Rodney

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack this thread. By the way, I happen to agree with Mawdsley's project of integrating free will with causality. (I discuss this issue in my essay "667" that I mentioned in another thread.) Perhaps another factor in putting a poster in Dissent at Rebirth of Reason is putting forth multiple positions that are judged to be in conflict with Objectivism, while maintaining that they are compatible. I can see how that would be seen as just as disruptive as continual anti-Objectivism. Apart from the rightness or wrongness of the poster or of the forum administrator on the issues in question, I think such a policy makes sense. The only thing to do in such a case is for each side to go its own way.

Yes, I forgot about that. Maybe I am misinterpreting, but that seems to be the principle that they follow most of the time. It is a good principle for certain types of forums. Note that they did not send Bill Dwyer to Dissent, and others who agree with most of Objectivism except for certain points, and others who have significant disagreements. I suspect there is something of a personality conflict here. I should say that the present forum is also a very good format, though I personally do not have much time to delve into debates with those who have such deep differences intellectually.

The Dissent section of RoR is, I believe, only for those whose sole object in posting is to belittle AR or her thought--or who at least give that strong impression.

Ah, but remember, it is not such a very long way from brazen and bronzed: Brass : An alloy of copper and zinc. Bronze : An alloy of copper and tin, to which small proportions of other metals, especially zinc, are sometimes added. Also: Pitch can be made from petroleum products or plants. So I would worry!

In the world of Objectivism, an "Eddie Award" would be somewhat dubious. But in the "mainstream," thankfully, it is something more significant! Congratulations--though I'm not surprised. I have to say my money is on the bronze award, not because I'm familiar with the other entrants, but merely because you are probably the only finalist who mentions Ayn Rand in his nominated work. And we cannot have a gold, or even a silver, award going to such a person, can we? Perish the thought! However, you may yet surprise me--good luck!

For perspective on the issue of "science," I think it helps to go deeper, as I did in 667; or, How Objectivists Are Not Materialists.

One of her teachers, impressed, told her it would be a shame if she went into anything but mathematics. She said, "No, it's not enough."

Ellen, from everything I learned about Rand during nineteen years of being with her or talking with her almost daily, this is exactly correct. Barbara Yes. To me all this was obvious the moment I began seeing postings of those entries on the Net.

By the way, an interesting fact: one of AR's favorite TV shows was Perry Mason. It is also one of mine, and one night, near the end of the show, I was startled to hear the "hobgoblin" quotation emanating from the mouth of Raymond Burr! This may have rankled with Rand, and indeed triggered her comment. I don't remember whether "foolish" was included. It would be interesting to know the relevance of the thought to the action on the screen. Was it about resistance to change, stubbornness? Does anyone know? I should know better than to get into these discussions while I'm so busy. So I'll now sign off with some appropriate video:

As a poetic expression of fearlessness, a psychological stance, the willingness to change one's mind, it's valid if one takes "consistency" to mean "unchanging" or "stubborn." This does not make for intellectual progress, however. And note that he includes "philosophers," so it's debatable what his exact meaning is. Would Emerson ever have a hope of forging the is-ought connection as Rand did? No. I can see why she considered him a little mind, in the properly intellectual sense. I'm sure Rand had had exposure to his views, given his influence. It is obvious that she would have contemned them. And perhaps the quotation in question was sometimes used against her, when she insisted on definitions and logic in conversation. Emerson lives in aphorisms and epigrams apparently. But even as a psychological approach to self-assertion, the quotation is dubious. There is no mention of any effort to reconcile and integrate what one thought yesterday with what one now believes. This would constitute full, healthy integrity. So, as a poet, possibly big. As a mind (in the senses important to Rand), very little.

That may be true, in a loose or generous interpretation. But a serious thinker knows that consistency is the guide at every stage of the reasoning process--it is the means of implementing "A is A"--and would not make such a pronouncement about it. (It was only a dedication to consistency that led me to discover hypercomplex numbers.)

Exactly.

Suddenly, I feel great.

From "Self-Reliance”:

Perhaps the presence of the cat is soothing, so that the persons feel "Ah! I can die now." The cat is killing the patients! Keep it away!

No, I was just curious. I must admit I only scanned these threads, because of my interest in the debate plus my busy work schedule--and I was more interested in what the opponents were saying on certain matters, than in what Victor and other Objectivists were saying.

Well, I guess I got my answer on this one.

I am wondering. Victor seemed to at least be holding his own in a first-hand way in the epistemology debate threads. Was there copied-and-pasted text in those as well?

I will hold my peace.

I took Logic in university, under the department of philosophy, and I can see that Kolker doesn't know what he is talking about when he tries to apply it to basic philosophic questions. He may be a good scientist (I don't know) but he just does not grasp philosophy. My grade was 100% by the way.

Why do you use the term "objective reality". Reality is that which exists independent of our will or presence so it is ipso facto objective. The phrases "objective reality" and "facts of reality" are redundant. Ba'al Chatzaf Rand said the same thing, but explained that these terms are used for emphasis in certain contexts.

Great! My main problem is finding time to prepare the music notation, being perpetually busy my with editorial work. Will get back to you.

Let me run this by you. I once wrote a tune that a concert-bandmaster said was "pretty" and that he offered to perform publicly at his next concert. For various reasons I never took him up on it, but I continued to hone and rework the melody, until now I have it in a form that would make a good song, if I can find a good lyric for it. If I wrote the lyric and sent you sheet music for it (or just melody and chords), would you consider singing (perhaps even arranging) it and sending me the result? I think your voice would be good for this tune, and one problem I always had with making demos was finding a good voice! The tune is a slow ballad, tightly structured yet modulating a minor third and back. I would need to know your range, so as to choose a suitable key. Perhaps you are concentrating on composing--so I'll understand if you refuse.

That's a lovely piece and you have lovely voice. Did you tell us you could sing?

No, the planet Marsh. There's water there.