Rodney

Just Google the author and title--I did just now, and found a download link. But believe me, unless you are an advanced mathematician, it won't really give you much. I understood just enough to verify that one of the classes of numbers he discusses is identical to my 4D numbers. The focus of his work did not include any discussion of extension to more dimensions. I've sent my essay to you (the revised version), and a 'typos' file. If you like it, I'd be grateful if you mentioned it on one of your sites, with the lulu link: http://www.lulu.com/shop/rodney-rawlings/understanding-imaginaries-through-hidden-numbers/ebook/product-22011204.html . Or even if you think it's nuts.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I tend to agree with Tony's point as I understand it here. Science is an effort to discover truth, not an exercise in the persuasion of others. In other words, to engage in science is to primarily enlighten oneself. Persuasion of others is another task--one can skip it and use one's new knowledge as a stepping-stone to knowledge that may eventually be more easily transmittable to others, but this is optional. I wrote an essay pertinent to this some years ago: http://solohq.org/Articles/Rawlings/;_or,_How_Objectivists_Are_Not_Materialists.shtml .

OK, I'll send you a copy. The main thrust of it is that, in the course of applying AR's epistemology to understanding imaginary numbers (something that always interested me), I was led to consider the ultimate nature of numbers, its relation to concept-formation, and AR's statements about math themselves (some of which I came to regard as mistaken). But once I understood imaginaries to my satisfaction, I applied that knowledge to the question of dimensions beyond 2 (two being the dimension of the well-known complex or 'imaginary' numbers), and independently devised a class of 'hypercomplex' numbers that can be extended to any number of dimensions. At first I was excited that I had discovered something new; but further arduous investigation (difficult for me because my education never even included the calculus) showed me that this class of numbers was already known to some advanced mathematicians. For example, one of my footnotes reads: Should I send the essay to comment (at) usabig (dot) com ? This will be my last post in this thread because I don't wish to divert it any further. PS: I did want to add that there is one little touch in the essay that was triggered by something you once said at Rebirth of Reason. I don't know whether I would have gotten it on my own, but I take this opportunity to mention it here. Maybe you'll notice it.

Thanks for your interest. The only website listing my compositions is LinkedIn, but most of it is in my profile anyway--I just left out some things. Or do you mean actual scores?

I can attest to Randy's impressiveness and creativity--even though I frequently disagree with his approach and results.

I should add that the above is a call for Objectivists to ban the terms “fact-based” and “evidence-based” entirely from their vocabulary of persuasion.

There are two seemingly irreproachable ideas Objectivists need to disavow entirely, even though at first glance they look to be in accordance with AR’s thought: “fact-based” and “evidence-based.” They are actually anti-concepts used to skirt around the necessity to address fundamental questions. According to these notions, any controversy can be settled, and any decision made, by whomever “has the facts straight” and whomever “bases himself on the evidence.” Some might ask, “What could possibly be wrong with facts and evidence?” The answer is that the usages of these notions ignore the whole category of truths that would tell you what facts are relevant to a question and what are the limits of their usefulness. Of course, such basic truths would be facts also—but notice how often the facts/evidence mantra is invoked in order to undermine the arguments of anyone who is suspected of operating from a principled point of view. It is said that the best way to understand and better appreciate a thinker with whom you disagree is to find out what he was rebelling against. Something similar is true for understanding and rejecting a mode of argument, even if it has nice-sounding names. —— In political debates, such as the one on gun control, many people—on both sides—cite statistics that seem to support their position. Often, one side generally calls this being “evidence-based” as opposed to “ideological.” But the problem with this tactic is that correlation is not causation, and your interpretation of any given set of numbers is inexorably guided by your intellectual framework. Any number of factors other than the one you are correlating might be influencing the numerical outcome. That is why both sides can cite statistics that seem to dictate a conclusion. So the solution is to “be ideological,” that is, to guide your thoughts about what is important and causative by your wider views on human interaction. The question then becomes: Whose views on the nature of man and human action and interaction are the reality? Then you will get to the heart of the matter, and may find that one side of the debate is focusing on irrelevant numbers—or perhaps that both are. The lesson is that one must think in terms of philosophic principles, and fundamental human nature, and choose sides according to that—and not try to be “evidence-based.” But of course, one side knows that would be deadly to their stance, and trumpets its “evidence” while proclaiming the impotence of philosophy—”ideology.”

Yes, it sounds like that might be what is going on, but it's not very clear (and all those lowercase abbreviations sure muddy things up). The rhetorical function of the paragraph listing the components of "the investigation" is obscure. Does it mean a possible future one, or the one CC is doing? And why would CC be investigating her own parents' activities at all? "Now why would all hell break loose if there is nothing to be found?" Precisely, and that is what I was saying. PS: Far more disturbing to me are the "pizza"-coded emails, however. I have not encountered any plausible explanation of these weird communications, and this is one so-called "conspiracy theory" that I think there is something to.

