#aynrand — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #aynrand, aggregated by home.social.
-
Happiness grows from honest action. Choose what lifts your life.
#Quotes #PositiveLiving #QuoteOfTheDay #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/achieving-personal-happiness/ -
Happiness grows from honest action. Choose what lifts your life.
#Quotes #PositiveLiving #QuoteOfTheDay #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/achieving-personal-happiness/ -
Happiness grows from honest action. Choose what lifts your life.
#Quotes #PositiveLiving #QuoteOfTheDay #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/achieving-personal-happiness/ -
Happiness grows from honest action. Choose what lifts your life.
#Quotes #PositiveLiving #QuoteOfTheDay #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/achieving-personal-happiness/ -
Your mindset shapes your life. Choose empowerment and courage.
#Quotes #Empowerment #FearlessLiving #PositiveMindset #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/empowerment-ayn-rand-quote/ -
Your mindset shapes your life. Choose empowerment and courage.
#Quotes #Empowerment #FearlessLiving #PositiveMindset #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/empowerment-ayn-rand-quote/ -
Your mindset shapes your life. Choose empowerment and courage.
#Quotes #Empowerment #FearlessLiving #PositiveMindset #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/empowerment-ayn-rand-quote/ -
Your mindset shapes your life. Choose empowerment and courage.
#Quotes #Empowerment #FearlessLiving #PositiveMindset #AynRand
https://quotes.thisgrandpablogs.com/empowerment-ayn-rand-quote/ -
Pues he visto la película "El Manantial" (King Vidor, 1949) y no paraba de imaginarme a Ayn Rand durante el rodaje asintiendo con la cabeza a cada frase panfletaria que soltaban los personajes.Como el Jack Nicholson de abajo.
#ElManantial #TheFountainhead #AynRand #Panfleto #xp -
Pues he visto la película "El Manantial" (King Vidor, 1949) y no paraba de imaginarme a Ayn Rand durante el rodaje asintiendo con la cabeza a cada frase panfletaria que soltaban los personajes.Como el Jack Nicholson de abajo.
#ElManantial #TheFountainhead #AynRand #Panfleto #xp -
I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.
I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.
Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society. -
I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.
I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.
Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society. -
I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.
I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.
Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society. -
I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.
I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.
Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society. -
I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.
I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.
Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society. -
I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've read short extracts from "Atlas Shrugged", supposedly her magnum opus.
Those extracts did not inspire me to plough through the whole of "Atlas Shrugged", but I thought to be fair I ought to read a complete work of hers, so I picked up a copy of her 1938 novella "Anthem".
In a repressive, techophobic, collectivist dystopia, a young man rebels, rediscovers electricity, and then escapes from captivity to be joined by his female lover. He hopes to rebuild a society based on individualism -- "Anthem" concludes with the protagonist determined to carve into the stone portal of his fort the "sacred word EGO".
Rand's writing is lifeless, with both characters and setting being little more than vehicles for the author's ponderous didacticism. The slight romance narrative smacks of sub-Hollywood teenage fantasy, with the protagonist renaming his lover "The Golden One", followed by her dubbing him 'The Unconquered".
The concluding pages are supposed to be a poetic invocation of egoism. Instead, they come across as Rand attempting to club the reader into submission.
I am pained to learn that this book is frequently assigned in US high schools, as it is devoid of literary merit and of no great significance in literary or cultural history. If teachers or school districts want to assign a mid 20C "antitotalitarian" work, why not press copies of "1984" into students' hands?
Nevertheless my afternoon was not entirely wasted, as I can now get through the rest of my life without having to read another word of this tiresome crank, yet have a clear conscience when I describe her as possessing not a shred of literary talent, because my judgment is based on a first hand acquaintance with her writing.
#Books #Literature #USLiterature #AmericanLiterature #AynRand #Anthem #RightWing
-
I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've read short extracts from "Atlas Shrugged", supposedly her magnum opus.
Those extracts did not inspire me to plough through the whole of "Atlas Shrugged", but I thought to be fair I ought to read a complete work of hers, so I picked up a copy of her 1938 novella "Anthem".
In a repressive, techophobic, collectivist dystopia, a young man rebels, rediscovers electricity, and then escapes from captivity to be joined by his female lover. He hopes to rebuild a society based on individualism -- "Anthem" concludes with the protagonist determined to carve into the stone portal of his fort the "sacred word EGO".
