• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About regi

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Randall Chester Saunders
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Greenville, SC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Only you are thinking that Michael. If you cannot see what a disgusting thing it is to even think such a thing, much less say it, to someone who has raised five children, with gandchildren and great-grandchildren. Sometimes you are beyond contempt in your insults. Perhaps you cannot help it. Two lies in two posts. My four former neighbors are all gay and none of them have spewed the kind of hatefulness you have. It's odd that I have never had a problem with homosexuals but with those very few who do not know me personally and whose bigotry is so overwhelming they refuse to accept anyth
  2. Jonathan, I wasn't lying when I said I've read everything Rand ever wrote that is not hidden by ARI. I know what Rand wrote about music, but it is not a theory of music. She didn't think such a theory was possible until more was learned about its nature: "The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the key to the secret of music is physiological—it lies in the nature of the process by which man perceives sounds—and the answer would require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a philosopher (an esthetician)." I happen to think she was wrong
  3. Oh yes, girls. I was a little boy when I discovered I loved girls, and it is the little boy in me that still loves the girl that is in every women. A few days ago, my wife and I met a charming girl (well into her seventies I would guess) named Virginia. We talked a bit and I mentioned how lovely she looked. She turned to me, "Randy, are you flirting with me." I assured her I was. I do not expect those who have never understood the difference between love and lust to understand that. They're more likely to say something snyde, like, "girls, not women. Hmmmmmm..." as if they would know what
  4. OK, it's my turn. The following is a Valentine's post I did in 2016. It's only three weeks away so here goes: Valentine Flowers for Every Girl Hayden Godfrey is a man after my own heart. "Hayden Godfrey, a 17-year-old student at Sky View High School in Smithfield, Utah, passed out carnations to every girl at school—all 834 of them!—on Thursday." I love women. I don't mean in that sickly sentimental way the bleeding hearts mean when they say they love everybody. I mean the way a man loves a woman, and I have ever since I discovered that girls are the most delightful creat
  5. In terms of aesthetics, I agree most of Rand's assertions were reflections of her personal tastes. If she had a theory of music, I'm unaware of it. That has been my experience as well. I think most people do associate some forms of music with a particular emotional experience, the pathos of minor keys, the excitement of stacatto, the fun of a polka, what is typically called blues, and music intentionally meant to evoke a mood in movies, but even those experiences are not universal. Personally, there is music that literally moves me to tears, but I do not associate such music with
  6. This is a question, not an argument. I think, "evoke," would be more appropriate than, "convey," with regard to similar emotions in various listeners. Convery seems to imply the music tells one what to feel, which doesn't seem right to me. As for whether individuals generally agree about which music evokes which emotions, I think it would depend greatly on which kind of music is meant. Those who appreciate Brahms find it very romantic and moving. Rand hated Brahms. Those who enjoy rap, usually despise opera, and I doubt they would agree about the emotions the music evokes. Perhaps it
  7. Me too. Care to start it off?
  8. That's true.
  9. I am total agreement with that sentiment. Appreciate your efforts, however. Randy
  10. You're forgiven. Randy
  11. You must have forgotten, I'm not an Objectivist. If "Objectivism" holds that one can know another's emotions, it is wrong. I've read everything Rand ever wrote, except those things ARI keeps secret. Rand said explicitly that one cannot know what is in another's consciousness. Randy
  12. Rand described an irreducible primary as, "a fact which cannot be analyzed (i.e., broken into components) or derived from antecedent facts." I agree that consciousness is axiomatic because it cannot be denied without contradiction, because such a denial is a conscious act. I have never completely agreed with Rand's meaning of irredicible primary because her, "analyzed," does not include, "not contingent on any other fact." Consciousness is contingent, it is only possible to physical, living, entities. Consciousness is only primary in the sense that a physical thing is physical, a living t
  13. Do you regard psychology a science?
  14. Regi, On some things, sure. This stuff is in its infancy and the cases are quite primitive, but they exist. Recorded (and implanted) images in the visual cortex, for example, are more like smudged silhouettes, but they are there. When I asked you to describe one you implied that the above was such a description. I know you are convinced it was, and I'm certain attempting to change your mind would be a waste if time. Still I think it is of some value to explain why what you have referred to is not an example of knowing what anyone is conscious of, not to con