mweiss

I expect you mean "mentor" not "protege." Haas was much your senior in age. I loved that man. We got his program here for a few years, though it was then discontinued for budget reasons. I still miss the glowing love of his attitude to music, and his imaginativeness, and his wonderful voice. He was my ostensive definition of what a benevolent human being is. I can't say I agree with you that rock isn't music, but I haven't time for philosophic debate now, so I'll leave that issue to others. Ellen ___ Yes, sort of a mentor. He does have a few years on me, after all, he's already dead for over a year now and I think he was born in 1913. But I try to carry on the presentation style in my own program, as I revered Haas' delivery and explanatory techniques which were understandable to both the musician and the layperson. My earlier understanding of Objectivist esthetics with regard to music held that in order to be considered music, a piece had to have melody with context, not just a collection of random notes strung together and fed through a distortion/fuzz box.

Interesting point, Victor, although Jonathan's work, if it's not a tracing of a photograph, is really technically up there with the finest realists in history. I think the Objective ideal for art is a representation of what man can and should be, not necessarily as he is, if that's in a downtrodden state. Ideal art is not about the struggle of mankind, but about having reached paradise. That is the sense of life that I like to see.

Thanks Kat, good words there. My problem is not so much with how accurate my property valuation is, but that through the trickery of inflation and speculators, the towns can use those excuses to jack up your taxes several thoudand percent over a few decades. I have done numerous things to try to affect a reduction. Oh, I could tell you a story about this house and the clashes with the town, but this is a family forum... A home should not even be taxed at all. Shelter is an essential, just as food and water. Moreso, it's a psychological necessity, since it validates our worth as human beings. We, being individuals by nature and requiring freedom to survive and flourish, must have our sovereignty respected and protected. Take away a man's home, and you've thrown his life into chaos and threatened his mental health. As for my connection to this mess, I'm not a person who lusts after piles of cash. My genius is not in making money. I'm more an inventor/starving artist type. Not good enough at anything to make a living, yet love to dabble in various things. My fleeting attention span causes me to lose interest in one type of task quickly, so I move on to another hobby and have had many. Incidentally, this is why I was never able to hold onto a job toward the later years of my employment. I was miserable on the job. I felt like I was in jail. The work was of no interest to me and all I could do was think about 5:00 coming too slowly. I hated the surroundings and the people that I had to work with as well. A series of events in the early 1980s would forever separate me from the employed world, and I would become a starving freelancer, jack of all trades, master of none, from then to the present. I have to solve my psychological and maybe physical problems which are at the root of why I can't seem to succeed in business and become both a productive and happy and wealthy individual. There is something going on, some guilt perhaps--don't believe it can be entirely related to laziness--although I can't rule out physical exhaustion as a hampering factor, but the way things are now, I have a family that I'm responsible for, most importantly, a little girl who's innocense deserves the best effort I can muster on my part to ensure her quality upbringing. Thankfully, I have a wife who expects little of me and is incredibly patient. The tax problem is a symptom of more serious economic problems and a way of life. Poverty is a philosophy, according to my belief. I have to dismantle my thought process and change the premises that hold me in that mental prison. I hope to get to the point where writing a $26,000 tax payment is like dropping a dime in the toilet--inconsequential. I want to be rich enough where I won't miss the money. What I need is a coach who can dissect my premises, one by one, and probe out the contradictions, of which there are probably many. Living with mixed premises is painful enough, but when you know a little Objectivism, you realize that having mixed premises is really a bad thing and you want to fix it, especially after your concrete performance has confirmed that you are going nowhere but down if you continue along the current path.

