Excavating The Empty Tomb - The Gospels based on Homer's Odyssey?

[sigma6]

Update: this guy who made this is under attack (Truthsurge on youtube)
If you can support him in any way please do, I can't find an original full length so this is just part one.... on the internet although I downloaded a copy for my library... but can't upload large files, if anyone finds a full length please let me know, or if you can upload large files pm me... thanks... I can only put 9 videos in one message support truthsurge by watching and sharing these videos...

new update: It is now just called Excavating The Empty Tomb,
it looks like he has managed to rebuild his Youtube presence AND
He now has 37 additions (looks to be completed now...)


Excavating The Empty Tomb

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=msZ5X3uyeeA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9YZ_aWPswkk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qq51uHhbF90

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tTJT67kgsfc

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-4iS1qfRo

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nJAcX_K5YA4

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eyhKhpFppI8

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vuNw5cvAldc

Update: I can't find an original full length so this is just part one.... on the internet although I downloaded a copy for my library... but can't upload large files, if anyone finds a full length please let me know, or if you can upload large files pm me... thanks...


This has totally blown me away... The Biblical book of Mark of the New Testament, which was written and tapped as a reference and source for the books, Matthew, Luke and John, (the first four books and cornerstone of the New Testament) has been found to have a literary pattern that resembles the story of 'Homer's Odyssey' in unmistakable detail. If the quotes and references are accurate, true and verifiable, and there doesn't seem to be any reason that they aren't. Then this critique is a real game changer.

The premise is straight forward, a simple comparison between two sources of 'literature'. The thing that makes this powerful is how they focus on the original Texts and show that at around 400 AD, (the earliest known complete records? although I am now getting the oldest is more accurately 280 AD?) a critical portion of the Book of Mark was 'padded' with new verses, which created two divergent versions of the Bible, (the 'padded' version being the one in use today!)

A good source of reference or follow up is Dr Bart Ehrman - 'Does Bible Misquote Jesus' who is referenced in the above (will update with reference) As he made another clear argument. That is, that there are in fact no original copies of the Biblical gospels, which is why the above is quoting documents from 400 AD. (again that looks to be more like 280 AD for another partial version...

IMO it is a clear explanation how the Hand of the Roman Vatican has been working the same agenda as when they were a world military power. It adds another piece to the historical mist of the past. Truly we live in the age of revelation. Revelation of what that could be is another question. This doesn't make me any less spiritual btw, it opens up a broader avenue, makes me want to learn what really happened.

[Fundy Gemini]

Fantastic piece of work, thanks so much for sharing it.

I believe this is an ongoing project since I went to the source and could get as far as 14b but no further - I will continue to look around, but if you happen to know where the final chapters are (if already completed) please let us know. Thanks! :-)

[sigma6]

Posted by Fundy Gemini (here)
Fantastic piece of work, thanks so much for sharing it.

I believe this is an ongoing project since I went to the source and could get as far as 14b but no further - I will continue to look around, but if you happen to know where the final chapters are (if already completed) please let us know. Thanks! :-)

When I downloaded it, it only went to 11 B, and was 2 and half hours, so I maybe it is an ongoing production... but that in itself was still loads of information... also the introduction says he had to mirror it to another account or something, will have to go back to channel to review it again.

update:
Reply to your comment on: (Mirror) Excavating the Empty Tomb - by truthsurge (parts 1-12)
This was posted to this channel during the brief suspension of the author - truthsurge. you can find the rest on their channel

update: going back again, I noted the long version was messed and went from 9 to 12 then back to 10 and 11 (confusing) so it may have been taken down because of that... in any event, the individual videos are easy to watch and download if you wish,

[panopticon]

G'day Sigma6,

I haven't watched the documentary yet (will take a few days to get the time) but thought I'd share a few links to what seem like relevant sources you and others might find interesting (though not directly related to Ulysses).

• 'Mythic Heroes' (based on the 1936 work 'The Hero' by Lord Raglan) which very briefly explains the 'Jesus as a Mythic Hero' hypothesis and compares some real people versus mythic heroes (using a numeric scale based on Raglan's list, Alan Dundes work and one the author created).

