psychoanaleesis

Well, that's too bad for composers like Rameau, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Delius, Vaughn Williams, Messiaen and many others who wrote music that imitates bird sounds... What???? What kind of bird produced Fur Elise or the Moonlight Sonata? The Four Seasons? Gee... if one says/wrote "Quack! Quack!" or "Tweet-tweet" these are imitations. Would these be called art specifically music/literature? No, those are figures of speech under onomatopoeia. Come on. If Beethoven said that he could re-arrange the chirps to his style, then that is Art. Could you please post a sample of those 'bird calls' here? Surely, those would have been useful in studying notes, tempo, fine tuning the instruments, etc. but those are not Art in themselves!

Thanks for confirming that. I knew there was something off about him when I read the entry on Agnosticism in the Ayn Rand lexicon that didn't fit Objectivism. I'm not saying that one should tolerate or give the cowardice true Agnostics practice but hey, if you don't like it THEN do NOT support it (give your consent) in your mind, in your household, business, in YOUR life! but do not damn the man who is currently perplexed in an issue and admits that he is! (see my post on whether I am an agnostic or deist in the Tribal Mindset thread of MSK.) Xray said (in an example): "We have the Bible whose writers were inspired by Jehova. Therefore we know it is true what is in there." Which is reasoning in circles of course, where a premise based on belief is used as alleged proof of truth. - Jehova's witness: "Our faith is based on truth." - How can we know that what we believe is true?" - We have the Bible, which was inspired by God." Case closed. So the stay caught within their own belief system, not allowing an external assessment of their claims. You can get the same type of circular reasoning with orthodox Objectivists.[end quote] Hmm, ain't this a fallacy? I say, then better slam the door on Mrs K's face since she's clearly caught up in that circle of routine proper only to animals lower than man. I wouldn't even call those people "Orthodox Objectivists" as far as taxonomy is concerned. I'd say they were more like "Randians".

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now.

Yep. Basically that's the idea. If the environment has been optimized, then there might be some chance of unexpected changes (mutation-evolution) which I say taking into account the of chances of error. If an IQ/intelligence test is well constructed then it becomes a reliable tool and it is is this consistency (despite content differences) that makes it remarkable. I know a man in his mid-40s who has been tested for IQ when he was in the 6th grade where he got 113 points and recently, he got tested again for his job where (not surprisingly for me as a Psychometrician), he reports that he is still 113 points! Although I failed to ask the names/nature of the two tests he took. This is a classic example of IQ being "predetermined". Let's look at another example: Taking different intelligence tests at one time, this early-20s guy is supposedly of "average" intelligence but on some tests, he steps on the boundaries of "above average" i.e. within the "lower limits" and this is where standard deviation plays its part. In actuality, this guy could be classified within the "high average" range meaning he could conceive/grasp bigger concepts some of his peers (in the average category) cannot but not fully enough to say that he could go head to head with an Einstein on the same subject given equal programs/training. Amazing ain't it? There's also a study being conducted which I read in 'Psychology Today' (DAMN! This would have been perfect although I forgot the date when- keep you posted when I find it!) which revealed that the human mind has a limit to the patterns it can conceive or grasp. This started because the author was one of the best chess players in his hometown (if I remember correctly) although when he stepped outside to competitions, he was defeated by others. This was not a case of 'lack of practice or knowledge' mind you because he was well-versed with the 'classical' strategies and kept up with the current ones. However, he reports that in actual plays he still failed to "see" crucial moves that spelled his loss and (of course) he had this trend afterward (I presume even after the moves were explained to him?). So he ventured to study other sports (football was one of them) and basically got the same result that no matter how hard one practices, there will always be a limitation mark for one's 'talents' and likewise 'intelligence'. This researcher suspects that certain brain areas would show the limits of talent of a person especially when he is in full-throttle. Edward de Bono also made a similar claim in his book, 'Teach Your Child How to Think' where he likens intelligence to a car that has a certain horsepower and that thinking is like a person's driving skills. Some people are "born" with high intelligence e.g. a Ferrari, Porsche, Dodge or other racing type cars but without proper thinking skills, that ride would go way out of control. Similarly, if a person was born with a '91 Taurus but is a better driver (or thinker) then he may beat that other person in a competition or I prefer to think that he gets better long-term gas mileage (happiness or satisfaction in life). What's not fair is that should a person born with a high capacity for learning be taught proper ways of thinking; little goes a long way. Also, apparently, these persons, suffice to say, excel in assimilating their environments and thus, they learn how to talk, walk and other stuff before other children their age. Nonetheless, this should not discourage other people in light of what has been mentioned. You just gotta be honest and do the best you can to think! Hmmm, I think this model fits with Rand's philosophy (specifically the concept of Laissez Faire?) since it has been mentioned in AS at least in the comparison between Hank Rearden and Eddie Willers that they may not be equal in terms of intelligence but they are equal in the spirit of performing to the best of their capabilities. PS Peter said: Why is this knowledge of (g) or general intelligence, important? Why break it down by race or nationality? Consider these questions: Which areas of the world have had great civilizations? Which areas of the world have had inventions? Where some races have colonized, what sort of society have they created? What if evolution did not stop one hundred thousand years ago? What if we all, are not created equal? Common, reasoning sense is not racism. The scientific method needs to be applied to all aspects of intelligence.[end quote] 1. 'General factor' or 'g' is important to know the individual needs as best as persons of interest can give him/her. Not necessarily to compare him/her to the group and stack him/her somewhere on the charts. 2. Race issue is important to determine the internal validity and reliability of the test (whether it could be applied to different parts of the world) not to pit one race against another. 3-4. Questions 3 and 4 have a LOT of extraneous variables that I find too much to handle in a single thread. 5. Evolution is still well on its way even as we speak which explains differences in present human behaviors (capabilities) than that of a century ago. 6. There are no such things as 'racial slurs' in science although there is a lot of discrimination. LOL.