The highlighted part of that email doesn't seem to suggest any culpability to me (even though I think they are guilty). It's just referring to the nature of an investigation going on. The suspicious part is "Once we go down this road." The suggestion is that nasty things that will come to light--not necessarily the wedding expenses issue.

I discovered the video of the sample-based song “Since I Left You” after encountering a YouTube comment on another video that read: “It [the video] changed my life.” Aside from my reaction to the song (see below), it led me to ask myself: Can a piece of music consisting entirely of manipulated samples of other records qualify as “art” in the full sense, i.e. as the term is applied to an original song? Some people might object to the concept of “art in the full sense.” My thinking is that not everything artistic is art. For example, wallpaper design, handicrafts, and (dare I say it) architecture are not art in the full sense even though they employ many of the tools and techniques of art. In fact, I am sure art evolved out of the streamlining and “beautification” of utilitarian objects. Anyway, such an over-the-top statement as “This video changed my life” piqued my curiosity, so I looked for and watched/listened to it. Here it is: The song, especially as here interpreted, deals with a spiritual awakening of sorts. I had a strong positive reaction; for me, it brought thoughts the call of music as such—a dance in the mind that yearns for physical expression. (Incidentally, I have always found something very life-affirming in the sight of an obese person dancing well. I don’t know if others have this reaction.) Given this result of artistic pleasure, one certainly might be willing to accept sound productions like this as compositions in their own right, and thus as art “in the full sense.” But since art demands thorough selectivity, some might question whether importation of sounds wholesale from other (sometimes famous) recordings allows the degree of control by the artist that seems required. Certainly, the sonic manipulations on this recording are very numerous and varied—tempo, pitch, fades, echo, attack, decay, and many other parameters. But this leaves a lot out of the hands of the “composer.” Once a sound is chosen, it is more or less “frozen” and one is constrained by the original musical idea. However, a musical creation is often built up from a starting idea, and that idea influences the subsequent choices. This phenomenon of continual adjustment, to my mind, is enough to push such massively sampled works into the category of art in the “full” sense that applies to any popular recording. Many people will of course not like or identify with it; many factors are involved in one’s response to music. (Some might be turned off by the slightly weird overall sound.) But that does not prove there is no objective worth in music. (Would anyone maintain, for example, that Chopin’s Etude in E is not a great melody, and a great piano work?) This is from Stylus Magazine writer Ally Brown, quoted in the song’s Wikipedia article under “Critical Reception”: That might be a clue to some objectivity about it at least. I hope some here find “Since I Left You” a happy discovery.

Thank you, Peter. Ms. Neal, when I had told her the title before she had seen the score, had told me she liked 'outer-spacey' things; so I thought she would be receptive to this song. She wants to perform it again somewhere, and also wants to perform my other 'space' song, 'When Matter Touches Antimatter,' at another event in Chicago. At this point, I don't expect singers or listeners to perceive the song's metaphysical theme (at least not consciously), but after the song is more established I hope it will begin to be noticed. And if asked what it is these days, I won't answer because I would prefer to communicate the themes through my art. If I can't, that will be my failure (not in songwriting but in objectively embodying a theme--which, contra some commentators on OL, I believe possible and desirable).

Thanks, me too!

When she sent me the video, the singer said:

The lyrics are as follows (NB: the sung word “strange” should be “vain,” as below): “TO VENUS AND MARS” While children down here in the fields Catch fireflies in jars, So grown men chase evening light … … To Venus and Mars Someday a brave man will go, Someone who can bear to be launched And leave us below. But deep in the sky He will lose sight of the earth Ere catching that one final glimpse— Stuff of memoirs— Knowing he’s bound on a course To Venus and Mars. ---- Now he must seek other realms instead. It was time for those last looks to end. Echoes remind him of what they said When he first heard their call to ascend: “Do you find most of this globe absurd, “With its throngs, restless passions, and tears? “This world is vain, as we’ve often heard. “Do you long for a mission that’s one-way “To Venus and Mars—to Venus and Mars—?” ---- Near Venus and Mars, Yet might he grow ill at ease To gaze on them, visions of Earth Taint all that he sees? This trav’ler may soon Dream he will one day return To mingle on streets full of life, To chase falling stars And quite serenely look up to Venus and Mars. (Spoken:) And quite serenely look up (Sung:) To Venus and Mars.

So far, of the performances of my art songs that have taken place in the past few years, I have only one audio or video. I thought I’d post it here because it has a definite Objectivist influence. The song, “To Venus and Mars,” was one of three of my songs chosen for presentation at an event hosted by Opera on Tap called New Brew: A Warm Welcome, held in The Elbo Room in Chicago. (The two others were titled “Ave Maria [Ellen’s Prayer]” and “The Lone Last Leaf.”) Another recently performed song of mine, “When Matter Touches Antimatter,” has outer space as its background as well; but there is no Objectivist influence in that work. That song was a winner of the Second Fresh Squeezed Ounce of Art Song competition, hosted by One Ounce Opera and held at Central Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. My next post on this thread will present the lyrics of “To Venus and Mars.”

