Peregrine777

Exactly, Dglmut...self-esteem ultimately comes down to power, and how much power one has over ones environment. Nietzsche had something to say about TRUE self-esteem, (not the kind espoused by New Age charlartans in Southern California): "What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? -- all that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virtu, virtue free of moralic acid)" Why do you suppose MSK has become so enamored of the whys and wherefores of marketing and advertising and the psychology which underpin such procesees? I tip my hat to him. In more ways than one.

My understanding is that by this point, they are indeed included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. About time if you ask me. Goddamn whim-worshipping music critics cast them to the wastelands for far too long. Godspeed, Rush. Godspeed. Ninth Doctor has expressed a reserved appreciation for 2112, most probably due to that album's lack of modern mastering and overuse of compression. Very natural sound. At the time, I never understood his preference for 70's Rush as against modern Rush, but now I do. Later 90's Rush was a victim of the Loudness Wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war As my audiophile antennae have grown, I better understand Ninth Doctor's surprise upon hearing the second best Rush album of all time: "Power Windows" on his unsurpassed stereo rig. How can anyone here not bow down and weep with joy to the overwhelmming dynamics of 1986's "Mystic Rhythms"? (Shout out to J. Neil Schulman):

Kolker, I agree. But his latest attempt to ground morality in science has been eviscerated by serious philosophers. I'm afraid even Ayn Rand could not adequately bridge the is-ought gap. Survival != Flourishing

Blacks. End thread. Damn you neo-hippy individualists. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1468138537/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details

Now that I think about it...does the Objectivist emphasis on "individualism" and "reason" obviate any natural inclinations or proclivities which adhere to one sex over the other? Are we TRULY "equal"? Do we share the same impulses, goals, desires? Rhetorical.

Here's a good, concise summary of the MRA beef with the current state of affairs. Nothing too distant from Objectivist philospsophy, I would imagine (apart from the opportunistic females who latch onto our movement like remoras): http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/19/the-socialization-of-the-costs-of-sex/

"How many species are there that kill each other without a female being involved?" Very few, if it all. Unless we're talking about the last slice of pizza, metaphorically speaking

Many people have no need to pursue some rarified notion of "truth". They have simple needs...they want to be fed and comfortable, and believe things about themselves and others which make them feel good. What incentive could you offer such people to abandon their way of life in pursuit of some objective "truth" which might very well reveal their ineptitude and lowly station in life, such that they become demoralized? Let me guess, you'd give them some trite Rebublican boilerplate about "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps"?

The notion that self-esteem is a cause and not an effect is poppycock. Aristo alludes to this, and I would add that it boils down to the fact that confidence is a result of competence...and competence is something that can be measured and evaluated in the real word, apart from any verbal diarreah about one's internal self-talk. You don't achieve great things because you think you are great -- you are great because you achieve great things. That's the bottom line.

To get back on topic, an argument can be made that many of the so called "irrational" injuctions of religions are simply time-tested truths which have been handed down from more intelligent folk, who realized the ignorant masses could not be trusted to derive the truth of such propositions on their own. Think of history and time as laboratories which determine which choices and actions have survival value. If some intelligent and enterprising individuals realized through their own experience that eating raw pork often ended in death, how would they communicate such an observation to their less experienced brethren? Could the reasonably expect their brethren to understand the cause and effect involved in not properly cooking meat? Or would it simply be easier to say, "Hey, God doesn't like this, so don't fucking do it" One must always make allowances for the less intelligent. Reason be damned.

Unfortunately, the advocacy of individual reason often devolves into self-serving rationalization for one's needs and wants, irrespective of how it impacts others. There is nothing in the "advocacy of reason" which *necessarily* points to having a greater *intelligence* which takes into account the second or third order effects of one's choices. Shoving an old lady out of my way in order get first in line might serve my immediate needs, and would be entirely justified by my rational accounting of the situation at hand, but the blowback from such behavior would not be slight against "reason" as such, but rather "lack of intelligence" I often think the Objectivist advocacy of reason, and the associatied hand-wringing about all that is wrong about the world and people, is rather an indication of the lack of intelligence in the world, and the fact that intelligence is not evenly distributed.