Perhaps the so-called Objectivists who turn with the tide of the crowd are only Objectivists in name, but not fully committed to the principles of Objectivism, one of which is to evaluate facts independantly and not blindly follow the herd. About Dr. Peikoff, a few Objectivists I know from another forum had debated his idea of voting Democrat, but those of us who changed our position did so out of understanding the severity of the threat and what a religious theocracy would mean for Americans, as opposed to just more European-style Socialism. And the fact that we are getting expanded government anyway with the Republicans, it adds only more fuel to the fire that more than one good reason exists to remove them from power. I have started listening to the 30-session course on Peikoff’s DIM Hypothesis, and it is the method of logic he presents therein which allows me to understand the danger of Misintegration over the lesser danger of Disintegration. I come from a family of dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, but frankly, I have no preference for either party. I’d vote Libertarian if I were going to even bother, but I’m with Kenneth R. Gregg on the issue of voting. It’s a waste of time and Democracy can be reduced to the realization that it’s really about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I’m aware of the heated battle going on between the Peikoff camp and the Branden camp. I am trying to keep a distance from that controversy in an effort to remain neutral and to discover the truth, if that’s possible. The fact is, there are a lot of people who read a few Ayn Rand books and then call themselves Objectivists. I am not one of those. I still consider myself a student, even after 42 years with Objectivism. I make lots of mistakes, my epistomology is often faulty and I’m grappling with contradictions in my Metaphysical understanding even to this day. I don’t think there are more than a handfull of people in this world that had as clear and non-contradictory understanding of Objectivism as Ayn Rand did, and later, Leonard Peikoff. And even Peikoff was not perfect. He made one mistake in public, letting his ego get out of control and bragging that he ‘stole a page’ from Ayn Rand’s works at the Library of Congress. Well that slip of the tounge cost him that manuscript page he held so dear. I would imagine he learned an important lesson from that experience. But I don’t fault him in his areas of work. He’s a master at Philosophy, and I suspect his DIM Hypothesis will be revelational in scope, as I come to understand it in its deeper layers. I wish I could remember what the exact argument was, but in a lecture that my parents mentioned attending in New York many years ago, both Branden and Rand were present. Branden said something and my parents were commenting to eachother that he had made an error in his presentation. A minute later, Miss Rand interrupted him and corrected him. I remember my parents were feeling very good that they detected the flaw in Branden’s argument and had the confirmation from Miss Rand that they had been on the right track, even before she spoke up. They told me about it, some 39 years ago, but my failing memory is lost on what the topic was. I would love to discover what it was, so I could evaluate it myself. I don’t believe that love is collectivist at all. It is a mutual sharing of common values, not a dogmatic oppression and egalitarianization of the masses. The two are vastly different entities. That suicide bombers are commited to their cause is no surprise. Most if not all radical religious people are driven by emotion, not reason. Emotions are not tools of cognition, so when we attempt to use them as such, we make grave mistakes. Mysticiam is what enables these people to fall into the ‘groupthink’ of the bombers. I don’t know how familiar you are with the Q’uran, but I have studied it after 9/11, seeking answers to the motivation behind it. I had found at least nine passages that called for proactive destruction of the infidels, or non-believers. Islam is not a tolerant religion. It is a religion that wishes to stand alone in the universe, with no competition. It is a parasite whose prime directive is to destory all that is not Islam and to control the minds of all who remain alive. The problem there IS Islam. A true Objectivist is not immune to making an error, especially in a stressful situation, but he is better equipped to avoid falling into the trap of ‘groupthink’. I myself lived on the outside all these years, excommunicated from social circles, called a nutcase, and an extremist—some people even joked saying “so when are you going to blow up a few federal buildings” and other such nonsense. I have always been one to follow my own ideals. If the group was doing something I knew to be immoral, I stopped there. I could not go along with it. Even back in my school age days, I was a loner because my ideals and principles differed from the commonly accepted way of thinking. I reached a point where I didn’t care if I was different. In fact, today, I can be seen online, picking fights with Liberals and Neo conservatives left and right, enjoying the shock value of what I say, in an attempt to shatter their philosophical worlds. It’s almost a sport, but I do it in the attempt to open people’s minds and get them to think outside their little Socialist boxes.

Okay, I'll bite: Ray Kurzweil. Why? Because I think he's a great modern inventor, working in the field of electronic music. He invented what I think are the best synthesizers in the world and today he's working to solve the longevity problem so humans can live vastly extended lives with better health.

