Rodney

Instead of being punished, this man should be given a commendation.

How many is -1 cows? I don't really want to say much more on these topics at this point, except that I agree mathematicians often put forth consistent systems of entities and relationships as hypotheticals, and work out the implications without any thought of applications. And that these systems often prove to be useful and reflective of some truth.

I have to disagree with Darrell on this, and I am sure AR would disagree also. It is true that Ayn Rand defined logic as “the art of non-contradictory identification” rather than “the art of non-contradictory assertion.” But this is only because she wished to emphasize the proper usage of logic—that it is supposed to be applied to experience in order to arrive at the truth and not engaged in as an end in itself. The fact remains that a conclusion can be perfectly logical and yet wrong because it is based upon false premises. That is, if logical consistency leads to a conclusion known to be false, at least one of the premises must be wrong. And this is just what Rand meant, I think. Mathematics is of course another matter, and my forthcoming essay on hypercomplex numbers will, I hope, show this.

(I had noticed Barbara's absence and am glad she is well.) I should say here that Wagner's Tannhäuser Overture was a major influence on my own piece Anthem. This will be obvious to anyone who buys my score who is also familiar with Wagner's score, when they look at the actual "anthem" theme.

That may be, but I don't think anything was done to Lehár's Die lustige Witwe. Hitler simply liked the music apparently, and even presented the composer with an honor. What if it turns out that Phil Spector was indeed the killer of Lana Clarkson? I love many of his records, especially this one!

Very true. On a related note: I love Franz Lehár's The Merry Widow and so did Hitler.

Despite the fact that Wagner was a consummate bastard, I find his life and struggle quite inspiring--especially his Paris period, when he had absolutely no money and only a coterie of misfits and oddballs for companionship. I've read both his autobiography and Ernest Newman's 4-volume bio at least twice each, plus numerous other biographies of him. He also wrote a few short stories. I only liked one, but it was great! It was called "A Pilgrimage to Beethoven." I hereby recommend it to all artistic types. One incident sums up Wagner. At the height of his indigence in Paris, when he had no prospects and was severely in debt, he decided to hold an expensive party with costly champagne, inviting all his friends.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time! I like some of Wagner, but that didn't stop me from once putting words to the opening tune of the Tannhäuser Overture as follows: Oh me, oh my, I like a butterfly flying. Oh me, oh my, Don't like to hear small babies crying. Aren't kittens too cute? Very frisky to boot. Hey, that's kind of redundant-- What was I thinking of? ... It goes on down from there. (See RoR archives.)

I'm hardly ever snarky these years, and wasn't here. I was just saying that D's counter to Bob's idea depended on his, D's, acceptance and use of the principle of identity. That principle underlies any honest thought process, but it takes a philosophic mind to grasp consciously. A person can be brilliant on the lower levels of thought, and still not have what it takes to handle philosophy, to form those wider abstractions that identify what is common to all thought. [i'll remove the comment that was here and just say that I'll let B and D have the last word. No time!]

To clarify: identity is not an idea you invoke consciously most of the time. It is a principle that humans have to keep clearly in mind at all times in the thought process, like the light of day that we all take for granted.

Dragonfly, can't you see how you used the principle of identity to counter Bob's ideas about logic?

No, because as must be realized, and as I keep saying, philosophy is a science--the one whose subject matter implies that it must guide thought in what Rand often calls the "special sciences." The human imperative is to integrate all the sciences.

Without necessarily agreeing with the specifics of what they say, I'd like to observe that Darrell Hougen and Paul Mawdsley here exemplify exactly how scientific progress is to be aided by philosophic fundamentals. The other approach, in which philosophy is ready to ditch most any principle in the face of puzzling observations, while not stopping progress, greatly retards it. I suspect myself that physics is just on the verge of momentous discoveries that solve these puzzles, despite the retardent effect of current thinkers.

Shades of Blue by Ashley Parker Angel (though not credited directly). Turn your sound up. Also, ignore the video, which is unrelated.

I happen to :heart: this girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczZzJ-jy5c...ted&search=

For all you followers of Love, here's a :heart: Theme.

That's not the version I heard. Perhaps it was two different incidents.

I read somewhere--I think BB wrote it--that AR was once asked whether there were any rights of animals, and she answered: "I hope so." If true, this throws quite a monkey wrench into the thinking of some Objectivists, whose rationalism makes them strive to be "more royalist than the king" where deciding such issues is concerned.

In the same situation, at that age I probably would have--possibly longer and worse. Judge for yourself what that means with regard to my attitude to the truth and to AR, and whether a book such as PARC might be written about me.Concerning the cover (which I agree is not too good), another book called The Dark Side of Camelot featured a bust photo of JFK and his grotesque reflection in the hood of a car.

Despite my opinion of the book, I don't see anything wrong with the cover concept and execution, and in fact had guessed something of the sort had been done. You choose and compose pictures to suggest a book's theme, and this can entail artful manipulation of visual elements, including photos. Everyone is presumed not to normally judge a book by its cover. (Usually, authors have little input into cover art [at least in my experience], but in this case I think the authors designed or closely directed the creation of the cover. I must say they chose a bad picture of Rand.)

That's a wonderful formulation. Is it yours?

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but in a memoir, or a bio based on personal experience, there is no presumption that you are proving anything and need to "corroborate" every point and anecdote. A personal account by someone who has lived the events portrayed is a primary source. It is up to the reader to examine all the evidence to decide how reliable a primary source is. The writer of a memoir is not saying "This is what happened, and I'll prove it." He or she is saying "This is what happened as I remember it." It is up to the historian to judge the credibility--referring to all the evidence and drawing on his general knowledge of what is likely given what we know of human motivation and people's struggles and inevitable failures along the way. Not to mention lapses in a recollection that one might be innocently inclined to trust a bit too much.

Just on the day I mention Mama Cass of the Mamas and the Papas on this board, I find out that Denny Doherty, my favorite singer from the same group--who lives here in the Toronto area--died yesterday, which was my birthday!

Yes, welcome!

Have you gotten to the Mama Cass thing yet? Because that will rock your world!