PalePower

I would add:

(21) Becoming overly pissed off and self-righteous when you encounter these traits in other people and condemn them as immediate faults instead of trying to understand where they're coming from.

Or, being "too" right.

=)

Elizabeth,

I heard it and it is quite impressive. I want to listen to it 2 or 3 more times, then I will let you know some impressions (both good and critical—but in a good way, as you know). I have a few comnent in mind right now, but I want to wait and confirm my impressions, get others and allow the subconscious to do its magic.

For now, excellent work.

Michael

Thanks much, and I look forward to your much helpful feedback!! =)

Hello all,

It's been a while since I posted any music. In that time period I've been busy receiving professional composition instruction and my style has matured tremendously! Here's some linkage to my most recent piece, "Con el Alba," which means "With the Dawn." Sadly, it's MIDI, but I still find it pretty fun to listen to. I'm probably going to get this performed live by conservatory students (and hopefully recorded as well) sometime in spring.

Anyway, feel free to leave any kind of (constructive) feedback, and enjoy!

http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=1045559&t=8364

~Elizabeth

Michael,

Thank you overall.

some merely want to know others like it but only want to talk with them about small talk

As an aside, it is always funny to hear a young person talk about being older now. You have no idea...

Hahaha. Maybe so. But, hey, it's true, from my perspective.

~Elizabeth

Hello all,

So it's been a little while since I've been here. I came back to the site yesterday to see what was going on, remembering how much I've enjoyed being a part of this community, and was surprised to say that my overall impression was not derived from any particular issue being discussed, but simply by the fact that they still are: how do you maintain interest for that long! Which led me to the greater, semi-scarier realization that: Objectivism is not as important to me as it used to be.

Like most (I guess), I used to be a hardcore Randroid immediately after I read her books; they were TRUTH! with-a-capital-T and I had FOUND it! They meant so much to me - the characters, the life presented, the ideas, everything. I felt like my entire self could be summed up in the works as Ayn Rand.

Now, as I've gotten a little bit older and have some experiences and knowledge to call my own, I no longer consider myself an "Objectivist," just a person that likes the books a lot. (I realize that category makes up the majority of users on OL.) It's strange to say that knowing how large they loomed in my life before. I've also realized that I've grown somewhat disinterested in pure philosophical discussion, unless I have a personal relationship with the person I'm discussing the ideas with. I'm more interested in the actual events of real life and learning as much about differing perspectives than slapping the "right" ideas over any given situation.

How have your experiences been? How have you "grown" with Objectivist ideas? Is Ayn Rand as important to you as when you first accepted and loved her ideas?

~Elizabeth

But the crazy people are the only interesting ones! =D

It sounds like she really cares about staying true to the movie, too. Go Jolie!

Much thanks for the feedback, Jonathan and Peter!

I actually have decided to expand this to a full length song on my return from Carnegie Mellon University in mid-August. When I finish with that I shall definitely post it up here.

Peter,

I've heard of Satie, yes, but I don't believe I've heard much more of his work beyond those all-famous "Gymnopedie" pieces. What do you suggest I move on to?

~Elizabeth

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

No problem - whenever you're ready.

Let me run this by you. I once wrote a tune that a concert-bandmaster said was "pretty" and that he offered to perform publicly at his next concert.

For various reasons I never took him up on it, but I continued to hone and rework the melody, until now I have it in a form that would make a good song, if I can find a good lyric for it.

If I wrote the lyric and sent you sheet music for it (or just melody and chords), would you consider singing (perhaps even arranging) it and sending me the result? I think your voice would be good for this tune, and one problem I always had with making demos was finding a good voice!

The tune is a slow ballad, tightly structured yet modulating a minor third and back. I would need to know your range, so as to choose a suitable key.

Perhaps you are concentrating on composing--so I'll understand if you refuse.

Woo!

I'm definitely interested. I'm currently arranging one of my friend's pieces for a small orchestra, and I have to say that I enjoy arranging and composing for other people as much as I enjoy composing for myself. It requires a whole different approach to writing, and I find it refreshing. Plus it's good experience.