Woah... Peter, could you just please summarize the issue? While I do want to know/see the facts at hand, it would be a big help if you quote them properly and please give (highlight) some views of your own because I know you to have interesting ideas. I know, I know, I have been forewarned. Truth is, I am very interested to know what the fuss is about but if it's presented in this manner, it gets painfully tedious (especially at one a.m.). Okay, I can question and argue with Rand's notion of "tabula rasa" since research have consistently shown that the human mind is not "empty" at birth and this is also in contradiction to the fact that one cannot make something out of nothing (law of conservation). So between the context of facts and Rand's reasoning, facts win by a mile since she herself acknowledges that it is "the final arbiter (of truth)" If as babies, humans "consciously" choose what we retain/keep/integrate then how come I cannot remember when I was 2-weeks old? The answer is because the faculty (hardware) for reasoning (software) is not fully developed yet e.g. eyes and brain to enable me to assimilate the environment successfully and remember. Lest babies would be able to readily walk, talk and whatnot. Fact is, we have capacities at that level but not enough sensible information to make evaluations and if you cannot make sense of what's in front of you yet, then it goes to follow that you cannot choose yet. Intelligence is innate. Thinking is a skill that is acquired. Good thinking is acquired by properly using the (naturally provided) proper tools i.e. sense organs and through focus/attention,perception,recognition/identification,reasoning and then responding. The operant word here is 'properly'. There are no differences between IQs of culture because all men have a natural 'capacity' (for the mind) and 'capability' (for the body) for learning-doing and therefore, the normal distribution curve will always retain its bell shape albeit depending on the homo/heterogeneity of the group one is testing. Also, that capacity is our tool for survival/living. Animals do not have volition and reasoning and that's what makes as humans. Humans are rational beings but are animals nonetheless who are endowed with an impetus for life but then again, it will be up to him to recognize his potential and seek to actualize it.

Hello Tony: I forgot to mention this in my original post but there is a direct expression of "I love you" (and for me more poetic/romantic) in my primary language, "Ako ay nagmamahal sa iyo" which implies that the person is currently and continually (consistently) loving the other person. "Ako ay" being "I am"; "nagmamahal" - "loving"/"in love" and "sa iyo" - " with you". Ah, the beauty of words...

LOL! Thanks form reminding me. I know. I find this funny (pun-ny) though because the irony his name produced. Hey, wait up, how about if you changed your name?

I think I have witnessed it vaguely. That behavior is appropriate (maybe) for rookies who are new to Rand's work although I can't imagine taking everything she wrote literally for even when I was newly introduced to her writings, I just found myself having an exponential increase in vocabulary to defend my views which I have practiced all along i.e. being a rational individual. She even said herself that Objectivism should not promote dogmatism. I mean, c'mon! are they retarded?!? BTW, I'm interested to know if Socrates did really say, "I drank what?" when he was poisoned - or was that from the movie, "The Real Genius"? Kindly. please post a link somewhere for me to check. It's funny.

