I was more in favor of profits than the safety of our employees but because it was a complete waste of resources and actually increased the likelihood of injury compared to doing nothing.  The identified danger to our operators was in objects falling from the tops of their loads onto the forklifts.  It was an extremely unlikely hazard (there had never been even a near-miss in a million man-hours), but it was possible.  The average weight and height of something that could fall off the tops of the loads would easily break through plexi-glass and cause head damage to the employee, the «bump caps» and plexi-glass actually made accidents more likely, and increased the chance of injury.  We could have purchased actual hardhats and installed a different arrangement on the tops of the forklifts, but our study determined the cost would be quadruple the bump-cap and plexi-glass investment and would decrease the visibility and range of motion of the employees to the point that there would not be any improvement in safety.  I believed we should either bite the bullet and do it right or do nothing, because either option would be better for both the company and the employees than the middling proposal.  The safety coordinator was nearly in tears when she explained her reasoning: «Well, at least we can feel like we did something!»

She was perfectly clear that her plan served no purpose other than to make herself feel better when a jar of pickles crashed through the top of the forklift and crushed the skull of a forklift operator.  And, ya know, at least the guy could see it coming through the plexi.  I guess.

It’s long past time that we cease to labor under the delusion that arguing gun control and letting people earn their own living with logic, sense and facts will ever make so much as a dent in the problem and admit that those in favor of disarming the populace, paying to destroy peoples’ hopes and bankrupting the greatest nation in the history of the world have no honest belief that passing their legislation has anything whatsoever to do with crime prevention, protecting innocents or improving the lives of children.  It’s difficult to accept that there are otherwise reasonable people who will reduce their own safety, abandon their own freedoms and destroy their own homes simply so that they can feel like they did SOMEthing, even if that something simply puts a bulldozer to digging our own graves rather than slaving away with a shovel.  It will only be after we lay down our own self-deception that we can begin to see the reasonable courses of action.

Until then, we are as guilty of doing «something» just so we can feel like we didn’t do nothing as those who have given themselves over to the hysterics of «but what about the CHILLLLLDRRREEEENNNN!!!!»

AN UNFORTUNATE ENCOUNTER WITH OBJECTIVIST DR. DIANA HSIEH

0Article by Mark I Rasskazov, editor in chief.

UPDATE (2347 26 MARCH 2013): I offered the olive branch to Dr. Hsieh, but it seems we have irreconcilable differences.  Such is life.  We all live in glass houses.  Those who throw stones at mine tend to find it’s made of thicker glass than most.

TENTATIVE RETRACTION (1717 15 MARCH 2013): Dr. Hsieh has explained her response, and it seems reasonable, so my comments about her character may be false.  Also, her lack of comments may be more a function of the fact that her attention is taken elsewhere, than a reflection on her personality.  My comments about her career; some scholars pursue academics; others pursue activism.  Perhaps she is the latter.  My comments about the nature of Objectivism, I stand by; I’ve read most of the main items written by Ayn Rand, and have given them a lot of thought.  My comments about Rand’s personality, I stand by; I’ve met a lot of elderly Russian women, and based on video clips, her writing style, and accounts about her behavior, I would say that she was very much a Russian woman of her time and place in many ways.

NOTE: This is a tough love piece.  I am not down on Objectivists in general like so many out there are.  If there are Objectivists reading this, please have the intellectual courage to read it in its entirety and judge it objectively.

Dr. Diana Hsieh is one of the top figures within the current Objectivist movement.  My perception is that there’s Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Yaron Brooke, and Dr. Diana Hsieh — in that order.  She’s pretty high up on the Objectivist totem pole.

Now, I like Objectivism as a philosophy.  I don’t agree with it 100% — but I would say that I do agree with it about 90%.  Their politics are usually on point.  Their ethics are usually very close to the truth (if a little narrow, at times).  Their epistemological system is nearly flawless — although I have not encountered any Objectivist writings on cognitive philosophy.  The fundamentals of their metaphysics are sound (things are what they are), with the exception that they don’t seem to have a satisfactory answer to the mind-dualism problem.  Their Aesthetic is like a shot-gun blast — not very subtle, and not very accurate, but it gets the job done (their conclusions are on the right track, although they need to take a closer look at their premises in this field).

All of that having been said, I did encounter Dr. Hsieh online, and I am sorry to say it did not go well.

Now, Dr. Hsieh has a radio show podcast, and she has a blog.  I visited her blog, «Noodlefood.»  What I find interesting is that, whereas she is very prominent in the world of Objectivism, and whereas her blog has over 6,000 posts, intellectual interactions on her site are very sparse.  I commented on her second most recent blog post.  There are 8 posts between that one and the next one with any comments (2 comments — one of them hers — on that one; followed by two more posts with empty comment sections).  Now, the value of a blog’s content is not necessarily measured in the number of comments it generates, however, if a blog has been around as long and as prolifically as that one has, one would expect a little more interest in the content.