I think that the democrat win is a good thing now that I understand Dr. Leonard Peikoff's reasoning and some of his DIM Hypothesis. Bush and the Republicans represent Misintigration. Their Faith-based Initiatives are the first real bold step into breaking down the barrier between church & state and turning our nation one step closer to religious theocracy. The Democrats represent Disintigration and as such, even their misguided efforts toward a Socialist government pale in comparison to the risk of the complete loss of freedom to express ideas contrary to the Church that the Republican direction is taking us in. If anything Democrats will gridlock the government and a 'do nothing' government is less dangerous to American welfare than one bent on religious expansion of power. I do personally worry about higher taxes, Draconian law enforcement and encroaching Socialist laws of the Democrats, but I understand Peikoff's grave concerns about Republican right-wing ideals.

Cradle robbing? Who on earth would joke about something like that? This is a serious forum. That does remind me of a joke though. There was once this dirty old man who... (You can fill in the rest.) Michael I've been called everything from a paedophile to a cradle robber to a dirty old man by people on forums. This forum will probably be different, but I posted my disclaimer anyway.

My score was 28. I'm not sure that this means anything in terms of autism though.

For the most part, the study makes sense, however, I think there is an important distinction missing in the above statement which I quoted above: and that is the fact that this study assumes participants who are not independent thinkers who actively make value judgements for every action they consider. Picking the wrong length of line in the study cited in this article may be the choice made by many, but I don't think that an individualist whose actions are directed only by his own will and not the concensus of others, would pick a wrong answer on purpose because it's what the group did. Rational individuals make value judgements, and whether one values acceptance, or the perception of acceptance in a group by means of an act that is wrong, more than one values his knowledge of absolutes (the line of the correct length), says a lot about the person. The one choosing the wrong answer in agreement with the group is a collectivist. The one who chooses the right answer believes in absolutes and is an individualist. That aside, I think the article is startlingly revealing. Most people are biological robots. Monkey see, monkey do.

Very interesting point about how the boy functioned well in your daycare environment but not in public school. One could almost conclude that drugs like Ritalin were created to cover up the evils of the public school system. Ayn Rand's "The Comprachicos" comes to mind when thinking of this. The human mind has a marvelous propensity toward individualism, and when forced into a collective like school, it rebels. I know. I've been there myself. Public schools have only gotten MUCH worse since then and I can only imagine the horrors of today's public schools. I do believe that diet can play an important role in ADD. Children have lots of natural energy and when compounded with a sugary diet of processed foods, this exacerbates the condition until it becomes a problem.

The comment about Viagra was mine, not his. I simply drew a conclusion as one of many possibilities.

I found that video, uh, very... revealing.

Holy smokes! I didn't expect to find Filipino cuisine being discussed here! Angie, are you from the Philippines, or a traveler who's been to the Philippines? My wife is Filipino and one of her favorites is Chicken Adobo. Pancit Canton is another that she cooks lately. I'll have to tell her about this thread and see if she is familiar with the recipe you posted. There are quite a few excellent Philippine dishes, but I forgot many of the names. I myself have Italian blood and I love Italian cuisine just as much if not even more, although my wife can cook exotic stuff that is intensely enjoyable (which is why I gained 20 lbs almost immediately after we married). Asian cuisine has been a fascination to me though. I love sushi and eat a lot of it when I go to the local Chinese/Japanese restaurant. All you can eat buffets will be my undoing one day!

Thank you, Mark. There is other OL'ers who have found love in cyberspace, this being how Angie and I met. These days, it seems like people can meet in all kinds of ways--ways that were not possible years ago. For example, I live in Toronto and Angie is a California girl. Yet, our paths crossed. Thank God for that. Angie is a very special woman, as I'm sure you'll find out from reading her posts. And I could say the same for many of the other posters, but Angie is the top on my list. You're new here, and you have a lot of catching up to do--but it will be fun and educational. Again, thank you for the well wishes. Victor I always say to my wife "Where were you thirty years ago?". Indeed, folks today are very fortunate to have this international means of communicating. I wish the internet had existed in its present form and level of infiltration in the 60s and 70s, then maybe perhaps I would not have had to work with such a hopelessly limited range of women. Oh well, better late than never! (and no jokes about cradle robbing, okay?) At any rate, my brief encounter with Angie on this forum left me with a very positive impression. As with many people here, I sense a high level of intellectual quality. Have fun and enjoy your lives.