I have a pretty wide range - F# below middle C to (sometimes, on good days) a high C, but the tone suffers when I go into high soprano. I'm mostly an alto - my most comfortable notes are those closest to middle C. For perspective, "Golden Song" is in A major.

Feel free to e-mail me: my address is IchBinDenkeWille@aol.com. I'd be willing to discuss any ideas you have for the piece, be it arranging, singing it, making demos, what have you. I know a guy who specializes in studio recording so making a relatively cheap (price-wise) demo is definitely an option. Also, if you want any assistance setting it to lyrics, I'm pretty handy with poetry as well -- just an idea.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

~Elizabeth

If you paint like a photograph than you better offer more than the photograph. Art is not about skill alone. These pictures do not offer much more than their picture.

--Dustan

I second that. This guy is talented, but so are so many other people. What has he got that they haven't? Let us see the world reinvented through his eyes - let us experience something new. If your art doesn't offer that, well, bluntly, then it's worthless.

~Elizabeth

Hey folks, here I am again: school's finally ended and I have some time to breathe before heading off to Carnegie Mellon University for the summer, so that means I get to actually post in OL again!! WOO!

So what have I been missing?!?!!

Also have some new music, written for my friend's short film that will be submitted to the Oxnard Film Festival. Let me know what you think!:

http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=991623&T=2147

~Elizabeth

Michael,

OUCH. That was half painful/half funny. But I couldn't help cracking up during the last minute or so. Personally, I love my musical comedy, but only when it's intentional and, at the same time, somewhat really talented, like so:

But my favorites will always be Victor Borge, and particularly P.D.Q. Bach. YES!

~Elizabeth

Wot!?!?

That's a shame, Victor! I understand that this stuff can be addicting and very, VERY time consuming -- one of the reasons I don't post all that frequently or get involved in every conversation or randomly drop out of some that I start myself. I looooove getting into good conversations with interesting people, but I've got piano to practice and five freaking AP courses!!! So I understand. And I'm old-school like you, too -- face to face is the best.

Anyway, good luck with all that you'll be doing, and be sure to pop in now and again -- don't completely abandon us! It was awesome meeting you -- it makes me happy just to know you people exist.

Angie, it's a shame I didn't really get to talk to you all that much. I wish you and Victor the best!

Much love!

~Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

This is a quote from serial killer Richard Ramirez. This is a statement he made before he received sentencing at his trial.

“It's nothing you'd understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or place. I don't know why I'm wasting my time or breath. But what the hell? As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future. I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, haters, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards, each one in his own legal profession. You maggots make me sick-- hypocrites one and all. And no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world, which kill in the name of God and country or for whatever reason the deem appropriate. I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations, I've heard them all before and the fact remains that what is, is. You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil, Legions of the night--night breed--repeat not the errors of the Night Prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all. That's it.”

You see, the man regards all of civilization as “evil”. Huh, but I am hardly morally or intellectually "paralyzed" because he does think that, and while considering himself beyond “good and evil.” Is this a man you would call “evil” without flinching and thinking yourself too harsh?

-Victor

Victor,

As you've probably seen, my take on the concept of evil has dramatically changed since these shootings. It's surprising, to think of it -- I don't believe that my former conviction that evil could not actually exist in true form was weak at all. I honestly did believe that with all of my heart.

But something like this? Like this?

I mentioned before that this tragedy has affected me much more dramatically than any other world catastrophe. You hear about bombings and murders and deaths every day. I'm used to it. What's one to expect? But I really do think that the Virginia Tech shootings have permanently altered my world view, probably because of my proximity to the situation, physically and mentally. Many of my friends attend or are going to attend Virginia Tech; the college environment is real and present to me with my sister off in college and bringing home stories of all of the new people she meets all of the time. Those people that died were not just names on the news, like stuff like this so often is, but real, living, breathing people, who are now dead. I feel their loss personally.

So to answer your question, and discussions that we'd just recently been having, yes, there is evil in the world; yes, Cho was an example of it; yes, that serial killer is one too.

It doesn't matter whether they think they're justified or not. What matters is the motivation behind that sense of justification: hatred of life. I didn't think that could be possible in a person. Apparently it is.

