Rich Engle

Everyone has roots, a frame of reference. Was Rand proprietary? Probably. But it points to the question of whether or not anything is really proprietary. Everything comes from somewhere. And as it has been said- great composers don't borrow, they steal. As to her saying she "always" held the beliefs, well... it is a nature/nurture thing. "Always" was not an issue of her consciousness suddenly flashing on- she integrated into that stance, and likely did so early. If we want to talk about going against reality, it would be that to deny any of AR's Russian background. Chris, in his book, was doing gap-fill, painting in the rest of the background. His research was impeccable. And, of course ARI did their sniffy-thing. They had to run it through the filters, and put the right spin on it. Make no mistake, ARI is an organization, and can be studied from an organizational behavior standpoint. I think the last thing ARI would want would be to have a well-taught OB person breaking down what they're all about.

Charles is right, Phil. You know I was around at SOLO to watch some of that treatment bestowed upon you. It was ridiculous, it was mean, it was stupid. It was such a lynch mob mentality. Virtually always, you would simply be going in as the voice of reason, civility. Reward? Boring Old Fart of the Month Award. Immediately, it turned into a sicko, skewed attack, with Linz acting as the ringmaster. Way to reward someone for being a nice guy! To my knowledge, I never saw you go off on the attack, and that drew attacks, and that was just shitty. Best, rde

I don't know how I missed this, but IMHO this is the best line in the whole Hsieh-tyeria, it really does say it all about the Queen Wannabee: Charles: It has been widely observed that Diana has an insatiable appetite for being the center of attention. Perhaps this also makes homosexuals suboptimal since they do not hunger for her sexually. By her Hsiehcological evaluation, this makes homosexuals suboptimal. I'd imagine anyone is suboptimal if they aren't Diana Hsieh. I wonder if her admiring drones realize that they, too, are suboptimal. But, I'm betting that she ain't willin' to call Leonard suboptimal. Nope, ain't gonna do that! She'll be nursing that prune on his sickbed, and guiding his hand across the transfer-of-dynasty papers while she's turning off the drip. She is the kind that eats her young, being suboptimal as well. For sure, her old man is suboptimal. Good Lord, what a Nancy-Boy he's gotta be at this point- whupped beyond recognition. I actually pity the poor bastard, in a way. I can only imagine what date night consists of. I'm thinking goofy role playing, and trust me, she ain't no Dagny.

Yeah, Dragonfly, there's that one. I think there might be more elsewhere, but I don't have it in hand right now. Like you, I just remember something that was pretty lame.

So, Phil... Does that also mean that you do not believe that Diana is in complete Objectivist robot/fundamentalist mode? Don't you see any of that? I do. This isn't one of those beloved evidence issues, for Heaven's Sake! It's either that she is so out there in her fanaticism that she can't see her own self, or, she is simply out to pick a fight, in the hopes of elevating her position (translation: attempted proactive ass-kissing, on-high). She picked a stupid fight with Chris, and there is no reason for it- the man has never hurt a flea, and anyone with a brain and some history knows it. How does a bully get attention? By picking fights, man. Why does a bully pick fights? The main reason? They distrust themselves on a deep level, maybe on they can't even see. You want to talk social metaphysics? We're freaking looking at it. rde Keepin' it Real in the Field