• 'Life events shared by Yeshua (Jesus) and the "Mythic Hero Archetype"', as the title suggests, is another short comparison of the biblical Jesus versus the Mythic Hero.

• 'Christ a Fiction' is a short paper by theologian Dr. Price (of the Bible Geek Podcast) on the Mythic Hero archetype and the Mythic Jesus hypothesis in which he states:
  

  I used to think, when I myself was a Christian apologist, a defender of the evangelical faith, that I had done a pretty respectable job of vindicating that story as history. I brought to bear a variety of arguments I now recognize to be fallacious, such as the supposed closeness of the gospels to the events they record, their ostensibly use of eyewitness testimony, etc. Now, in retrospect, I judge that my efforts were about as effective in the end as Superboy's! When all is said and done, he remains a fiction.

• 'The Hero Pattern' again another analysis of Raglan's numeric scale giving these results:
  

  Mithradates VI of Pontus (22) / Krishna (21) / Moses (20) / Romulus (19) / King Arthur (19) / Perseus (18) / Jesus (18) / Watu Gunung of Java (18) / Heracles (17) Mohammad (17) / Beowulf (15) / Buddha (15) / Czar Nicholas II (14) / Zeus (14) / Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile (14) / Samson (13) / Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali (11) / Achilles (10) / Odysseus (8) / Harry Potter (8)

• Finally here's a short article about some similarities between the Jesus and the Odysseus/Ulysses stories and how there was probably cross fertilisation in the period following the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) by the Roman's in retaliation for the Jewish revolt.

Personally I believe that the destruction of the second temple led to the need for an explanation and a heroic figure was created as a means of explaining what had happened. My reason is that the gospels can be dated to either after the fall of Jerusalem, or just before it (many think Mark was written during the revolt just prior to the fall), and when placed into an historical context it seems pretty clear to me that the Mythic Jesus figure described in the NT was a fabrication to buoy the spirits of a crushed peoples (and associated sects). Then, much as now, Jesus was expected at any moment to come flying out of the clouds (or something similar) to save his chosen peoples. This "imminent salvation" sect can even be found alluded to (though not directly stated) in some of Paul's letters when he writes about the dangers of following beliefs in Jesus different to those of he and his followers.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[cloud9]

Very good indeed, I learned a few things I didn't know before.

[sigma6]

Panoptican - yes he feels the book of Mark was written 72 AD, which would be just after the fall of Jerusalem, and the authorship of the first four books is actually unknown (not exactly an ideal bedrock of faith). What a diving off point I imagine this sort of information can be for many serious minded people, although on the other side is that it opens up a wide swath of opportunity for empirical investigation into other areas of philosophical thought. The big questions still remain, why are we here? Is it cruel and usual for man to die so early when it takes so long to gain the spiritual and intellectual insight needed to really appreciate life? etc.

Personally I am very attracted to Lloyd Pye's interpretation of us being 'spliced' from hominoids, the original bi-pedal species 'found' on this planet, which is why Big foots are a taboo subject. Like all truths, it is stepping on the territory of 'Secret Knowledge' I believe is being kept away from the masses by 'Secret Societies'. Man is just too 'artificial' to have 'evolved naturally'. And Evolution is a farce of misinformation, and once recognized as such exposes an agenda, and a question, being 'what are they so desperately hiding? that they would try to force evolution down our throats in the first place? And Lloyd's interpretation is to me is exactly the kind of thing they would like to hide. I don't think anyone deconstructs evolution as well as he does.

I wish Lloyd would get back to further detailed studies and interpretations of that relationship between man, big foots, neanderthals, the fusion of the 2nd and 3rd genes, debunking evolution, and alien intervention research instead of that damned alien skull he keeps monkeying around with (no pun intended!)

ie. If he did more presentations explaining in greater detail the logic and reasoning of his science, people would 'get it more' and they would actually buy MORE of his books, to keep as the source of 'legal/scientific record of proof' to make reference back to... That's what he doesn't get... His arguments are brilliant and devastating to the scientific community, but he doesn't get that although people can get the gist, they can't absorb that much information in just 1 or 2 hours...

update:
If he just made this one small adjustment... he would educate more and more people, and he could have a series of lectures that expands on each major idea, and end up selling 10 times more books as a result... people would love to have these ideas and arguments soundly in their minds, able to argue them, but the two videos he's got on line are really grainy and go through a lot of info too briefly/quickly imo... I know every time I try to articulate his ideas I just get bogged down, and missing the details references, etc...