Rand's writing is lifeless, with both characters and setting being little more than vehicles for the author's ponderous didacticism. The slight romance narrative smacks of sub-Hollywood teenage fantasy, with the protagonist renaming his lover "The Golden One", followed by her dubbing him 'The Unconquered".
The concluding pages are supposed to be a poetic invocation of egoism. Instead, they come across as Rand attempting to club the reader into submission.
I am pained to learn that this book is frequently assigned in US high schools, as it is devoid of literary merit and of no great significance in literary or cultural history. If teachers or school districts want to assign a mid 20C "antitotalitarian" work, why not press copies of "1984" into students' hands?
Nevertheless my afternoon was not entirely wasted, as I can now get through the rest of my life without having to read another word of this tiresome crank, yet have a clear conscience when I describe her as possessing not a shred of literary talent, because my judgment is based on a first hand acquaintance with her writing.
#Books #Literature #USLiterature #AmericanLiterature #AynRand #Anthem #RightWing
-
I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've read short extracts from "Atlas Shrugged", supposedly her magnum opus.
Those extracts did not inspire me to plough through the whole of "Atlas Shrugged", but I thought to be fair I ought to read a complete work of hers, so I picked up a copy of her 1938 novella "Anthem".
In a repressive, techophobic, collectivist dystopia, a young man rebels, rediscovers electricity, and then escapes from captivity to be joined by his female lover. He hopes to rebuild a society based on individualism -- "Anthem" concludes with the protagonist determined to carve into the stone portal of his fort the "sacred word EGO".
Rand's writing is lifeless, with both characters and setting being little more than vehicles for the author's ponderous didacticism. The slight romance narrative smacks of sub-Hollywood teenage fantasy, with the protagonist renaming his lover "The Golden One", followed by her dubbing him 'The Unconquered".
The concluding pages are supposed to be a poetic invocation of egoism. Instead, they come across as Rand attempting to club the reader into submission.
I am pained to learn that this book is frequently assigned in US high schools, as it is devoid of literary merit and of no great significance in literary or cultural history. If teachers or school districts want to assign a mid 20C "antitotalitarian" work, why not press copies of "1984" into students' hands?
Nevertheless my afternoon was not entirely wasted, as I can now get through the rest of my life without having to read another word of this tiresome crank, yet have a clear conscience when I describe her as possessing not a shred of literary talent, because my judgment is based on a first hand acquaintance with her writing.
#Books #Literature #USLiterature #AmericanLiterature #AynRand #Anthem #RightWing
-
I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've read short extracts from "Atlas Shrugged", supposedly her magnum opus.
Those extracts did not inspire me to plough through the whole of "Atlas Shrugged", but I thought to be fair I ought to read a complete work of hers, so I picked up a copy of her 1938 novella "Anthem".
In a repressive, techophobic, collectivist dystopia, a young man rebels, rediscovers electricity, and then escapes from captivity to be joined by his female lover. He hopes to rebuild a society based on individualism -- "Anthem" concludes with the protagonist determined to carve into the stone portal of his fort the "sacred word EGO".
Rand's writing is lifeless, with both characters and setting being little more than vehicles for the author's ponderous didacticism. The slight romance narrative smacks of sub-Hollywood teenage fantasy, with the protagonist renaming his lover "The Golden One", followed by her dubbing him 'The Unconquered".
The concluding pages are supposed to be a poetic invocation of egoism. Instead, they come across as Rand attempting to club the reader into submission.
I am pained to learn that this book is frequently assigned in US high schools, as it is devoid of literary merit and of no great significance in literary or cultural history. If teachers or school districts want to assign a mid 20C "antitotalitarian" work, why not press copies of "1984" into students' hands?
Nevertheless my afternoon was not entirely wasted, as I can now get through the rest of my life without having to read another word of this tiresome crank, yet have a clear conscience when I describe her as possessing not a shred of literary talent, because my judgment is based on a first hand acquaintance with her writing.
#Books #Literature #USLiterature #AmericanLiterature #AynRand #Anthem #RightWing
-
I've read about Ayn Rand, and I've read short extracts from "Atlas Shrugged", supposedly her magnum opus.
