jordanz

As Robert points to, there is quite a division in the ARI community over this and I'm happily surprised by this. I thought they'd all follow LP lock-step. But, the courage of many of them to counter LP and state reality as they see it gives me a lot of hope about some reconciliation in the Oist community. 2006 was the year of PARC, maybe 2007 can be the year that the worst of ARI is jettisoned.

A baby and a puppy. What would Ayn Rand say.

Check your cuteness.

Ni

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

I'm glad you enjoyed ATCAG. Unfortunately, my transformational powers appear to be spent; nowadays I mainly annoy people.

Ghs

Well, you've done enough transforming on me to give you a credit on any future annoying you might do.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

But you're quite right, he is common-sensical and he's perfectly sane. . . most of the time.

Jeeez -- a few unfortunate incidents with my chainsaw many years ago, and people never let you forget.

Ghs

Is this THE George Smith? I'm thrilled you're here. Atheism: The Case Against God was a transformational book for me.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

Ni

I'm glad you enjoyed ATCAG. Unfortunately, my transformational powers appear to be spent; nowadays I mainly annoy people.

Ghs

Well, you've done enough transforming on me to give you a credit on any future annoying you might do.

But you're quite right, he is common-sensical and he's perfectly sane. . . most of the time.

Jeeez -- a few unfortunate incidents with my chainsaw many years ago, and people never let you forget.

Ghs

Is this THE George Smith? I'm thrilled you're here. Atheism: The Case Against God was a transformational book for me.

I don't like to say bad things about other people in public, but I want to add that I was very happy when Adam disassociated with TOC. At the Summer Seminar whenever he would step into a Q&A line, I would leave the room. He would talk for many minutes without ever asking a question.

He can be a very nice man under the right circumstances, but he can also be very annoying.

George H. Smith (author of Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, Why Atheism? and several other books) showed up on SLOP after time off for reading and writing. He was... how shall I say this?... badgered to read PARC before he left. Every other post directed at him was "read PARC." Some of the posts were from Valliant.

Please post here if George posts anything about PARC. I refuse to go over there but I would like to read what he has to say.

This is excellent. Great job.

Aha! So Bissell does Bop!

PS. The live recording of Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie's Town Hall concert of June 22, 1945, rediscovered a few years ago and now available on Bob Sunenblick's Uptown label, is really something.

I'll have to check that out.

For those who think Bebop is too inaccessible, I suggest the Max Roach/Clifford Brown records. Brown's solos are so musical that I can personally sing many of them (I'm a drummer which may help). Examples: http://www.shop.com/op/~Clifford_Brown_The...632626-~32812-m

I have many fond memories of growing up a practicing Jew. My fondest is the music of the Sabbath service. I just picked up a great CD. The great tenor Richard Tucker (who, apparently, was a cantor) sings the Sabbath Service: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000029M8 - Wow! This is great. You don't have to be Jewish to like this. Great melodies and a great voice. Even better, it's in Hebrew so you don't have to put up with the religious BS.

I like a lot of what Dali painted, and hate a lot of it too ;) This one is very good.

John - I LOVED your poem. You captured the spirit of the painting perfectly.

Surfing around, I came across Roger Bissell's critique of Bebop Jazz: http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmmm6.html

Roger wrote it over 10 years ago, so I'm sure it's fresh in his mind ;) In any event, I have some comments.

Before 1940, jazz "concentrated on the melodic elaboration and ornamentation of a more or less familiar tune over the chords associated with that tune..." (SMAATJ, p. 136). Bop, on the other hand, "altered the chords and distorted the melody accordingly. There were also rhythmic and accented refinements and dislocations. When a group of bop musicians had finished with a given tune, it would be unrecognizable even to its composer." (SMAATJ, pp. 136-7)

I don't agree with this. Some may have altered chords or distorted the melody, but this is not part of the definition of Bebop. Technically speaking, Bebop (or Rebop) is what a certain group of musicians (Parker et al) called the music they were playing in clubs in the 40s. Bebop today can be defined as using a song as a foundation for extended soloing (using Jazz rhythms and harmony).

Unfortunately, as Pleasants points out, "what had begun as a device to exclude the square musicians at Minton's and other gathering places of the new elite was sustained in more public performances to exclude the square lay listener, too, the trick being to make a secret of the musical enterprise...[The secret, of course, was] the more or less familiar tune which, with its chord changes, would be the musicians' point of departure, but which would be neither announced nor played," unlike in traditional Dixieland and swing jazz." (SMAATJ, p. 142)

Again, this only applies to some musicians, not to Bebop itself. Most of the Bebop I've ever listened to I bought as records. The records have recognizable tunes (some standards, some originals) and the playing is always melodic and accessible. These musicians made a good living at this. They had to make what they did accessible or they wouldn't eat.