[panopticon]

G'day Sigma6,

A while ago Observer posted an excellent video of an Ehrman lecture (based on his book 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why') that you and others might be interested in:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=O-1hdqNDQ9E

I agree that we have no idea who wrote what and when. Dogma and tradition dictate present understanding and they are directly attached to, and reinforced by, money, control and power
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[observer]

Excellent video, sigma6.

Many researchers are looking into the possibility that the Bible was written as an agenda to project the Roman Empire into the 21 Century in the guise of the Holy Roman Empire (Catholicism). To this conclusion I offer links to a better understanding:


Who wrote the Bible?

This is a long study, but for those who are serious about the research, here are some links that are very informative:

Begin here, with an understanding of who the Piso were.

For a broader understanding of who the Piso were, see here. Follow the links provided.

For a break-down of who wrote the individual books of the New Testament, see here.

For more in depth on Josephus, see here.

This entire Piso story is very compelling, especially seeing how it seamlessly dovetails into our current global circumstances.

[sigma6]

I just can't resist, I have to add these because they are so overwhelmingly profound and I think they are relevant to this line of inquiry. People are way too politically correct when dealing with the propaganda going on in Universities today. It's a mockery of science, an undermining of critical scientific endeavour, drowning in corporate politics, compartmentalization, funding manipulation, falsified statistics, and just plain hiding thousands of artifacts from the public, etc, etc, ad nauseum... or as Cremo calls it "knowledge filtration" (LOL) precisely aimed at undermining dedicated and principled researchers, who have invested their lives trying to bring truth to the world, people like Lloyd Pye, Klaus Dona, Michael Cremo, Richard Thompson, Richard Milton ...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=l4TKCNKaJPQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iH1pEtmdGtQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tdciYA0ydMw

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3WHtZ5Dp-Vg

http://www.4shared.com/folder/C9lgi5...s_Origins.html (be patient with this link, it's a free 4shared account = super crappy bandwidth)

[RedeZra]

the controllers debunked God a long time ago

and replaced the Bible with the theory of evolution


now the controllers are trying to sell us the idea

that humanity is genetically engineered by aliens


so why bother debunking the Bible

when the PTB has already done it

[heyokah]

Posted by RedeZra (here)
the controllers debunked God a long time ago

and replaced the Bible with the theory of evolution


now the controllers are trying to sell us the idea

that humanity is genetically engineered by aliens


so why bother debunking the Bible

when the PTB has already done it

Hi RedeZra,


Why don't you relax.

Sit down and watch the video that sigma6 posted (#1)

Don't be upset.

We will be bearing with you....

[cloud9]

Posted by RedeZra (here)
the controllers debunked God a long time ago

and replaced the Bible with the theory of evolution


now the controllers are trying to sell us the idea

that humanity is genetically engineered by aliens


so why bother debunking the Bible

when the PTB has already done it

Redezra,
Did you see the video posted by sigma?
I'd like to know your opinion about this theory.

[sigma6]

Posted by RedeZra (here)
the controllers debunked God a long time ago
and replaced the Bible with the theory of evolution
now the controllers are trying to sell us the idea
that humanity is genetically engineered by aliens
so why bother debunking the Bible
when the PTB has already done it

If you check out observer's post, they didn't so much 'replace' it, but in fact created the entire content! Then waited generations, until everyone forgot it's real origins, then started pedaling it as 'holy gospel'...literally! That is why it is full of astrotheological, Babylonian, Mithra, and Greek mythology, because it was created, written and distributed by Romans. Who else would have the education, means and motive to do it?.

It explains the authorship, the strangeness of the stories (they're metaphorical) and 'similarities' to paganism, the divergence from Old Testament, the time lines, why Jesus wasn't recorded officially at the original time, the 'appearance' of 'fulfilled' prophecies from the Old Testament, the secrecy of the Vatican, why they had to kill so many millions of people. It is a parsimonious explanation for a change. It explains much. Reminds me of the famous line - "I'm a Roman! and I will not yield!" ...and so it appears they never did.