I guess maybe I should thank this Cho for allowing me to grow up a little bit faster?

Funny, somehow I don't feel that grateful.

~Elizabeth

Giving less thought to the rest of the human race than to a toenail clipping.

Simply not true. I made a longer post complaining about your remark, but deleted it when I realized this is some kind of humor thread.

--Brant

I second that.

Roark cared more for people and the human race than most people in the world do. Rand just didn't show this quality of his as much as she could have, probably because it wasn't really essential to the story in her opinion.

~Elizabeth

All well and good, but you have to remember that what may seem right and just to you may seem wrong and unjust to others.

Mitchell, I won't get into this too much - you've got a lot more of Rand to read; she addresses this topic. But in short, the whole basis behind Objectivism is just its name: it is a philosophy for living life objectively. Your premises, behavior, goals, and emotions are all derived from facts of reality and in that respect are more or less indisputable.

(Now there are many tibbits of Objectivism that I disagree with. Subjectivity is, to an extent, inextricable from some aspects of life.)

But the underlying tenets of Objectivism run thusly:

Life, as in physical survival, and anything which promotes it (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) = GOOD.

Death, as in physical death, and anything which promotes it (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) = BAD.

This is why Rand called Objectivism the philosophy for living on Earth.

You may talk about subjectivity and differing perspectives until you're blue in the face, but at some point you run into a blockade:

In an opposite world, what is evil would be considered good.

Until in that opposite world - where they consider our evil (death-promoting activity, such as murders) to be good - until in that opposite world, nobody exists anymore to call that evil good, because they have all fulfilled their good, because they are all Dead.

On another note, I agree that emotions do have the capacity to but should not overcome a person and blind their rational judgment. But emotions should never be completely cut off; in a healthy person, emotions are an immediate reaction to outside stimuli based on integral values. They are a valid, logical response -- not a random nuisance to be permitted or shoved away at random.

I will not remove my emotions from this topic, because I cannot do so; I am a human, my function is living, and my emotions indicate to me immediately what helps me live and what will harm me. For you to ask me not to hate, with every ounce and fiber of my being, what this man did is to ask me to shut down my entire capacity to live.

And that is not something I am too ready to accede to any time soon.

~Elizabeth

Whoooa, Mitchell, if you think Evanescence is the most musical rock band you've ever heard, you've a lot to hear!

If you're interested in some suggestions, let me know and I can give a more comprehensive list of particular songs, but do you listen to any Nightwish, Sonata Arctica, Lacrimosa, Ayreon, Pain of Salvation, Avantasia, Edguy, Blind Guardian, Malice Mizer, Van Helsing's Curse, Rhapsody, or recent Yes?

Most of the best music out there that doesn't get radio air time!

By the way, I play piano too! Will probably minor in it in college, depending upon the school I go to. Some schools don't let you major and minor in the same discipline (I'm majoring in Music Theory & Composition). How long have you been playing?

~Elizabeth

Now, from his perspective, this was a perfectly rational thing to do. He closed his mind to all other choices he could have made and made a decision--sadly, his decision wasn't the best solution to his problem.

Mitchell, NBC has aired some excerpts of material Cho sent them in between the shootings. The material included a "manifesto" of his rationale behind the violence. His reasons included hatred for the affluent, those who "have everything," and those "who have never felt an ounce of pain in their lives."

And yet his shootings did not include specifically targeted people, those certain persons who had individually sparked that hatred within him. He went on a rampage, shooting at every body that moved, regardless and ignorant of their backgrounds and personal philosophies.

He raved against those who never felt pain, and one of his victims included a Holocaust survivor.

Mitchell, this man was killing people simply because they were alive.

This man's act was, without dispute, evil.

And yes.

I hate him.

And no, I do not, and never would, forgive something like this. The idea is utterly repulsive to me.