To give you an idea, this WordPress powered online newspaper and philosophy forum (the TDJ, that is), which has been around for about month gets comments almost every post, now; sometimes 6-7 comments per post.  Compared to Dr. Hsieh, I am a nobody.  How am I able to generate so much more interest in my writings than she is?

That’s not the only thing.

On her blog, she’s always asking for handouts; «tip your philosopher,» etc., whereas, I don’t see any advertising on her site.  Now, I am not, in principle, opposed to asking for donations, but I would expect a proponent of Capitalism to be just a little more savvy.  Why would she ask for donations?  She’s a prominent Objectivist.  It’s embarrassing!  How about providing a product for peoples’ money instead of trying to guilt them into donations?  WWJGD (What Would John Galt Do)?  I’m betting he’d sell t-shirts, coffee mugs, and books, and get sponsors — not grovel and guilt-trip for donations.  Jussayin.

Now, here is how she describes herself on her site:

«Dr. Diana Hsieh is a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. She received her Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. Her dissertation argued that Thomas Nagel’s «problem of moral luck» can be resolved by an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility. She began podcasting in 2009, then webcasting in 2010. She switched to internet radio in 2012.

Diana blogs at NoodleFood and podcasts at NoodleCast. Her other active projects include Explore Atlas Shrugged, Modern Paleo, and OList.com. She also contributes to Front Range Objectivism, the Coalition for Secular Government, and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. Diana lives with her husband Paul Hsieh and a small menagerie of beasts in Sedalia, Colorado.»

No books?  No teaching career?  Her major accomplishment as a philosopher is a dissertation about another philosopher’s work?  Kinda thin resume, considering her status in the Objectivist world.

This is Dr. Diana Hsieh.  Now, all of this having been said, I don’t judge someone on the basis of tokens of accomplishment — the substance of one’s work matters far more than the generation of tokens of accomplishment, and I did not make any premature judgments about this person prior to talking to her — in fact, I was hoping to establish a friendly, collegial relationship with her — I do not ascribe to the philosophy of Objectivism, but I do have a lot of respect for it.  I am an «Objectivist sympathizer,»  As Dr. Peikoff has put it, in the past.  However, while I approached her with an open mind, hoping for a meeting of the minds, I say all of this to point out that an accomplished thinker will usually have more to show for himself/herself than what has been described above.

The exchange that took place between us can be seen here, and is republished below:

Rasskazivats (me): Huh!  I published an article by Barbara Cornell about a «regretful parent» myself, recently: [http://transegoism.us/snake-mom].  Cheers!

Diana Hsieh: Playing (annoying) music automatically on opening a web page?!? AUGH. I can’t imagine any better way to drive people away from a web site.

NOTE: It is in poor taste to address someone you’ve never even spoke to before, and who is approaching you in a friendly, professional manner in this way.  However, rather express offense at this, I chose to remain friendly and professional by providing her with an alternate means of reading my content, without having to endure the «annoying» music on my site.

Rasskazivats: Here’s my RSS feed: [http://transegoism.us/feed/].

Dr. Hsieh has not condescended to resume our conversation.  The only thing I can figure is that she is offended that I did not immediately apologize to her for not running my site in such a way that she finds tasteful, and immediately complying with her tastes.  Now, that music was created by a good friend of mine.  I enjoy it.  I’ve received compliments elsewhere about it.  Beyond that, if it really were in bad taste to have music playing automatically, there’s a right way and a wrong way to bring that up.  Insulting me at a first encounter when I am projecting a friendly demeanor, is the wrong way.  I didn’t ask her what she thought about my site, yet I did provide her with a music-free alternative — and for the record, my month old site seems to be doing substantially better than hers.  With a personality as charming as her’s I can’t imagine why.

NOTE: A passage from The Fountainhead comes to mind; when Peter Keating asks Howard Roark for advice on his work, Roark, at first, balks, and says something to the effect of «Why would you even ask for my advice?»  Dr. Hsieh, with respect, I did not ask for your advice.

Which brings me to another point — Ayn Rand was a brilliant philosopher, but a flawed person.  Her main fault (so far as I can tell from reading about her) was that she was an extremely abrasive person.  Now, people seem to think that her abrasiveness is somehow a necessary function of her philosophy.  Her personality surely influenced the presentation of her work, although I think it has little to do with the content.  What most people don’t understand is that abrasiveness is a personality trait that is very common among Russian women — particularly women of her age (women who survived one or both of the world wars, and/or the Russian civil war).  People view her personality as being an integral aspect of her beliefs, whereas it has more to do with the Russian culture (which is not at all Objectivist, by and large) than with the belief system she created.  Yet, unfortunately, she managed to impress the worst aspects of her personality upon everyone who was associated with her — to a lesser or greater extent.

Dr. Hsieh, I find it to be a sign of weakness that you have failed to develop your own personality and have adopted the worst aspects of Rand’s character.

I am disappointed.