Let's hope that we live to see the day of it's fall in our lifetime and a new spiritual awakening. People are waking up, we are becoming more educated, because of unlimited communication (Internet) We have a real chance to come out this 'DARK AGES' that we are still living in. Imagine living and breathing the free air with a clear mind and a true understanding of our true nature. The only thing that matters is the truth. Scientific, spiritual and rational truth. The truth will set us free. Wherever it leads us, we must follow that alone. Nothing else.

Think of all the movies that make them out to be so great... hogwash, they were cold, inhuman, degenerate and cruel elitists, no more 'glorious' then Hitler.
I still have faith, still believe in Love, and am quite convinced the 'Romans' have always been manipulative, evil bastards...

Down with the Elites!

[sigma6]

The Masons were nearly wiped out once from an exposure of truth about their evil ways... it could happen again. Their power is deception and secrecy, therefore the anti-thesis would be outright exposure, and an awareness of the truth of their ways. Right now, most people barely have an awareness of their existence, let alone their saturation and manipulation of every faucet of our society.

[RedeZra]

i'm sure it's possible to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus never resurrected nor even existed

after all Rome destroyed the Second Temple and much of Jerusalem in 70 AD and Emperor Hadrian razed Jerusalem and established a new city called Aelia Capitolina in 135 AD

besides Jesus was not popular with the Jewish leadership at the time


i don't know if i buy the theory that the PTB invented the Bible

and then debunked it scientifically over a millenium later


by the way what shall we say to the millions who have met and been healed and helped by Jesus today ?

how shall we break it to them that they have just seen a miracle ghost

[panopticon]

G'day RedeZra,

Posted by RedeZra (here)
i'm sure it's possible to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus never resurrected nor even existed

I don't have to provide evidence that the Jesus of the NT existed.
When extraordinary claims are made it is up the claimants to prove their case, not the other way round.
There is no evidence that the mythological Jesus existed as depicted in the NT.

Posted by RedeZra (here)
after all Rome destroyed the Second Temple and much of Jerusalem in 70 AD and Emperor Hadrian razed Jerusalem and established a new city called Aelia Capitolina in 135 AD

Correct. Verifiable through extensive references outside of Christendom.

Posted by RedeZra (here)
besides Jesus was not popular with the Jewish leadership at the time

False premise that relies on the NT as truth. Please point to evidence that the Jesus depicted in the NT existed in Jewish literature (yes there are references to a rebel leader but not the mythologised Jesus that is depicted in the NT).

Posted by RedeZra (here)
i don't know if i buy the theory that the PTB invented the Bible and then debunked it scientifically over a millenium later

I agree but for different reasons.
I feel the Piso hypothesis detracts from the lack of evidence as to there having been a Jesus as depicted in the NT.

Posted by RedeZra (here)
by the way what shall we say to the millions who have met and been healed and helped by Jesus today ?

That they healed themselves through the power of positive "intent".
There is ample evidence that people can heal themselves without the need for a "divine intervention".

Posted by RedeZra (here)
how shall we break it to them that they have just seen a miracle ghost

Softly and gently my friend, softly and gently.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[sigma6]

Yes, we have to adjust our entire framework.

Well said Panoptican, I would add the universe wasn't created by the Romans who are essentially coming from the Egyptians and Babylonian empires. We have to get away from this, it is a form or 'ethnocentricism' It's much like the pyramid issue. Today people can't conceive of a world without corporations structured like pyramids, not realizing that the pyramid is not an just an organizational structure, but actually more of a power concentrating mechanism (think about it) For example the internet is a perfect antithetical model to the pyramid in terms of organizational structure, and yet most people have difficulty understanding or conceptualizing this. We have all the science and technology we need today, but we need to be 'reprogrammed' to start identifying and using it. I believe these problems exist precisely because of the false matrix we are living in today.