MIchael, You're quite correct. It was late, and I was getting foggy in the brain. Not being able to tell the difference in time signature must have meant that I was really lacking of sleep. It is indeed a Tango. In reading your comments throughout this thread, I fully agree. This music gave me the same impressions. It is being billed as much more than it is, which is a simple collection of songs. I think of a concerto as an integrated series of movements, all fitting within a context. This recording is anything but that. Instead, a loose collection of seemingly unrelated pieces of music. Yeah, Muzak-quality compositions. Sorry to be so blunt, but I can't state truth as I understand it any more obliquely.

Mary Ann Rukavina (later Mary Ann Sures) gave a course on the aesthetics of painting. It was Allan Blumenthal who gave a course on music, in the mid-70s. The course was later revised and includes portions by Joan Blumenthal on the art-historical context of the various musical styles. You can find information about this course in the Roger Bissell corner. Ellen ___ Ellen, Thanks for pointing me to that resource. I was struggling to pull in some information from the weak and static-ridden noise of my distant memories from forty some-odd years ago, when I had last heard the name, and it must have been my father's error or my listening in error that associated her with musical esthetics. Indeed, it makes sense that Allen Blumenthal would be the one teaching on this and I am glad I know the source of this knowledge now. As a host of a weekly radio music program, I find it important to keep expanding my knowledge of music so that I can educate listeners in the appreciation of music, much the way my protege, Karl Haas did. I have found a rare few articles on the meaning and esthetics of music, and I enjoy reading the real Objectivist views on what constitutes and defines music. I have a lot of arguments with lay people on that definition. Liberals will say that rock is music, while I'll argue that rock lacks real melodic development and then cite certain classical pieces as a contrasting example, and so on. The more I can learn about the philosophical meaning of music, the better I can argue the definition. Does that make sense?

Hi Victor, Politics and Ethics seem to be, by priority, some of the more urgent topics that I am interested in discussing. Why? Because I am plagued and hampered by our Fascist government at every turn. They want to take my property away now that their taxes exceed my gross income. I believe we are living in a nation of hypocrasy—a nation that stakes its raison d’etre on freedom—yet violates that freedom again and again in very real concrete actions. I have, over the decades, developed some really strong dislikes for government in these areas: The military draft: conscription = slavery Taxation of private property: forced labor and the denial of respect for the sovereignty of a man’s home. Eminent Domain: the wholesale violation of property rights The FCC’s Doctrine of Prior Restraint on broadcasting: I believe that the airwaves belong to those with the technical ability to harness them. That they have been sold to economic pimps in a mafia-style control situation disgusts me. Finally, what I’m really in search of is recovering my own self-esteem and efficacy. I’m here to sort of ‘recalibrate’ myself. Realign my goals and ethics with the ideas of Objectivism. So I will be presenting many situations I face and asking questions about dealing with them. Most predominantly, why do I continue to fail at business and in my quest for economic success? This is a very exciting group of intellectuals here. My gosh, I was beginning to think all Objectivist forums were just college students sparring with eachother, trying to see who can argue Epistomoligy the best. Here, I see people who seem genuinely interested in seeking Truth through discussion, with no particular prejudice. I think that some good can come out of participation in this forum, so here I am.