Those extracts did not inspire me to plough through the whole of "Atlas Shrugged", but I thought to be fair I ought to read a complete work of hers, so I picked up a copy of her 1938 novella "Anthem".
In a repressive, techophobic, collectivist dystopia, a young man rebels, rediscovers electricity, and then escapes from captivity to be joined by his female lover. He hopes to rebuild a society based on individualism -- "Anthem" concludes with the protagonist determined to carve into the stone portal of his fort the "sacred word EGO".
Rand's writing is lifeless, with both characters and setting being little more than vehicles for the author's ponderous didacticism. The slight romance narrative smacks of sub-Hollywood teenage fantasy, with the protagonist renaming his lover "The Golden One", followed by her dubbing him 'The Unconquered".
The concluding pages are supposed to be a poetic invocation of egoism. Instead, they come across as Rand attempting to club the reader into submission.
I am pained to learn that this book is frequently assigned in US high schools, as it is devoid of literary merit and of no great significance in literary or cultural history. If teachers or school districts want to assign a mid 20C "antitotalitarian" work, why not press copies of "1984" into students' hands?
Nevertheless my afternoon was not entirely wasted, as I can now get through the rest of my life without having to read another word of this tiresome crank, yet have a clear conscience when I describe her as possessing not a shred of literary talent, because my judgment is based on a first hand acquaintance with her writing.
#Books #Literature #USLiterature #AmericanLiterature #AynRand #Anthem #RightWing
-
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth -
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth -
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth -
the FASCISM MADE IN USA / Silicon Valley
Im Zentrum der Reportage stehen drei einflussreiche Denker: #AynRand, #RenéGirard und #CurtisYarvin. Die russisch-amerikanische Schriftstellerin Ayn Rand lieferte mit ihrem radikalen Individualismus das moralische Fundament einer Tech-Kultur, die den Unternehmer zum Helden erhebt und den Staat als Feind betrachtet. Der Philosoph René Girard prägte mit seiner Theorie der "mimetischen Begierde" ein Menschenbild, das Konkurrenz, Manipulation und Kontrolle als unvermeidlich erscheinen lässt. Der Blogger Curtis Yarvin schließlich formuliert die politische Konsequenz dieser Denkweisen: die offene Abkehr von Demokratie zugunsten einer autoritären, technokratischen Ordnung.
Die "Kulturzeit"-Reportage zeigt, wie diese Ideen bis heute das Denken von Tech-Eliten prägen – und warum sich Big Tech und Donald Trump ideologisch näherstehen, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint und das autoritäre Denken im Silicon Valley eine lange Tradition hat.
-
the FASCISM MADE IN USA / Silicon Valley
Im Zentrum der Reportage stehen drei einflussreiche Denker: #AynRand, #RenéGirard und #CurtisYarvin. Die russisch-amerikanische Schriftstellerin Ayn Rand lieferte mit ihrem radikalen Individualismus das moralische Fundament einer Tech-Kultur, die den Unternehmer zum Helden erhebt und den Staat als Feind betrachtet. Der Philosoph René Girard prägte mit seiner Theorie der "mimetischen Begierde" ein Menschenbild, das Konkurrenz, Manipulation und Kontrolle als unvermeidlich erscheinen lässt. Der Blogger Curtis Yarvin schließlich formuliert die politische Konsequenz dieser Denkweisen: die offene Abkehr von Demokratie zugunsten einer autoritären, technokratischen Ordnung.
Die "Kulturzeit"-Reportage zeigt, wie diese Ideen bis heute das Denken von Tech-Eliten prägen – und warum sich Big Tech und Donald Trump ideologisch näherstehen, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint und das autoritäre Denken im Silicon Valley eine lange Tradition hat.
-
the FASCISM MADE IN USA / Silicon Valley
Im Zentrum der Reportage stehen drei einflussreiche Denker: #AynRand, #RenéGirard und #CurtisYarvin. Die russisch-amerikanische Schriftstellerin Ayn Rand lieferte mit ihrem radikalen Individualismus das moralische Fundament einer Tech-Kultur, die den Unternehmer zum Helden erhebt und den Staat als Feind betrachtet. Der Philosoph René Girard prägte mit seiner Theorie der "mimetischen Begierde" ein Menschenbild, das Konkurrenz, Manipulation und Kontrolle als unvermeidlich erscheinen lässt. Der Blogger Curtis Yarvin schließlich formuliert die politische Konsequenz dieser Denkweisen: die offene Abkehr von Demokratie zugunsten einer autoritären, technokratischen Ordnung.