No. I sincerely believe that Rand is not to be blamed for the behavior of those people (zealots?). In fact, she has made it so painfully obvious enough for those who would just open their eyes - and reasoning minds - to the philosophy. It simply was because those people did not exercise reasoning to their fullest. i.e. did not check their premises. Rand, of course, in this case relies on the words that they say and probably shifted her focus on the propaganda of her system rather than ensuring the quality (and application) of its individual members. Let's say for the sake of argument that Rand did not make a mistake in every single word she spoke about the system and some of her "followers" failed to grasp it. Could you say that Rand encouraged her "followers" to do this or that when she stated that man must think for his own or as her character Galt put it in AS that the only moral commandment is "to think" but identified it strictly as a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, let's also assume that those people DID exercise their full rational faculty (although I could not actually recognize it as such due to the facts presented) and came up with the same conclusion to "dedicate their lives to Rand". Then, they are mistaken and this will be proven so by reality and consequently, they will pay the price. To put it simply, they were either stupid, malicious or indolent to have done such an atrocity.

Just a quick question: Why do some people believe/insist that Objectivism i.e. Rand's philosophy (echoing from Aristotle) say that it is a religion? Etymologically, one origin of he word "religion" according to Cicero is derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). This, I think is the most appropriate among the others. For clarification, legere can also mean "to choose, gather". With these in mind, it appears "religion" originates from two words literally meaning "to choose again" or "to gather again". The latter could be justified by the fact that religious congregations do gather (act) on a certain schedule/routine. (which clearly Objectivists i.e. Individual thinkers do not have - save for the occasional similarities in goals). However, I'd like to point out a greater implication which the "gathering again" and "choosing again" can be clearly used. If one says, "You have to choose again.", this implies that a person has made a mistake or if he says, "You must gather again." means that he lost, dropped or scattered something. This works for most people who believes in a Supreme Being because it assumes that Man has been separated from/lost/made a mistake to God and therefore he must (or at least attempt to) re-align/re-choose God once more. This is where I see the difference lies: Objectivism, especially Rand's Objectivism presumes that man qua man has never made a primal mistake (original sin) and should therefore bear no guilt and be absolved by re-choosing. This further indicates that man is free to move on to other concerns since he has not made a mistake or lost anything in the first place. So there is no need for him to "choose again". Again, there was no dichotomy, no fissure or split between man and reality in the beginning. He has and has always been equipped with the faculties for him to deal with his surroundings properly (including other men). Again, Objectivism assumes that you (as man) are a "clean slate" who never lost the faculties that allow you to deal with reality and thereby should not bear any guilt. Religion acts in opposition to this since etymologically, I have shown that its premise is that you (as man) have made this mistake and must spend your (entire) life on making amends and appeasing reality (which to this system are the forces that lie beyond your natural capabilities). My conclusion: No. Objectivism is not a religion. It is a philosophy/system I find suited and proper to man and his greatness. Hmmm.... interesting.

I see your emotions sincerely affects the outcome of your paintings. You are good at expressing your values in this medium. I'd very much like to see your paintings in your happiest moments. But for now, I'm sorry for your loss.

I just remembered this issue in Psychology that a name given to a person has a lot of impact to his character, future behavior and how society treats him in general. I want to play with names. Give its meaning and critique it. One name came to mind: Immanuel Kant. 1. Immanuel - came from two Hebrew words (El meaning 'God') and (ʻImmānū, meaning 'with us'). This could very well have caused Kant's subscription to mysticism (IMO "swill" philosophy) based on the 'God' in his name and his socialist ideals on the 'with us' 2. Kant - came from Middle Low German kant(e) ‘edge’, ‘corner’. For me, this 'edge' is to divide, split create a dichotomy in man similar to Schizophrenia meaning Split Mind. This could also say "edge of...(insanity?)". If one uses the word 'corner', this could denote that his ideas came from dank recesses of his mind where he created a bog of contradicting ideas. In plain English, this sounds like 'Can't' meaning absence of ability or potential. Combined: 'God' (mysticism), 'with us' (socialism/collectivism) will only lead to an 'edge' that will 'split you' or bring you to the 'brink of insanity' or death OR a dark and dank 'corner' where light (of reason) 'can't' reach OR where abilities have no meaning. I'd like to do a similar approach to other names especially great men (minus the mockery)