The new model I think is actually not new at all, quantum physics is now creating an entirely different picture of the universe and man. Remember classical materialist science today doesn't recognize consciousness as having any basis in material reality, as absurd as it sounds (they call it 'epi-phenomenal') This is an insult to any rational thinking person, and just another mind control device. Someone obviously knew there was a consciousness! but kept it hidden or otherwise maintained in twisted 'occult' (latin for hidden) practices, not worthy enough to be shared with the rest of the world. I don't think it's a simple picture happening out there.

Quantum physics amazingly leads us to a lot of eastern philosophic text, which was often quoted by Oppenheimer (Manhattan Project) at every opportunity. That's why I put the Cremo links above. We aren't going to crumble to pieces and cease to exist just because we expose a bunch of elite mind control terrorists. We have to get back to what Cremo, Oppenheimer, Rand, and many others have been screaming at us. The primacy of Consciousness as a foundation of our understanding. (The exact opposite point of view of 'materialists'. As usual the Materialists have taken their Satanic formula of reversing everything and calling material (the 0.000001 %) as the foundation of reality when in truth, it is only a manifestation of some form of 'energy' (or might spirit be a more accurate word?) That undefined energy (the 99.99999 %) holds the answer to consciousness, and is the fundamental reality of this universe. We need to know more about the properties of this so called 'empty space' or 'energy' or 'spirit' or 'nirvana' or 'nothingness' (meaning non-material) as in "that which is unseen" (as opposed to non-existent). It truly is something which may not be amenable to simple word definitions.

Which makes more sense - a 'materialist' scientific view - which studies the proton, neutron and electron, etc which comprises less then 0.00000001 % of the atom, or trying to figure out what the other 99.9999999 % is about? I think we are purposely being lied to. It is that 'space' inbetween those 'material' particles that will tell us infinitely more about the true nature of reality.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck

"The mystery of life is not a question to be answered, but a reality to be experienced" - Frank Herbert "Dune" 1965

[panopticon]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Yes, we have to adjust our entire framework.
We have to get back to what Cremo, Oppenheimer, Rand, and many others have been screaming at us.

G'day Sigma6,

I don't want to take the thread off topic however...
I would caution against placing faith in Ayn Rand's work.
I am no expert in her 'Objectivism' as it is based in laissez faire capitalism which I view is flawed in and of itself.

To quote her:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

There is no place in a Randian world for compassion and empathy.
George Monbiot wrote an article criticising Randian philosophy back in March titled 'A Manifesto for Psychopaths' in which he states:

This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as “refuse” and “parasites”, and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax...
Rand’s is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demi-god at the head of a chiliastic cult.

Here is the first in the Adam Curtis' documentary series 'All Watched Over By Machines Of Love And Grace' from 2011 titled 'Love and Power' which shows a direct link between Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan and the sub-prime debt crisis that started our present difficulties in 2008, while also going into the Asian Debt crisis of the later 1990's, Robert Rubin and the IMF... Curtis also mentions how the Chinese Politburo was managing the US economy in the post 9/11 years by artificially keeping their exchange rate low, buying US bonds and how this buoyed the US economy assisting in the sub-prime mortgage and derivatives fiasco...


Source: Watch on Vimeo


http://vimeo.com/27393748

Alternative downloadable source for complete documentary:
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurti...sOfLovingGrace

I do apologise as I've gone somewhat off-topic here but just wanted to point out that Ayn Rand's philosophy may not be all that it is made out to be. Those interested in promoting centralised structural development and the consolidation of "money, control and power", all while decrying the evils of "Big Government" to the cheering masses, attach them selves to anything that promotes their agenda. Randian philosophy is a perfect fit and I am not surprised that Ayn Rand's books have been promoted as required reading in US high schools.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[write4change]

I am the mother in law by marriage to Ayn Rand's adopted son Dr. Leonard Peikoff. I have done a lot of thinking about revealing what I know about these people. First, and formost they are all hypocrites. It is not simply happen stance that almost all of her inner core were Jews. They may not believe in god but they believe in genes. And what they all believe is that the Jews are by far smarter than anyone else in the world. They may not think god made them the chose people but they think the myth has served them well and they have the best genes in the world. Behind closed doors, at least in the 80s, they were always talking about the fact that 80% of all Nobel Prize winners were Jews etc. Dr. Peikoff got up and left a family wedding because the Jewish groom was marrying a Christian and no one had told him.