Hello Barbara, Let me first state that it is a somewhat strange and inexplicable feeling to be conversing with the THE Barbara Branden, a name I have known for over forty years and attributed with the Objectivist school of thought. Ironically, my parents, both strict "orthodox" Objectivists (though they called themselves "students") would not get this opportunity to communicate directly with one of the original members of Rand's "collective" and I, of much lesser intellectual ability, am now bestowed with this opportunity. What a feeling--I cannot explain or describe it. Why do I think America has fallen to Fascism? I believe that political change happens in pockets. I'll use an example that was geared toward economics, but the meaning of which can be translated to politics: There was a saying that goes like this: "When everybody else is out of a job, it's a recession. But when YOU'RE out of a job, it's a depression." How this relates to politics is what I wish to convey. Wealth is a great insulator from the ravages of Fascist/Draconian laws. Those who have wealth are usually the last to face the barrel of a gun sponsored by government. Conversely, those who have the least resourse--those who are struggling to survive and manage a bare subsistence living are most at risk of facing the government's guns. Gross human rights violations in America are happening, but in pockets. Many will disagree--until the entire nation erupts in violations. But for those who were the exceptions and were violated (the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, to a lesser extent, my own family, and countless others) it IS a Fascist dictatorship that we are living in. How different was it for the 83 men, women and children who died in Waco, Texas, than the killings at Auswitz? Both groups of people were killed by a similar idealism. If my understanding of the definition of Fascism is correct, isn’t it the doctrine wherein all private property is owned by the government? If that is the correct definition (at least subset of the definition) then would it not logically lead to the concept that all property in the US is effectively owned by the government? My test for this is related to taxation. If we don’t pay the taxes on our property, it is forcibly taken from us. Therefore, we were not enjoying ownership, but custodianship of the land—land which we are renting from the government. Since the government collects taxes (rent) and since it can dictate what we can and cannot do with that land, it is exercising Fascist powers. It is a dictatorship (on its way to becoming a religious theocracy) because the government will use force up to and including killing its own subjects (I would have said citizens, but I no longer feel like a citizen) to impose its will on the people. How can it not be Fascism that we have here in the US? Even if it is in small pockets, those that resist it are finding out just how serious the government is in using its dictatorial powers. On marrying a Catholic girl: I married for love. Okay, I’ll admit that I fall into the general category of most Fil-Am couples—the aging, potbellied balding guy who’s never been married and realizing his life is at its nadir, so he reaches out past the boundaries of national borders in search of love. But I was fortunate to have met a lady that doesn’t care about my age or my looks. She wanted someone mature and stable, and certainly that is what I present. She wanted a man who was non-violent and gentle with her. I am that. So I guess she got what she wanted and I got pretty much what I wanted. Some Objectivists (former Objectivists) don’t take issue with that. In fact, the day before I left the US for the Philippines, I spoke with a longtime family friend, Cole, who was the one who intruduced us all to Objectivism in 1964. To my utter shock, he confided that his wife was Catholic. Now Cole is not really what I call and Objectivist today. In fact, in the late 1970s when I worked for his corporation, he was dabbling in Subjectivity and Hagelism. I even have a tape somewhere of him having a conversation with my father about Subjective ideas, recorded some time in the mid 1960s. So I conclude that his is not strictly Objectivist and so he would not be against my relationship. It is the orthodox Objectivists that would have serious issues. They tell me that we cannot have anything beyond a superficial relationship because our core premises are opposite. That is true to an extent. But I am also somewhat a believer in ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’, and given that I was on a crash course with death and destruction shortly before I met my wife, I believe that my choice was self-preservational. I realize that I cannot change my wife’s values. I don’t pressure her to do so. But in general, she’s a moral, mostly right of center, individual who acts as a stabilizing force in my life. And she’s goal-oriented with a track record of achieving all of her goals set to date. Finally, our relationship has been faithful and intense. That is my confirmation that my choice to marry her was correct. On the disadvantages of Objectivism: I agree that it is better to possess knowledge than to be ignorant. However, I see a lot of people who are happy and creative because they believe miracles can happen. I do not believe in miracles, spiritual holy powers or any of that sort of thing. I’m so grounded in reality that I cannot even submit to hypnosis therapy (tried that in 1984). I can’t see or speak to the dead (my father claimed that his monther came to him in a glowing orb of light the night she died, and my mother had a classic ‘near death’ experience with the whole bit about passing through a tunnel and reaching a light and being “I am” not Lillian Weiss) or do anything else paranormal. I recently saw a DVD program called The Secret, which is about the Law of Attraction. Basic premise is that we get what we wish for and that if we align ourselves with the universe, we can merely ask and our wishes will be granted. Some call it positive thinking. Believing that you CAN earn a million dollars, and then suddenly the phone rings with an opportunity to work on a level and for a client that you thought was way out of your league. Converseley, those who attract negative things by negative thinking, tend to get more of the same. Those who are ill often speak of illness and are focused upon illness. My mother was one for the books in this category. As for me, I don’t really believe in the Law of Attraction without reservation. I have seen what amounts to being focused on an attainable goal work in my life, at least with regard to attaining certain material possessions, but on a grander scale of gaining economic freedom, it eludes me. And I sometimes suspect that my being mired in reality prevents me from believing that all things are possible in the universe. I’ve probably said just enough to create confusion and mayhem, but as the conversation progresses, perhaps I’ll have opportunities to clarify specific statements. On of the reasons I was looking for Allan Blumenthal was that perhaps I believe he is the only one who can quickly identify what's gone wrong with my thinking and to guide me back to a world where I can experience happiness.