I am intensely concerned with understanding people's backgrounds, their psychology. I don't consider myself a condemning or overly judgmental person. I consider that integral to the good of a human being - and if that is one of the components of the good of a human being, this man, Cho, is desperately defficient. Did he understand his victims? Did he debate whether or not, they, individually, merited some sort of punishment? Did he take into consideration that they might not actually be working for his specific destruction, that they possibly just wanted to live and love and enjoy life - or even if he could not wrap his mind around those concepts, did he stop to consider that perhaps they did not indulge in that behavior to which he was so opposed?

His was a premeditated, concentrated act to instill pain in other people.

My forgiveness and understanding extends only to those motivated out of a value for life.

I have no tolerance for those working from any other motivation.

~Elizabeth

Blowing up things. (Sometimes.)

~Elizabeth

Swimming naked.

Fish can bite!

~Elizabeth

LOL, Robert. Excellent! But aren't haikus supposed to be about nature or something?

HAHA. Nice. And yes, it's about the nature of Yoko Ono. =D

~Elizabeth

For one, the person who shot up VT wasn't allowed to have that gun, it was illegally obtained. Since it was illegally obtained it probably wouldn't matter if there were more laws, if he was willing to go around that one he could go around plenty of other ones.

Jeff, the gun was not illegally obtained. This Cho guy walked into a store and bought the gun. Paraphrasing one ABC newscaster, everything about Cho's conduct was perfectly legal up until the killings. Which is the big problem I have. We give killers and maniacs everything they need to carry out their sick fantasies - and, for the most part, the only thing that's stopping them is our faith in their choice not to.

Personally, that doesn't make me feel very safe.

The possibility that numerous bystanders--all of whom are law-abiding--may be armed would be a powerful crime deterrent. Ceteris paribus, the good always wins, as Atlas Shrugged taught us.

A crime-deterrent? All of these arguments are based on the assumption that the potential killers are acting under a rational basis! That they still possess common reasoning faculties! That the idea that life is still a value to them! It obviously is not! Cho killed HIMSELF -- so many of these shooters kill themselves. They take their lives by their own hands; I do not buy into the idea that they will ultimately decide not to do anything because of the fear of death.

Also, Rodney, no offense, but the good does not always win, at least short-term. Would you say that good prevailed and evil perished on Monday the 16th? Hardly. Atlas Shrugged taught us lots of things; one of the things it did not teach (or shouldn't have taught) us is that we should live our lives like a benevolent author is determining their fates.

As Rand identified, it is the right of the government to physically protect its citizens. This includes rendering our potential enemies impotent. I want something more substantial between me and my impending death than the capricious will of a psychopath.

~Elizabeth

It is too bad that fellow students did not act to help this fellow feel he belonged. No one befriended him in all the years he spent at this college as he was a senior. His behavior was evidently offputting. Colleges should identify such kids early and have a program to help reach out to them using professional staff rather than to rely on fellow students, which latter would be preferable.

In the recent news reports, numerous students have recounted how they attempted to befriend Cho and failed, but it was evident that they did indeed try to reach out to him.

It is also tragic that action was taken against this man -- but stopped midway. His English teacher, for example, even went so far as to report him to the police as a suspicious person.

The thing that gets me the most, though, is the two-hour lag between the shootings, when nobody knew what was going on. That is disgusting.

~Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

Does the existence—or an identification of evil—call upon the subject themselves declaring themselves such? Who cares if Hitler regarded himself a great liberating warrior and the Jews as evil? He was evil, period. I just understand why is because such a troubling intellectual puzzle to you unless these people declare themselves evil—along with everybody else—so as to make it intellectually simplified. By their deeds, so shall you know them.

-Victor

That is a good point. I guess it's the very nature of evil that it's senseless, unjustified. I knew that before but I couldn't picture it happening - there has to be some sort of understandable motivation. But this doesn't make sense. At all. And I guess it doesn't matter what the motivation is. I don't know, I'm not being very coherent - sorry.

The Marquis de Sade had a very sick and disturbed mind. He -wrote- terrible things. He was never convicted for actually doing any of the things he wrote about, yet he was imprisoned many years. Do you think this is right? Just because de Sade wrote snuff porno, he goes to jail?

Also good points. And, apparently, I just found out, action had been taken. Private tutoring, suggesting therapy - a teacher even called the police. What else can you do?

~Elizabeth