The bottom line belief of objectivism is that if everybody takes care of themself then no one would have to take care of any one else. This would work if everyone was born equal but they not. Not even equal opportunity. They also believe ideology. Atlas Shrugged is essentially a work of science fiction that is not even done well. It was really trashed by the critics when it came out. She was never accepted by Hollywood. None of the men she was turned on by would give her the time of day. That is why she left for New York. She was huge on self re invention.

She could get the seconds in their field to pay attention but not the greatly gifted. She posed nude for Salvadore Dali and these paintings were in her living room. They flattered her and they still weren't that good---you would not say she was sexy. Her need to have who she wants as sexual partner with young men 25 years or more her juniors would be considered child abuse. sound familiar. Dr. Peikoff was 17 when he met her and on the way to becoming a classical pianist when she totally derailed his life.

He did not marry until she died and at 54 he married a 31 year old and had his first child at 56. He then abandoned that child for a 25 year old at 65.

Atlas does really does not stand as literature, philosophy, or science fiction. There are huge linear reason problems if you really know what you are talking about. Most of these people function by having absolutely nothing to do with people by way of discussion or debate with people who do not agree with them.
Her interview with Phil Donohue and her total disregard for the audience is an example of what would be considered the contempt for the masses.

As far as I am concerned, and I have both the experience and the education, Ayn was both delusional and irrationally selfish giving not a fk for who she wounded in any way as long as she got what she wanted. She really never does deal with aspects of causality. Many of her followers had no real educational chops including Greenspan but who they knew and who they were willing to provide the reasons for the public being screwed. In essence, the cabal used her and still does--there is nothing of substance there except these people are paid extremely well.

[sigma6]

Fair enough, I have read Atlas Shrugged, it was 'longwinded' and 'heavy' but I still enjoyed it. I was pretty young and impressionable then too, it was very stirring emotionally. But I never really identified it with philosophy at the time. It was more about the character of the individual, being an underdog and all. To me it was more about sticking to what you believe in, when you are up against a world of corruption.

However I did come across her book which was supposed to be the 'handbook' and actual explanation of her philosophy and I was very impressed with, although I will be honest, it has been awhile since I read it. The one I was referring to was "Objectivist Epistomology", a small not more then 100 page book, that blew me away (I was taking psychology at the time, so it was quite profound for me) I was impressed with her 3 axiomatic concepts that she 'apparently' based all her succeeding philosophy on. 'Consciousness' 'Existence' and 'Identity'. The idea that she put forward 'Consciousness' as an unquestioned basis for building a philosophical framework, I thought that was very powerful philosophically and scientifically. I liked that it was 180 degrees to popular materialist thinking at the time. This was before I knew anything about eastern philosophical thought, or quantum physics, etc. Not that she was coming off mystical, not at all, she simply posited that 'consciousness' was a given. Period. Take it or leave it, it was hard to argue with, lets face it who can honestly look in the mirror and tell themselves they have no real consciousness. This was a no brainer for me. Yet I was studying psyche at the time, and she clearly brought this to my attention and I did confirm that the professors really didn't believe in 'consciousness'. She was nailing it, and I thought how ridiculous, as the alternative that all these professors are pushing is that we are all essentially really complicated 'robots' like R2D2 and C-3PO or something. (Which I don't think is possible for a host of scientific, logistical and psychological reasons, and I AM a sci fi buff!)

Anyhow, I can't argue that she is controversial, I think that many take her work and create their own interpretation on it. I think what she was saying about capitalism may have been a bit simplistic and limited to a specific context and time with certain assumptions that may be a lot harder to apply today, so in that sense by definition, one could call it a form of science fiction. Because she is creating the hypothetical 'environment' that the character is operating in, some of it was realistic, some of it didn't 'fit' (come to think of it) which makes her 'fictional' work highly interpretational which really defeats the purpose of reading Ayn Rand.

But I did like Objectivist Epistomology, (I don't have the book with me, lost it awhile back and meant to replace it). But it wasn't so much about the 'Selfishness' issue (I had a tough time with that book) although she clearly defined it as meaning self interest, and not the connotation that people put on it, I never fully got into accepting that, it felt like a play on words. People were misreading the 'word' selfish as she used it, and she was misframing 'love' and 'compassion' and dissing 'religion' which are all actually complex ideas to define properly as well, ie. too many different meanings to different people.