Of course you are right, "It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media..." My attempted point was that the concept of re-creation of reality is a little puzzling when applied to a field for example like music; a general definition of art doesn't always work well when applied literally and equally to visual, auditory, tactile, and conceptual media. Is painting a bird the same as flutes imitating chirping? What object or phenomenon in reality does a melody re-create? For that matter, what does Fallingwater re-create in reality? A similar problem exists with Roger's view of art being a microcosm. I don't see how painting is a miniature universe. Michael Painting a bird is different from a flute imitating a bird chirping. The former is art, the latter not art. A melody comes from sounds which are placed in (a logical) order. It re-creates the already existing sounds to emphasize, tone down or almost whatever that person wants. Fallingwater follows its natural surroundings albeit given thought. What has been created by randomness has been given structure by the architect or any artist whatever the case may be. For him, he thinks in this manner, "Let me bring out the shapes that I see, take out this rock or that and also bring in other materials which I think will emphasize the already existing ones as well." You see, he is not contented by chaos and chances created by nature. Again, not in opposition to what nature has given but an improvement in its qualities that can only be done by man's thinking mind.

Thank you Christopher. I see your point. However, I would like to know, based on this theory that if two persons "feel they share the same identity" and the experience is based (mostly) on the "connection/relationship with the others", should the connection be severed, where would that the person's ego who was left behind be? Interestingly, if this theory if founded on 'women', then it could explain the notion that females are more possessive, more likely to get jealous and therefore feel the most scorn should there be a break-up.

Hello NewBerry: A concept for what you may be trying to convey are called a 'patterns' which is the mark of intelligent reasoning. It is a also a product of 'consistency' and 'coherency' coming from the same. However, there can be no plot in a painting unless a piece of literature is written as an attempt to describe it. 'Harmony' can be applied to all forms of art since it is the element which gives something a definitive structure that which is called 'integrity'. What do you mean by, "traffic flow in music"? It is better to properly place terms to their rightful media than to confuse one term for another and make yourself appear 'deep'- to others. Something which does not have a definition is called 'randomness'. "Abstract paintings" can be broadly categorized into 'doodles' and 'blots'. Sounds without progression or composition is called noise and Amorphous lumps of clay are called 'blobs'. All these by their very nature are products of thoughtless spontaneity and therefore cannot be defined even by its creator(s) and thus cannot be called Art but is currently and perversely called 'Post-modern art'. PS Roger: Did I just read that Rand just defined something using a negative? i.e. Architecture does not re-create reality? If it does not, then what is it according to her? I can't also believe that she exhausted her mental powers on trying (and given up?) to objectively define music as well.

Seriously? This is the United State's Lower House's switchboard number? The irony! Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!

Very interesting...I'd be happy to support this company if I was a citizen there. I love the phrase, "the best democracy money can buy..." Of course, the company would have to work through some of the existing laws but should it wipe the slate clean, this would turn out very profitable for constituent-investors. Logically, I'd side with the court since a company/corporation behaves exactly like a person does and goes through similar experiences albeit on a different scale. Nice post!

Could anyone, ANYONE provide a link to the Obama Health Care reform? Will it be worth deciphering? This is what I could find It appears... the beginning of the end is near. Oh, wait, it's already begun.

One interesting memory that came into mind was the expression "Mahal kita" which my professor in college boasted about in one of our classes in Psychology. My professor in effect said something like, (I couldn't quite remember if she said this in English or Tagalog but I retained it in English nonetheless...) "Do you see the beauty of our language? When one says 'Mahal kita.' The you and I part are put together as opposed to the American/Western way of saying (or almost any other language for that matter) 'I love you' which implies that these are two separate people..." She emphasized "Western" individualism as opposed to "Filipino" collectivism's approach to an expression of love and that somehow, the Filipino way of saying it is more effective or rather, "superior". However, I do not think that the interlingual rendition is much accurate in terms of semantics as to warrant an outright comparison of the two systems. The expressions 'Mahal kita' and 'I love you' are supposedly of equal value and definition for the bi-lingual layman. The former implies more than my teacher realizes for she may have subconsciously failed to take into account all manners by which this expression can be interpreted (and I have sinned also by not discerning it thoroughly at that moment). If a person utters the words 'Mahal kita' then what he is actually saying are two things: a. 'I have deep feelings for you' and b. 'I and you are together' thus, it means they are one, the same and/or we. This I think is a contradiction in a sense because if you are indeed together then neither can possess nor express having individual feelings. I think 'kita' by itself is a powerful psychological disguise which deceives the other and himself mostly by proposing that they are equals but are in fact individuals and more so, the person who says this is dominant than the other since the word 'I' has been implicated more than once. This is contrary to the statement 'I love you' which offers no deceit, no contradiction and which recognizes the individual is concerned. Thus, this is a statement that truly expresses equality. It proposes that a person has a deep feeling of affection for another but it does not necessarily anticipate a reciprocal response. Furthermore, I believe that the linguistic anomaly of expression of togetherness such as 'Mahal kita' states the psychological condition of the person and consequently direct his future actions. This expression alone is problematic for if one does not acknowledge his own existence and the existence of others (people or objects) apart from himself then there could be no existence at all. As he is, but a part of conglomerate of 'others'. Then, it leads to a grievous situation for what if he does not attain the 'expected' result of his confession? Then, I could only discern that it leads to nothing but frustration, a sense of hopelessness that is often reflected by the "modern" arts which most of the world has embraced. On one hand, to say, 'I love you' only requires your side of the story and if that other person does not see it similarly, then it is fine. For one knows that he can exist without the other but it is still better if the other person accepts. On the other hand 'Mahal kita' destroys the sense of individuality of a person and thus, wastes him/her as well. For the term 'We' cannot exist without at least two people sharing a common attribute. I shall continue to explore the psychological implications of phrases to their appropriate value for when one says 'I love you/this' it should be the expression of ones highest appraisal of another person or object.