Diana lays down dry homo-rage: "I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal". "Suboptimal?" Oh, good Gawd! Maybe I should spend more time over at Limp Noodle; I'm feeling like this is a virtual treasure trove for raw working material. Where, oh where to get started on this one, if at all? So many possibilities... Well, let's just go right in there. First off, anyone that uses that kind of dry, superior entree-vous is suffering from some serious meglo-twit-itness. Diana is, on a good day, a minor, largely unrecognized thinker, outside of being the frontrunner to replace Leonard's current lapdog or, in this case, lap-cat. She is nothing to nobody, on the global picture. By and large, her writing stinks. It stinks because it doesn't have a hint of fire to it. I will hold back here a bit, other than to say I was just thinking about making a comparison to an old, dried-up, and unused piece of equipment that would be found on some birdlady senior citizen rotting away in a nursing facility. That's what her writing is like. "I regard..." Eff, eff, eff! About the only person I know that has a seriously big enough set of Boys to use that phrase and get away with it is Nathaniel Branden- if he writes that, I'm going to listen. She simply does not have the cajones required to use those words. You are Not Worthy, babe; go back to school (better yet, get out of school and hit the streets- maybe then you'll feel like undoing that bun in your hair, Moneypenny, and hiking your leg up over that oak desk...Jeez-Louise!) Shall we move on to "suboptimal?" I think not- why tamper with standalone A-hole work? Does this have something to do with the Ultimate Height<tm>? "Suboptimal." No, no, no! This is just not a good word, even in engineering documents. Now, I haven't investigated this new love affair between Droolie and Noodle. I suppose that the way things fly in this world, it could already be on the rocks by the time I post this. But it definitely raises some, er, credibility issues between the two newlyweds, does it not? Noodle, in her "suboptimal" statement, is backpedaling. But, she is backpedaling without fail into what is clearly homo-hating at worst, but a superior, how-unfortunate view, a skewed, mutant kind of bare-tolerance might do as well. In either event, Droolie is up to bat, because why...why oh why oh why? Is his level of desperation; desperation for alliances such that he would align with what is clearly a homophobe? This one makes Ralph and Alice Cramden look like Brad and Angelina. Heavens to Betsy! There, that should do. rde Always here to help.

So, I assume that even the mildest of jokes about obese, drooling, wine-soaked rage-filled gay NZ guys are out of the question? rde At this point, the Ultimate Height<tm> may involve Viagra<tm>, or at the very least some kind of power tool. Or, maybe going the Portnoy's Complaint route, and investing in a nice cut of raw liver. "And that's the worst thing I ever did: I fu**ked my family's dinner" -Philip Roth, "Portnoy's Complaint" (Very likely paraphrased due to the effects of aging, but surely you get my, er...point.)

Miss Rand wrote some scorchingly bad stuff about Bertrand. Probably his politics, maybe his metaphysics. I'll tell you what, though, all that being said. Two good things among his many. 1. Why I Am Not a Christian Just worth the read. 2. Hit a used bookstore and snag a copy of A History of Western Philosophy Now, I have had varying opinions on this book from Objectivist-based folk, and they were predominantly negative for one reason or another; a posture I find kind of sniffy. But, the bottom line is it is a fabulous tome, very big, very comprehensive, and you can likely pick up a hardcover for about 5 bucks- I did. Best, rde

Barbara, That needed said and you are, heads above, the ideal person to have said it. When people ask me who they can trust in the Objectivst forum-world, MSK is nearly always the very first name I mention. I know this because he earned my trust- I have made myself "vulnerable" to him many times in the course of our correspondence, and he never did anything but listen, and try to help me. THAT I can't say too often.

It is absolutely a sign of weakness. Weaker yet is the move of saying it publicly. They are becoming Orwellian-- a little more each day.

Exactly, MSK. It's called the honor system. Now, I suppose elsewhere the same claim could be made, but it is not so. Much more simple- if you aren't down with the party line (which in and of itself free-floats a bit, depending on, er, the social metaphysics at hand, mood, gastrointestinal state, and in general which way the wind is blowing and how hard), then you are going to get it, because that is what deep insecurity demands. What I thought amusing was what happened after I chose to leave SOLO, since I clearly was, in my attempt to dialogue, not in the club (primarily due to the fact that I had become a Unitarian. Though I had experienced a profound spiritual shift, I still had (and have) a great deal of Objectivism integrated into my personal philosophy/belief system. The upside of this was that my background gave me a pretty unique ability to dialogue with Objectivists, being that I know the language. And of course, while this undertaking was, for sure, modestly successful. I am convinced that bridges were built here and there, as well as goodwill, tolerance, understanding... In any event, there is a point in such things where you know you have hit the saturation point, and I chose to leave- at a time when the lynch mobs were particularly in play. The funny part was that I was put on moderation pretty much immediately after I made the announcement. It was said that this is a standard op there, because, well, you never know when someone becomes disgruntled and can go off. I found that whole process retentive and generally odd. Anyone that knows me knows that kind of thing would never happen because, for one, it never has. So, even after what I considered a reasonable and courteous disengagement, there was a need to do that, and that points to something about Joe R's nature, I think, and it appears to involve, once again, control.