All the ingenuity in the world is artistically irrelevant, if your audience cannot reasonably be expected to perceive and understand your little hidden, creative gems.

I believe an audience can reasonably expect to understand Bebop. When performed at its best, Bebop is beautiful, melodic and exciting. There are multiple ways to enjoy it depending on your musical knowledge. The complete lay person can appreciate the rhythms and the melodies (including the improvised solos - i.e. improvised melodies). The more sophisticated can appreciate the technical abilities, the wit, creativity, etc. of the performer.

Unfortunately, "since in virtuosity, as in athletics, what one man accomplishes will quickly be accomplished by others, the initially exceptional soon became commonplace. With less inventive musicians it also became a bore...desperate but vain exhibitions of familiar and no longer purposeful...acrobatics." As a result, "...since for many in the audience, possibly the majority, executive brilliance had always been the principal attraction...once the initially compensatory virtuosity began to pall" many lost interest in jazz." (SMAATJ, p. 145)

Virtuosity is only one component. The performer is revealing much about himself when he solos. It is not a target to hit, it's an expression of self. Thus, the great soloist does not become boring just as a great orator of language does not become boring.

A lot of it is good—if not great—art, but you really have to hunt for it.

That is true of most art ;) I would add that your hunting will return much great art in Bebop. There is great beauty to be found.

ROTFLOL!

"Dyin O'Shame" still kills me every time I think of it.

The Sixth Sense-- Another alternative reality with a twist that caught me by surprise. Although I felt afterward I should have seen it coming. The signs were all there.

That is a moment I will treasure for the rest of my life. The moment when the truth is revealed and then I experienced wave after wave of realizations that it was there all along in front of me. I view The Sixth Sense as the greatest magic trick ever performed. The greatest slight of hand.

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced?

I would say that it is somewhat understandable. I believe that this type of thing happens in many organizations when the founder dies. Any areas that the founder left open or that aren't 100% clear are open to interpretation and reasonable people can disagree. Unfortunately, there are those in the world who cannot stand any disagreement and view dissenters as heretics. And, to them, the heretic is worse than the non-believer.

3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism?

4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism?

These are the most puzzling to me. Of all belief-systems, I would've thought that Objectivism would be the least vulnerable to this. No, I don't believe the cause is anything inherent in Objectivism. I believe that this is merely a manifestation of how different people deal with those who disagree with them.

9. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations?

Clearly, ARI fosters and rewards this type of behavior. I blame Leonard Peikoff for this.

As the author of a PARC review, I can tell you it was an excruciating experience. But, I strongly encourage everyone to do it if they can. The more widespread and varied the debunking of it, the better for the community.

And, don't forget, a letter-to-the-editor from one Michael Kelly. ;)

It is a characteristic of inductive arguments that they are inconclusive. Feel free to read my essay below, "Perception, Logic, and Language." It is good to be interested in Objectivism, but read other things too.

This kind of trolling isn't worth my time ;) This is an Objectivist BBS.

There is a small leap of faith in any inductive reasoning, unless it is perfect induction, which is actually deductive assertion.

I have never studied philosophy, so I will not be able to argue this point technically. I will leave it at this: I have no problem accepting the Oist position on induction. I do not agree that there "is a leap of faith in any inductive reasoning". The sun rises every day given the facts of our solar system. I have no reason to believe that it won't rise tomorrow given these same facts. Thus, the statement that "the sun will rise tomorrow" given the context of the facts of gravity, etc. is, indeed, knowledge gleaned from an inductive exercise.

On the other hand, some say knowledge is just justified belief, belief that has high degree of certainty. We can stipulate that this is what we mean by knowledge.

I don't agree with this definition. Knowledge is belief that is supported by sufficient evidence in a given context. If I only have n% certainty, then it isn't knowledge - it's a hypothesis (or something else).

We have a high degree of certainty that the floor will not collapse under us when we take a step. It is a leap of faith, but not unsupported faith.

No, it is not a leap of faith. I know that the floor won't collapse unless there is something to cause the collapse.

(As a side issue, is it good to have a lot of faith? We take little leaps of faith all the time, even when we take a step and have faith the floor will not collapse under us.

This is not a leap of faith. It is a reasoned action. Given the context of floors and things that can cause floors to collapse I have reasonable certainty that the floor will not collapse. This is not faith - it is called being rational.

I think I am a strong atheist when it comes to definitions of god which are contradictory and we are using logic as a standard. If it is meaningful to say square circles do not exist, then it is meaningful to say the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist.

This is the important thing. When someone says "I believe in God" you must first determine what they mean by "God". In most cases, they will not be able to define God in a way that avoids contradiction.