Here I was, browsing the net, looking for news about what's happening in my country, the Philippines and I happen to come across this news about how the "Right to Reply" Bill passed the Philippine Senate, that is to say, they approved it and now the journalists of this country are protesting against by wearing black. Not at least bit shocked for I know for a fact that those goons have been springing on its supposed "constituents" and citizens laws which are not only preposterous but also detrimental to the inalienable rights i.e. Life, Liberty and Property held by persons and organizations in which they belong. These goons, and I say goons because they hold the guns by which they force people (media, journalists in this matter) to tell/write/print/publish the "other side" of a story that they reserve the right to broadcast. This bill is, on the surface, a redundancy of the constitutional Freedom of Expression which is derived from the right to Liberty. Freedom of Expression essentially implies that YOU reserve the right to "say" or "not to say" something regarding a person, object, organization, etc. So why is the frigging Senate reiterating (on the surface) the right of Freedom of Expression but actually choking it out? Is it supposedly to promote equality amongst Plaintiff and the Accused in the papers/websites/any media or is it to force an author to commit perjury to himself by compulsory delimiting his opinions? The right basically states that the accused (not necessarily brought to a court of law) can give an opinion to his defense using the same media as the complainant with same amount of "space" to be occupied. So for example, a newspaper prints someone with a complaint saying, "blah,blah,blah (points to another person/organization)..." the accused has the "right" to call up the editor and have him post his own reply (for free!) but how about if this person can refute 3 out of 3 the "blahs" plus, have an extra say on the matter? Why do they force the editor to "cut-out" some portions if every word in that opinion bears significant weight on the matter-at-hand? That's just on the sheets mind you. Another example would be in the airwaves: Senator A says something about Senator B which lasts for 10s on media time, and Senator B has a lengthier version say, lasting 20s but one could not edit it altogether for the statement would lose its coherency and other factors essential to proper presentation? Of course, it is up to the journalist to go on publishing this (and making it presentable). Questionable statement to this bill are: Who is the media? What is the delimitation of this bill? Section 1 of Bill 2150 states that all accused persons... "have the right to reply to charges published (in any media) circulated commercially or free..." and I'm thinking, "What the fuck are these politicians thinking or if they think at all? If you mean by free media, then that means this blog through me, as it's administrator would have to right down with the same length or in this same space reactions, commentaries, 'replies' of each and every bastard that would be offended by my blogs and opinions and furthermore, as the owner, editor, administrator of this space I would have to edit theirs to make it more 'presentable' lest I get hellfire from those who again wants to reply (directly or indirectly) accused." Should this bill be enacted into a law, I'd be one of the first to boycott this with my last post saying: "Go Screw Yourselves!" This Bill is basically silencing freedom of speech by saying, "Shut the Fuck Up" and it asks you to lose the responsibility of telling the side(s) of a story that interests you because every word that you utter or key-in can, and will be used against you (by your own mind!) because you have offended or "accused" some fool of something whether directly or indirectly. If you fail to say/print/publish his reply then you will be incarcerated and be charged fine as much as PHP50,000.00 (roughly $1,000.00) can be imposed on you. The result? No person can say an opinion about anything (against or for) another person or topic without dreading the fear of having someone else (through the Government) encroaching on their pockets, freedom and lives anymore. You can't give your 10 cents without being robbed of your whole wallet. I must say, however, that those people can and may "reply" but to their own accord. No need to say that again because it is guaranteed by the constitution and essentially by being human. Nevertheless it goes without saying or implies that they use their own resources and media and method and whatever "arsenal" they might possess. Never force anyone to consider something which they do not want or need. Let me keep my freedom to live my life and express it according to my will OR kill me right here and now using your guns with everybody as a witnessing (since I am writing against the "Ruling body" of this country). Believe me, this is not the first nor the last of the attempt of these marauders and parasites on our life, liberty and property. We just have to be vigilant of these bastards and shoot to kill them or disarm their weapons in defense of our values. Otherwise, this be a dose of poison in your mind which will kill you as quickly as you accepted it. Right to Reply Bill