Other than an application to be used for mitigation of the confused, the flamer, or the professional troll, moderation becomes the refuge of the cowardly, the afraid, the control freak. It's either that way, or what is left? Nothing more than a practices and standards committee. A bureau of propaganda. With ROR, I see it as more of a smug, elitist mindset, although they surely are so so immersed in their static, immovable gestalt, one in which there is a great, deep miring. Cemented shut, really. It may not be agreeable, to the freethinker, but it is surely understandable- it is a hallmark behavior that goes deeply back into civilization. Without the construct, the warm, non-fluidity that is the fundamentalist, there would be the fearful task of facing not only the dynamic nature of life, but all that in the world of the "we;" the diversity of thought, what acceptance is, what grace is. Many things. If it were taken away, you would be looking at some very frightened folks. Yup, MSK on moderation- the deadly malevolent flamer that he is. Nobody, but nobody is going to moderate my ass. Because, moderation (at least their type) is nothing more than insecurity in action.

I suppose it could be a voyeur/enthusiast/lurker who simply did their homework. Or, ummm...not. Casey Fahy <---(God Voice), "I Accuseth Thee<tm> Well no, I don't really, but I'm with the idea that it's somehow related to that clown cadre. rde Bring it on, boys: Daddy's hungry.

I suppose it could be a voyeur/lurker that did their homework and now they wanted to get into the game. But either way, it's just more crazy shenanigans<tm> rde After shenanigans, they will attempt "hijinks."!!!

I've been monitoring this forever, which is how long it has taken so far. In the back of my mind I always figured it might be a Jolie/Pitt thing. I hope they don't mess it up too badly. rde

I don't know what's up with Diana, and in general I don't care- as far as I'm concerned she went three sheets to the wind a good time ago, and that is a damn shame. It is always my hope that someday, people like this will come by a moment of clarity, where they realize exactly how precious and short life is- definitely too short to run around throwing manure (albeit sophisticated, well-tilled manure) at other people for no reason. But Barbara is right on this one. I don't know how much good it will do, but she is absolutely right. The bottom line is that Chris Sciabarra deserves nothing but respect. And if one is lucky, they will be able to enjoy interacting with him- the world, for sure, is a much brighter place with Chris in it. I have never met him in person, but I have corresponded with him at length for quite a few years now, and all I ever get from Chris is positive energy. Chris is the real deal. If these two weren't so tied up switching between looking down their noses and putting their noses, along with the rest of their heads, up their asses (or, more recently, up one another's), they might've actually figured that out about Chris. But probably not, because that kind of emotional intelligence, that kind of benevolent enjoyment of others,is too simple for these (to quote the only thing good Spiro Agnew ever had written for him) effete snobs. As far as the work goes, find me one person that knows anything about anything who can say that even the combined body of work (such as it is) out of Hsieh and Perigo even equate to sufficient wrapping paper, were one to have to package up one of Chris' pieces. For most of it, I can think of other uses, mostly in unplumbed rural communities. I am pretty sure how Chris will handle this, because he is such a gentleman, and all around kind soul. But me, not so much. Perigo, Hsieh- keep it up: the way you operate, no one will have to do anything. In the world of freethinkers, of comrades, you are going to die old, and alone. Effing believe it.