But getting back to O.E. I do remember liking it because it was clear what she was explaining, and it was a logical argument, saying in effect as existing, conscious individuals, humans, our surviving mechanism is 'rational thought' That is man's ultimate 'tool' for living. We survive because we have the ability to conceptualize and reason. Therefore the proper use of this ability is to exercise reason. It was almost like something 'Spock' might say. Now funny I just thought of that... Because to be honest, although she fleshed out a sound explanation and argument for this most important faculty for man. That is not ALL man is. Reason, or logical thought is one of man's tools yes, but it is not ALL we are. And likewise the character of Spock originally tried to portray him as this being of 'pure logic'. But if you watched the series closely, it became clear he obviously had 'feelings', they were just deeply 'suppressed' which psychologically would be a 'continuity error' in my mind, as that is clearly not healthy, but more interestingly Leonard Nimoy even figured out that the character needed adapting and in later versions (the movies) he expressed that. I so remember one scene where I think it was Kim Cattrell mentions something not being logical. And Spock says "Logic is the beginning of knowledge..." I was blown away, because that was a huge evolution from the original 'late 60's Spock' (where logic is ALL) and it was exactly the same conclusion I had come to. ie. it is a virtue, should be held in high regard, but it is only one of many 'tools' available to man. It is not, in and of itself, the reason for being, and cannot take into account ALL problems, it has clearly defined limits. Logic, rational thought and scientific thinking are all related in that manner... OK, I will try to reign this in...

Alright, now that said, I am quite fascinated and impressed write4change in your relationship, I do remember Dr Peikoff's name doing an introduction either in one of her books or a book written by Nathanial Brandon (he developed a psychology based on her philosophy, called The Psychology of Self-Esteem, which I do think is brilliant) I would never have thought he was her 'adopted' son? that blows me away, and thanks for sharing that.

That would be kinda 'cheating' for an introduction, I will give you that. And just to be clear then, you are saying you are married to Peikoff's Dad, and also that Ayn Rand adopted him as her son? fascinating? I also saw the Phil Donahue clip and yes I would have to agree with you that she exhibited a very harsh and prejudicial manner, a kind of arrogance. I can also picture many Jews being overly proud of the proportion of 'great minds' in the world being Jewish, etc. That's a tough call, as in a way they have kind of earned some of it, in the sense that with so much death and displacement, that I could imagine some of the survivors would have a kind of pragmatic and even brutal existential attitude about themselves and their race. Let's face it that is one very complex culture. I certainly don't agree with everything that is going on, but it is also hard to stereotype, I have met some really nice Jewish people and some real jerks, just like any other culture. And then again I have a whole separate issue with the Isreali government, and let's not even go there... LOL...

In any event, to sum up, the only works I would recommend of Ayn Rands, is Objectivist Epistomology. Skip Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, what you want to read is a short, concise delivery of her thinking in a 100 page book (that speaks volumes) which is the book I was specifically thinking of re: consciousness. Btw if you ever wanted to private chat some time about Ayn Rand I would definitely be interested to know more, if only for historical, biographical understanding, wright4change. And Panopticon, I have no problem going a bit off topic, because I think all this part is important too. I have a saying...

"it's all grist for the mill"

P.S. and I haven't seen any trailers or previews, but I have the feeling the recent movies they are now making are going to be absolute B.S. and spin, I have been hard pressed to articulate this, but you have just made me articulate it, ha ha, that is, what I think you are saying and what I now see but could never put my finger on, is that she is too complicated to encapsulate in one paragraph. And maybe she did do this on purpose. As I have always felt (but never articulated before) the reason her fictional works are so controversial is precisely how people can take them and twist them to suit what they want to project on it, which is exactly what I think these movies will be, propaganda pieces. Mind you that cannot be said of Objectivist Epistemology. You will be able to understand it, and you can either agree or disagree with it straight away, I saw it as a model championing human reason, although in her other works, she is definitely leaning on an elitest attitude, this is true.