Eric vs. MSK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaNRKMfSOvc (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Mike, With all due respect: I'm somewhat disappointed by your decision to ignore the central point of my post. Upon further reflection however, I think I understand your motivation in doing so. If this sub-forum is intended as a "safe house" then I suppose it's for the best that anything which might interfere with an addict's self-acceptance be placed on the backburner. Fair enough. And truth be told, I wouldn't have been able to do justice to the issue without concretizing my thoughts in a manner which compromised my privacy. So we'll stop here. I do want to thank you for your thoughts regardless, as I always pay more mind to folks who have lived Truth and not merely studied it at a far remove. Which reminds me: Contra your implication, I do have a bit more than a passing familiarity with the world of addiction and recovery. Not as a participant, mind you, but no one who has spent any amount of time in South Beach is immune from exposure to such worlds -- whether it be the world of fevered egos and grasping addiction, or the world of sponsors and relapses. My impulse in posting here was most assuredly a personal thing, and not merely academic. I regret it now, because the odds are good that anyone pledging fealty to Objectivism, reason and logic is not likely to be a careening ball of chaos and destruction, even if they do suffer from addictive tendencies. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but as you know, it's a big world out there. And finally, I have to speak out in defense of the original artist. "The Thirteenth Step" is a concept album of sorts, with every track addressing the issue of addiction from various angles, of which my posted song was but one example. The artist in question is not speaking as an outsider but as a guilty participant. I leave you with another track to demonstrate this, partly to make my point, but mostly because it's a rocking good song! Cheers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHuZiZrVPE

Mike - I didn't mean to impugn any of the participants on this board, most of whom I'm sure are suffering with their own legitimate demons. I am not one to cast stones at the variety of broken souls who have been victimized in one form or another. I posted in a spontaneous fit of angst about a meta-issue related to the world of recovery. So if any reader took this personally, I hereby apologize. But since the ball is rolling, allow me to continue. I'm fairly confident this song was born out of a particular circumstance unique to the artist, and was not intended as a critique of recovery as such. Indeed, the artist is most certainly quite familiar with the culture of addiction and recovery. The title of the album from whence this track came is "The Thirteenth Step". Furthermore, I think you would agree with me when I say the causal factors which account for addiction are as varied as the day is long. Perhaps for some the cause is genetic, for others, environmental. Perhaps some turn to drugs because they are born novelty-seekers, and drugs provide the excitement that similar spirits get from skydiving. And perhaps others turn to drugs because their lives are full of hardship, abuse and pain, which they wish to escape. Quite different routes to the same destination...n'est-ce pas? More to the point, the "acting out" behaviors of addicts affect the people in their lives in quite different ways. For some, the worst thing they do is serve as a painful dissapointment to their friends and family when measured against their potential. That's fairly benign. But other souls can do quite a bit more damage, some of it irreparable. Leaving aside the literal "irreversable" of involuntary manslaughter, there is still the case of ruthless, selfish, insensate souls who leave a trail of broken promises and false confidences in their wake. These shameless users can and will cause the innocents around them to make choices and decisions that have far reaching consequences -- and for the innocents, these consequences are usually for the worse. If these dysfunctional relationships last over long stretches of time before the addict is in recovery, a case can be made that it is not the addict who is the victim, but the people around him. So, having painted this picture, is the general thrust of the song still so illegitimate to your mind? The situation is doubly offensive when the addict, now having beaten his addiction, finds his life improved in sundry ways due to his association with a 12 step program. As I have seen with mine own eyes -- AA has got to be, quite simply -- THE best networking opportunity out there. Where else will you rub shoulders with figurative captains of industry, with individuals from other walks of life whom you would NEVER had known otherwise. And because of the intimate nature of the program, you are getting the "real them", not the mask of their public persona. Hence, many friendships blossom into quite lucrative business deals and social opportunities. (In fact, this phenomenon has so impressed me that I have seriously considered checking into the program and playing up my (relatively minor) drinking, just so as to get in on that action. Shades of Edward Norton in "Fight Club" I guess you could say. Yes, I am that cynical) But to return to my point: So you have an individual who irrevocably altered the lives of those around him in negative ways, some of which are permanent, and then, after having been buoyed by the AA Networking Club, no longer sees any gain from associating with the individuals of the former life. The unfortunate innocents get to languish with the scars they bear, while the recovered addict is reborn as a hero. You seem to imply that feeling any sense of outrage is an "addiction to scapegoating". That may well be, but I submit that for anyone with a spine and a healthy sense of justice, such a state of affairs is enough to make the mind recoil. YMMV of course. That said, I do think you are a fair man with a good heart so I look forward to your response.