Barbara, I am glad to hear that Allan is still very active in his field. My one consultation with him in 1971 was very refreshing. He validated my existance, that I was a whole person, at a time when I was feeling downtrodden due to terrible treatment by others. It is also good to hear that he is still playing piano. I went to see him perform at Carnegie Hall near the end of the 1960s; he was very excellent then. (That concert, during the intermission, was the one and only time I met Ayn Rand--she literally bumped into me, tripped over my foot, as I recall--and I got my first really positive impression of her as a person. She was pleasant and apologetic and had a really genuine smile. I regret that I did not get over my tounge-tied-ness soon enough to strike up a conversation--it all happened so suddenly. My parents had had a conversation with her on another occasion at one of her lectures. They said "we love you" and Miss Rand was at first a bit put off, but then they explained that they loved her work, her intelligence and her achievement, and Miss Rand responded with "Then in that context, I accept your compliment." That was more than 35 years ago.

Another vote for that work with Heston. While the premise of the movie dealt with an uncomfortable and likely impossible reality, (unlikely that we will be wiped out by a virus, but perhaps wiped out by a mindset and if you look at it this way, perhaps Omega Man was prescient), I found the plot, situation and the ingenuity of one man of modern science against a world of primatives to be fascinating. I remembered seeing that at a drive-in movie theater in 1971. Those were fun days. Another film I highly recommend is The Right Stuff, a film about our quest for flight, and eventually, outer space. It's almost a docudrama, because it contains a factual history of the American space program's early beginnings, and the hotshot pilots who's spirit of adventure got us to where we are. Those men were true heros, and this film made you feel as if you knew them all.

Better now while you're young than when your 70. Congratulations Victor and Angie. All the best to you both.

I voted for Michael Savage, only because I agree with him on several major issues, including national defence and annihilating Islam. However, when he gets on one of his religious rants, I change the station. In the early 90s, I listened to Rush, but soon he became a self-agrandizing blowhard and now, when he's not stroking his ego, he's either repenting for his misuse of prescription drugs, or stroking the Republicans. Where I live, I don't get the other hosts on the radio. It's Hannity, Limbaugh, and that no-spin guy who publicly called Dr. Peikoff "Dr Strangelove" on his television program. Mostly, I listen to news stations, because much of the topics on talk radio are superficial fluff. No one wants to talk about Reason and premises. It's all feel-good talk, peppered with religion. No thanks to that.

My recollection of that particular program wasn't all that clear, but I think he was interviewing a doctor on that program and that may have been the source of information. This was going back about 7-8 yeras, when he was on the radio and simulcast on the internet.

Judith, Thanks for that suggestion. I have thought about this topic from time to time, and just this evening, I was listening to a renderng I did last year of Camille Saint-saens' "Symphony Nr 3 (Organ)" where in the Molto Allegro had that triumphant, powerful, uplifting sense of life, so rare in French music. I listened to it again this evening and realized that it fit very well, right from the stunning appearance of the organ, in all it's grandeur, followed by the almost systematic expansion of the theme in the answer phrase played by the orchestra. It is majestic, classical, yet romantic. And it makes me feel good. That is perhaps my favorite European composer and this symphony one of the greatest ever written.

I've heard some incredible recordings from Japan, but the one western culture bass player I consider amazing is Gary King. He played with Bob James' group. My all-time favorite was from the album "One" a Roberta Flack number called "Feel Like Makin' Love". Gary's performance on that number is sheer orgasmic. He even squeaks in a few bars of Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" into one of his riffs. Amazing how he keps the interest going. There are a few excellent Japanese bassists too, but I have less information about them due to the language barriers with reading album credits in Japanese. But suffice it to say, there is amazing talent all over this planet. I'm a fan of the extended range bass and love to get down, way down.