Die "Kulturzeit"-Reportage zeigt, wie diese Ideen bis heute das Denken von Tech-Eliten prägen – und warum sich Big Tech und Donald Trump ideologisch näherstehen, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint und das autoritäre Denken im Silicon Valley eine lange Tradition hat.
-
the FASCISM MADE IN USA / Silicon Valley
Im Zentrum der Reportage stehen drei einflussreiche Denker: #AynRand, #RenéGirard und #CurtisYarvin. Die russisch-amerikanische Schriftstellerin Ayn Rand lieferte mit ihrem radikalen Individualismus das moralische Fundament einer Tech-Kultur, die den Unternehmer zum Helden erhebt und den Staat als Feind betrachtet. Der Philosoph René Girard prägte mit seiner Theorie der "mimetischen Begierde" ein Menschenbild, das Konkurrenz, Manipulation und Kontrolle als unvermeidlich erscheinen lässt. Der Blogger Curtis Yarvin schließlich formuliert die politische Konsequenz dieser Denkweisen: die offene Abkehr von Demokratie zugunsten einer autoritären, technokratischen Ordnung.
Die "Kulturzeit"-Reportage zeigt, wie diese Ideen bis heute das Denken von Tech-Eliten prägen – und warum sich Big Tech und Donald Trump ideologisch näherstehen, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint und das autoritäre Denken im Silicon Valley eine lange Tradition hat.
-
Listening to Curtis Yarvin is like reading Ayn Rand, omg so bad.
-
Listening to Curtis Yarvin is like reading Ayn Rand, omg so bad.
-
Listening to Curtis Yarvin is like reading Ayn Rand, omg so bad.
-
Listening to Curtis Yarvin is like reading Ayn Rand, omg so bad.
-
Listening to Curtis Yarvin is like reading Ayn Rand, omg so bad.
-
I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.
I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.
The Trap
From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:
Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.
But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.
The Invariant
The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.
The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.
Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.
The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.
What I Wrote Before I Understood It
From my story “La Petite Mort”:
She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.
The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.
And it was enough.
I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.
Now I have it too.
The Correction
I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.
You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.
If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.
Clear. Weightless. Real.
-
I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.
I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.
The Trap
From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:
Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.
But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.
The Invariant
The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.
The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.
Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.
The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.
What I Wrote Before I Understood It
From my story “La Petite Mort”:
She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.
The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.
And it was enough.
I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.
Now I have it too.
The Correction
I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.
You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.
If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.
Clear. Weightless. Real.
-
I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.
I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.
The Trap
From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:
Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.
But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.
The Invariant
The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.
The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.
Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.
The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.
What I Wrote Before I Understood It
From my story “La Petite Mort”:
She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.
The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.
And it was enough.
I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.
Now I have it too.
The Correction
I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.
You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.
If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.
Clear. Weightless. Real.
-
I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.
I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.
The Trap
From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:
Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.
But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.
The Invariant
The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.
The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.
Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.
The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.
What I Wrote Before I Understood It
From my story “La Petite Mort”:
She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.
The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.
And it was enough.
I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.
Now I have it too.
The Correction
I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.
You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.
If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.
Clear. Weightless. Real.
-
I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.
I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.
The Trap
From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:
Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.
But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.
The Invariant
The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.
The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.
Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.
The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.
What I Wrote Before I Understood It
From my story “La Petite Mort”:
She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.
The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.
And it was enough.
I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.
Now I have it too.
The Correction
I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.
You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.
If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.
Clear. Weightless. Real.
-
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth #Quotes -
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth #Quotes -
Ayn Rand said money is a tool—it opens doors. But it can't replace your drive, your vision, or your purpose. Those guide your life. 💰💪
#AynRand #MoneyTalk #PersonalGrowth #Quotes -
The Showerhead
-
"Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
~ Ayn Rand, born 02 Feb, 1905.
-
"Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
~ Ayn Rand, born 02 Feb, 1905.
-
"Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
~ Ayn Rand, born 02 Feb, 1905.
-
"Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
~ Ayn Rand, born 02 Feb, 1905.
-
"Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"
~ Ayn Rand, born today, 1905.