Gawd, MSK- those links led to some major lame. I need another shower, that was so icky. And I love the revisionist crap on Kat. Nice touch. I was around through all that and I totally know what the score is. I don't remember if they took her account down right after the resignation, or if they slapped her on moderation for awhile, and it doesn't matter which. Idea: maybe Linz was just having a senior moment. Or something or another is wiping out his brain cells. It's like Linz is trying to do Hedda Hopper, or Page 6. It reminds me of stuff I've seen in high school newspapers. Actually, it's worse- you wouldn't be permitted to go quite that funk writing a high school column. And then, the "C'mon Chris you can do better..." Says who? Perigo? Eff him. Compared to Chris, and I do mean this, Linz can't write his way out of a freaking pay toilet. He doesn't even do schtick well anymore, because he's in such recycle mode. I really want to start referring to him as a particular feminine hygiene product that was much more prominent in past days, before they went to disposable ones. Three words: Emperor's New Clothes. As far as Diana, she's a fundamentalist. Sad, really- I kind of remember when she wasn't. It's always sad to see a newly-minted fundamentalist, in any movement or religion. It's like their psyche demanded that they slap on the blinders. But it happens- some people absolutely have to go that way in order to keep it together- see it all the time. That is the complete antithesis of what freethinking is about. Oh well- she can go have it. Sheesh. rde

I have to say i agree with MSK about Linz in terms of performance. He does show heart, and occasionally some real bright light in his writing. But that's about it. If you do a good old fashioned Ben Franklin balance sheet on Mr. Perigo, I'm not sure it would be pretty. He is his own worst enemy; only he knows whether he is aware of that or not. He was, once, a pretty good impresario- he knew how to stir the soup. Now, not so much. Matter of fact, I don't see near the vibrancy in either of those sites. The thing about most impresario types, or call them people that present themselves more as a personality than a person is that almost always, it has no staying power. And more often than not, bridges are burned, and ugliness goes down- maybe not only on the outside, but inside the impresario himself. If you want to talk about social metaphysics (or maybe this would be "microsocial" metaphysics), look at what has happened with all this, and the remaining cast of characters. Heavens to Betsy! rde

Roger- I am impressed because I think you have hardened up an issue by talking about Judgmentalists, and the rejection of non-judgmental awareness. I've seen it here and there but it didn't come at me as clearly. I think this is so key. I would say that awareness simply "is," meaning, it cannot be awareness if something like judgment is in the forefront. A part of awareness, to me, means being predisposed to the fact that awareness, reality, can and often will bring you something that can make you challenge your existing beliefs, re-examine how past experiences have been interpreted, and so on. Despite the fact that he dropped out of college, Bruce Lee was a middling good philosopher. When he talks of awareness, it is usually, of course, linked to fighting, where awareness is king. Anyway, here is one thing he said about it: "Truth has no path. Truth is living and, therefore, changing. Awareness is without choice, without demand, without anxiety; in that state of mind, there is perception. To know oneself is to study oneself in action with another person. Awareness has no frontier; it is giving of your whole being, without exclusion." best, rde

And while I'm at it, let's dig into this little Randian nightmare: "The products of anti-rational, anti-cognitive "Progressive" education, the hippies, are reverting to the music and the drumbeat of the jungle." This is about one step away from a KKK meeting. For the longest time, I had done a 180 and was in total agreement with Rand's essay on Woodstock (The Objectivist? I have the original, forget which issue it is in). But, this is once again a vivid illustration of black/white, baby-with-the-bathwater nonsense. In the Woodstock essay, the glaring omission is any understanding (hence lack of mention, having been dumped with the bathwater) of the artists that performed there, and what their work meant. Was Woodstock a logistical nightmare? Was it drug-soaked? Hell yes. There were a lot of not-so-good elements to it. And there was a lot of beauty to be had. Much more so than the later edition, where the Zeitgeist was a very different one, and a bunch of animals started everything on fire. But let's get back to this whole tribal jungle beat thing. To say that kind of stuff shows one thing and one thing only: a complete blank out in the area of music history and fundamentals. A complete blank out as to what global music means. What rhythm is, where it came from; a non-understanding of the when and wheres and whys of playing from the hips as well as the head and the heart. Rhythmatic-based music is not inferior. Ever seen something like a 24-measure Adi Tala cycle? The intricacies involved in Afro-rhythm? What is embedded in so much jazz? Sorry, Rachmaninoff is lovely, but there are other fish in the sea.