Given Rand's definition of Art which is something that re-creates reality and is purely contemplative (of no practical use) then no, architecture is not art. However, you can just contemplate about a structure by standing before it and also, one can still find a certain "use" of a particular art just by merely applying it to any number of ways one can think of e.g. If Mozart's music really did enhance a child's brain development and was used as a "tool" for that purpose then would that music be invalidated as a form of art? I think what Rand meant by of "non-utilitarian" is it could still be a source of contemplation when not in use by a person. That is to say, architecture's primary goal is to combine beauty and integrity but it just so happens that these have a byproduct which is of so obvious use that it cannot be ignored. A beautiful building uninhabited does not invalidate its beauty but precisely because it is beautiful, many seek to dwell in it. Let's say Leonardo really did use his paintings to hide his "secrets" would his works then be not art? If one re-carves used the statue of David to have a hidden compartment, would it then cease to be art - to the owner and other people who do not know? If one dances in front of a mirror and contemplates the strength of his body but at the same time uses its techniques as an exercise would the dance be stuck out as an art form? To all these, I think not. Something is and will continue to be art as long as it expresses and fulfills and refines the purpose of its creator. An Architect utilizes materials and shapes and combines/integrates these into a "form" reflective of the architect's values or perception of reality. He also takes into account of how this object could add more to himself and his life. He is thinking, that a building (basically a hollow sculpture) should not only be a thing of beauty for the eyes and/or touch but also in every other possible way we could experience it e.g. hearing how the sound reverberates from the inside and how would the cumulative effect be if he places walls here and there. Therefore, he thinks in the sense of living the art.

Assuming it is rational to preserve individual life, all aspects being equal... If I became angry [an emotion] and acted to preserve a life, would that rational premise be evoking a "rational" "emotion"? I am not being linguistically licentious here, it is a concept that I have thought about going back to NBI. Adam I think by itself, an emotion is not rational but rather a product of reasoning that is delivered at neural speed. Let's take anger for example (in slow motion), it is through the perception of physiological changes, environmental catalysts and stimuli (psychological or environmental) and proper identification thereof could you say that you are "angry" e.g. the feeling of something constricting, gritting teeth, difference in respiration, change in facial expression and the cause(s) of these changes, etc. could "anger" and the actions taken after that can emotions be called "rational". When all these are taken into account then it could be labeled "rightful/just anger" as opposed to "anger" in itself which could be labeled as "causeless anger". Any holes in this?

Excellent explanation Christopher.

Why is that? It's a phenomenon of the human psyche after all. Don't tell me that this is in the realm of "subjectivism"? Also, I think what you meant by "dreams" are aspirations which an individual could take full control of and thus be rational about.

I have this question and I tried searching Rand's lexicon for it but it is not quite connected (just merely mentions). Where do dreams or dreaming fall under Objectivism? What is its definition and does it hold some degree of importance as did other philosophies or systems placed on it? I gather that dreams are tied somehow to the subconscious and the details that falls below our conscious grasp to tackle clearly. However, how come our dreams often not connected to what has happened to us (at least not in the sense that we are aware of)? Dreams are often perplexingly irrational when a person wakes up as he can only grasp a vague sense of what occurred. I read Freud's work "The Interpretation of Dreams" and the meanings appear to be inadequate for universal use although the technique of analysis I have found quite useful in sorting out and making sense of what the dreamer dreamt of (even in my cases) or am I just rationalizing or mislabeling it all when it proves to me and the dreamer of what their dreams could mean in their waking states? So I raise the question: How does an Objectivist approach dreams when it appears to be outside the realm of rational thought or does an Objectivist experience a "different" way of dreaming altogether that he says to others, "I do not know what you're talking about?" If dreams are conglomerate of concepts then it must still refer to something concrete and therefore could potentially lead to valuable information relevant to our lives that we failed to notice before.