An update on her:

I used to be a member here under the name "ashleyparkerangel," posting on a variety of topics. I consider myself an Objectivist philosophically. In 2011, I shifted my musical focus to the field of art song. I have had my art songs and concert band pieces performed in Toronto (where I live); in Austin, Texas; in Chicago; in Chautauqua, New York; in Geneva, Illinois; in Elgin, Illinois; and in Munster, Indiana. I write the lyrics to almost all my songs, which typically concern or express reverence, aspiration, romance, independence, and the future. These themes also occur in those few songs for which I have adapted an existing text. NOTABLE RECENT PERFORMANCES "The Lone Last Leaf," performed by tenor Jonathan Cebreros at New Brew: A Warm Welcome, held in The Elbo Room, Chicago. Hosted by Opera on Tap. "When Matter Touches Antimatter," performed by tenor Brian Minnick on November 3, 2017 at Central Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. A winner of Second Fresh Squeezed Ounce of Art Song competition, One Ounce Opera. "Ave Maria (Ellen's Prayer)," performed by soprano Karolina Kierlanczyk at New Brew: A Warm Welcome, held in The Elbo Room, Chicago. Hosted by Opera on Tap. "To Venus and Mars," performed by soprano Amanda Noelle Neal at New Brew: A Warm Welcome, held in The Elbo Room, Chicago. Hosted by Opera on Tap. OTHER PERFORMANCES (See my LinkedIn page.)

I have never been a political person. Practically everything I post about is epistemology- or art- or music-related. This is my great exception. I've said my piece here.

To all who would be stupid: Do not split the vote against Obama by voting for anyone but McCain. I didn’t think this explanation would be necessary. Obama is in all probability not even eligible to be a Senator, and it is even more likely he is not eligible to be President. (The FBI does not vet elected officials, believe it or not—it is viewed as the responsibility of the politicians involved.) He got the Democratic nomination by fraud and intimidation. It appears he has broken the Logan Act multiple times. He just does what he wants, and everyone assumes that someone is watching over things. Everyone assumes that he would not have gotten this far unless he was checked out. So he never gets checked out. “You have to pinch yourself—a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.”—Melanie Phillips See also: Odinga Made A Deal with Kenyan Muslims to Institute Islamic Law; Obama Campaigned for Him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/1...inga-new-video/ “We ask again: Why did Obama actively support a candidate for Kenyan President when that person had a stated agenda that was contrary to US interests?” “Obama Goes to Kenya on Official US Senate Business, Taxpayer Funded. Obama Campaigns for Odinga, Speaks to Kenyan Crowds as if HE is Running for President of Kenya. Odinga Promises to Institute Sharia Law and Protect Anti-American Terrorists. Odinga Later Leads Widespread Ethnic Cleansing When He Loses.”

A newpaper birth announcement in Hawaii has been found that constitutes evidence Obama was born there. But the certificate itself is apparently still lacking, and a faked one was put online by a strongly left-wing website.

The main thing to preserve in an Ayn Rand novel is what she called the "plot-theme." The intellectual theme of ATLAS SHRUGGED is, as we know, "the role of the mind in man's existence." The plot-theme is the portrayal of the consequences of the withdrawal of the men of the mind against an irrational moral code. With these elements in mind, it is possible to scale down, trim characters and events, and make the necessary adjustments that flow from these changes and from the fact that movies are a different medium. Ayn Rand was well aware of these problems. Whether the finished movie would be a success depends upon a lot of things. THE FOUNTAINHEAD was only mildly successful, in my opinion, but this is not because of Ayn Rand's approach to writing her novels. It may be in part the nature of the adaptation done by her, the delivery of the lines by the actors, etc.--it was certainly not because of the intellectual aspect of the novel upon which it was based and the fact that the ideas are often explicitly referenced in the dialog. There is no conflict between intellectuality and drama. Also, one may observe that the most mundane events can become charged with psychic impact when there is a moral issue at stake. I remember a long time ago seeing a movie in which the climax consisted of the villain opening a door and being confronted with a snarling dog with hatred in its heart. This scene packed the punch of a sledgehammer. Yet the audience knew about the existence of the dog, and that it was logical the dog should be there just then. But by that point in the film, we had forgotten all about the dog.

The equivalent of every word of this could be -- and was -- said about the possibility of making a film from Gone With the Wind. Barbara Great answer, Barbara!

Last night, my wife had the sniffles in bed. As I entered the bedroom to awaken her and kiss her for Valentine's Day, I was startled to see this on the floor. I kid you not, I'm not holding it in shape or anything like that; this is exactly what I saw:

Yes, jargon is a pejorative term most of the time, and implies the terminology is unnecessary, pretentious, or obfuscating. If one is defending a particular usage, it is better to simply call it terminology. It's kind of like the distinction between childish and childlike.

AR's distinction is based upon the idea that man has free will, and that therefore the man-made could have been otherwise. Anything not influenced by human choice is metaphysically necessary, and had to be. Thus it is futile to rail at the fact that man must work to survive, and desirable to fight laziness.