Dragonfly, that reply is simply basic prejudice, pigeonholing. Does that mean that every asshole on the road is my colleague because we all share the commonality of driving a motorcar? Here's a few masters, off the top of my head. it might lighten your load: John McLaughlin Allan Holdsworth Jeff Beck Robert Fripp Adrian Belew The Edge Carlos Santana B.B. King Steve Vai Shall I go on with the minions? They are legion, my friend.

Dragonfly says: "everything in which you can hear electric guitars (the most horrible sound in the universe)." I'm sorry, but with all respect, that is a reprehensible or at least uninformed statement. Them's fighting words, where I come from, Dragonfly! State your premises, my friend, and maybe I can help what is a malignant misconception. Here, let me help you out a bit. The electric guitar (and its ancillary equipment) is one of the most intricate, sensitive, expressive pieces of musical gear ever integrated into the musical world. Do you think my handmade Vigier Arpege electric guitar (Patrice Vigier, Paris) surely makes horrible sounds under my hands? I spent thirty five years of dilligent, disciplined practice and study, combined with real life performance experience to do what I can do with an instrument like that. I and any other self-respecting guitarist doesn't fiddle faddle about with a four-thousand-dollar instrument just so I can make "horror". I make crystal clear tones, lovingly treated with various shades from the digital domain, Dragonfly. I spent hours just getting one singing legato-friendly tone for solos. I spend open-ended time developing guitar and synthesis hybrid sounds so I can expand my writing pallette and make lush tones. In the hands of a seasoned professional, the electric guitar simply transcends. The electric guitar can jack you into the universe in a way few other things can. And no, it does not mean I lean or rely upon electronica rather than talent. It means I have enough handle on things to do what only electronica can do. Can't believe you said that, I just can't.

Well, as a musician, maybe even as a human, one of the first things you have to accept is that Elvis could do things that mere mortals cannot do! You have to wonder what this true story of MSK's is about, though. I wonder if it has something to do with his particular timbre. We know that voices are as unique as fingerprints. How odd! But I truly believe that Elvis had special powers. I like Tom Jones much better but I'm sure even he kneels to the Power of Elvis. I don't know what the deal was with that Concerto of Deliverance, Monart, and all. I remember they had an essay contest as to why you most deserve a free copy and I was one of the people who won. I lost the information and never got around to sending them 2.50 for shipping. It is odd that I just ran across this thread as well, because it popped into my mind last night while I was taking a break from composing a new piece. I never think about it, but last night, and this morning, it was hanging around me. I'm about to go out to dinner with my lady friend, who beside being a dancer, is a very well-versed musician and a rabid Atlas fan. I'm going to ask her what she thought Halley would sound like, and such. BTW, on a barely related topic (art, dance, Rand...) somehow I missed it before when I bought posters there, but take a trip over to www.objectiviststore.com and take a peek at a poster called "Heroic Spirit," which features a leaping ballerina, and a great quote from The Fountainhead. It's a little stiff at 26 bucks, but I really liked it so I got one. rde Even that Halley dude didn't have Elvis Power

You either value protecting the innocent when they are in peril, or you don't. I do, and in the scenario, the opportunity to do so is easy. Why do people value that? That's the question that can be difficult to answer adequately through reason. To me it's fairly past words. About the closest I can come is saying I love life enough to be willing to avert harm coming to innocent life, if that is thrown in front of me. As great as it is, reason does in fact have limitations. As powerful as it is, it is only one component of what a human consists of.

Snarling and gravelly. It's perfect! I could've sworn this was part of some screenplay they were pitching to Tom Cruise. rde Waiting for Brokeback Mountain 2: The Fur Traders You do the math.