LINK

Well I won't argue with "bloated and pompous" as I'm not the fan I used to be, but it'll probably make you cringe to hear I was originally a skate punk leftist in my teens who listened to the usual suspects (Dead Kennedys were a fave of mine). Upon hearing Rush however, it dawned on me how something truly unique and special can be created when people take the time to learn their instruments and actually apply some *craftsmanship* to their work, versus banging out the same 5 chords in a drunken temper tantrum.

btw - Something similar happened here (scroll to bottom) where someone who is decidedly not me asked him about the seeming tension between his advocacy of creative integrity and the fact that he composes music collectively. I'm curious what the peanut gallery here has to say about the issue.

LOL. Ah yes, but you have to distinguish between my Ridpath impersonation qua Ridpath and the version of Pacino-as-Roark, that I did indeed perform for the Bernstein Bear (and which he rather enjoyed IIRC)

Birds of a feather flock together. Would that I too could soar amongst those eagles. Ahem. This of course establishes beyond any doubt the unassailability of Rushism and the utter BANKRUPTCY of Objectivism. Seriously though -- you're probably right. I remember hearing a radio interview with Neil where he proffered the same dubious story of how 2112 was original with him and only *later* recognized its similarity to Anthem. Take my skepticism -- PLEASE! It makes me feel dirty. Nevertheless, we should never lose sight of the fact that Rush has done much to convert many a wayward leftist towards the Truth and the Light. BTW, I couldn't help noticing the shot of the liner notes wherein your "genus" is spelled correctly as "genius" [of Ayn Rand]. I never guessed you as a subversive, Dennis. Hm?

For any Rush fans out there, the new Classic Albums doc on 2112 is quite good and includes a nice extended bit on Rand (starting at 11:00 minutes in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3YbHRt4uZA&feature=related Now, with Ridpath Power! And believe you me, it's quite good. *wondering if Kolker has completed the catechisms yet*

With apologies to N. -- You want to <i>live</i> 'according to nature'? O you noble Objectivists, what fraudulent words! Think of a being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power -- how <i>could</i> you live according to such indifference? To live -- is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative 'live according to nature' meant at bottom the same thing as 'live according to life' -- how could you <i>not</i> do that? Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be? -- The truth of it is, however, quite different: while you rapturously pose as deriving the canon of your law from nature, you want something quite the reverse of that, you strange actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, yes to nature itself, and incorporate them in it; you demand that nature should be nature 'according to John Galt' and would like to make all existence exist only after your own image -- as a tremendous eternal glorification and universalization of Objectivism! All your love of truth notwithstanding, you have compelled yourselves for so long and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to view nature <i>falsely</i>, namely Objectivistly, you are no longer capable of viewing it in any other way -- and some abysmal arrogance infects you at last with the Bedlamite hope that, <i>because</i> you know how to tyrannize over yourselves -- Objectivism is self-tyranny -- nature too can be tyrannized over: for is the Objectivist not a <i>piece</i> of nature?... But this is an old and never-ending story: what formerly happened with the Objectivists still happens today as soon as a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to 'creation of the world', to _causa prima_.

Mike, you may enjoy this short 3 part essay on Nietzsche's thought, from a fairly "balanced", i.e., non-doctrainnare writer: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2003/11/coming_to_grips_with_nietzsche.html http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001194.html http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001223.html However, I must warn you that a study of Nietzsche runs the risk of unmooring you from the Objectivist notion of man as a purely, or at least potentially, rational actor. That sort of thing will only be possible with radical genetic engineering. "We are inherently irrational, although we like to fancy ourselves as rational beings. The truth is simple: we are irrational beings capable of rational thought." -- Christopher S. Hyatt

Try investing in 12 packs. Indeed. I have it on good authority that if I order in bulk, I get free shipping. ;)

I'd call it a mixture of paleo and neo. It is NOT Pat Buchanan. --Brant Where do you get this? To my mind, the distinction between paleo and neo is in the fidelity (or lack thereof) to a distinct American sociocultural tradition. We may split hairs over what that tradition constitutes exactly, but the neoconservative strain seems to me to be yet another attempt by another Elite to draw America in a particular direction which benefits them to the detriment of the vast Country Class: http://spectator.org...s-and-the/print Neoconservatism is largely a Jewish phenomenon. I'm talking about Wheeler's ToThePoint. --Brant Looks good. I just may bounce over there.