Serapis Bey

The first fissure in my Orthodox Objectivist understanding of free will came when I read this essay by Robert Anton Wilson. It was the first time I came to understand the issue in a nuanced way, without the overly simplistic, black-or-white thinking of Peikoff. In other words, the issue need not be framed as either total determinism, or some simple notion of "flipping a switch" in the choice to think or not. The idea was that real work and effort is involved. Back then, I was absorbing all manner of esoteric thinking. Those were my druggie days. I learned a lot, but much of it fell by the wayside eventually. However, one school of thought that stuck with me and might be amenable to Objectivists is Gurdjieff's "4th Way" school. In some ways, it could be considered a scientific approach to "mysticism." Long before all the studies on the triune brain which MSK likes to quote, Gurdjieff had already come to understand such concepts through direct experience and introspection. Furthermore, he knew that there is not one single ego or "I", but rather a multitude of "I"'s: the "I" at time T, the "I" at time T+6 hours, the "I" when one is hungry, etc. His goal was to unify this cacophany of competing Wills into a singular ego. With respect to the issue of free will, his view was that we are all still monkeys, basically. That we are all sleepwalkers who are dreaming they are awake. His view, which I share, is that the human organism is largely a creature of habit, and this is due to necessity, since we simply cannot hold in conscious awareness all of the subconscious processes which keep us alive. But in order to find "freedom", we must "shock" the system to interrupt some of these patterns and habits and thereby acquire some measure of a truly free Will. Basically, he had no use for sterile clinical studies or endless philosphical debate. He was more interested in direct experiment on oneself and sought to provide means and techniques for accomplishing a free(er) Will. But he was no New Ager. His focus on WORK and "intentional suffering" should suggest otherwise. His technique of "self-remembering" is germane to the topic of free will. I no longer follow such things closely anymore, but perhaps a younger Objectivist with more energy than I could find some value in it. I suppose this is as good a place to start as any.

Since when it is a feature of Progressivism to be against open borders? But you are correct that most of what I said was opinion. I was just sketching out my thoughts. That Salon article you posted had the integrity to link to the notorious VNN essay. To the unitiated, try and ignore the moralizing about "polluting the minds of children" contained therein, and just look at the facts relayed. One needn't posit the idea of a small cabal of Jews at the top of the pyramid, conspiring in cigar-smoke filled rooms who send out orders for the underlings to dutifully follow. If you have as little as 50% of those involved in the news and entertainment industry as Jews with a certain shared mindset informing their views, then it doesn't matter if not every newspaper or entertainment business is owned by Jews. From the lowliest tier of newspaper bloggers, all the way up to editors, the combined effects of all of them at every level of media production can produce a singular voice or weltanschauung for the consumers to absorb. As far as fleshing out my theory with more facts (real facts, not "sort-of" facts), this would probably the classic starting point if you wish to study it further. And the phenomenon is not limited to the U.S. Notwithstanding the inflammatory title of the previous link, I think the time is long overdue for a little more light to shine on this particular gear of the engine of historical change.Of course, this should only matter to those Objectivists who are concerned with the immigration issue. There is nothing to be alarmed about if one is a member of that sect of Objectivists who are for open borders. Lastly, a little bit of gallows humor:

But is it not the case that film music must make allowances for the conceptual action on screen? Mustn't the film composer make space for the drama? The film itself does the "heavy lifting" of providing the suitable content to inform the musical themes. It seems to me that film music, as incredible as it can be, does not contain the dense thematic development you find in traditional classical music, where the listener needs to bring more to the table in assessing the overall thrust of the piece. Do you prefer this type of music to what came before? BTW, I do enjoy Debussy. Yes Daunce, it's true. I am an inveterate yanker-of-chains. All in good fun... But...and I hesitate to say this...in spite of what I just said....the fact is....and I say this with a heavy heart: I truly am a misogynist. I hang my head in shame as I write this. But it's true. mi·sog·y·nist (/məˈsäjənist) - n.: A man who hates women almost as much as women hate each other.(meow)

No you can't If you'd put your goldfish in a cage and your pet gerbil in an aquarium, would it be a. illogical? b. non-conformist? Neither one - at first order of priority. It would be life-defeating. It would be antithetical to their existential nature. Sure, if all you are concerned about is physical survival, then you can make that argument. But we humans are animals in an intermediate stage of evolution. It's all the other concepts and goals we concern ourselves with, after our physical needs are met, where things get interesting.

I tend to agree with you, Robert. Although, I do make some allowances for a certain moral intuitionism born out of our evolutionary past. Apart from that, everything else is indeed "doxa", and is conditioned by the needs of a particular culture at a particular point in time. So where does that leave the individual in choosing a "proper" ethics? I think it ultimately comes down to aesthetics, and one's own personal psychological makeup finding something "beautiful" in some particular belief system or another that resonates. Even if there are holes in the theory. Why do you think I hang out here? Why do you? Rand did not bridge the is-ought gap... However, as an aesthetic choice, it is subject to the same judgements as do all works of art. And some people have better taste than others... All morality relies on the sense of smell - Hyatt And I am certain there are people holding their noses after reading what I just wrote.

Heh. Well, I didn't want to take up all the space here hashing out our personal peccadilloes. I don't think I'm quite that important. Do you? I was just throwing out some intellectual "meat" for the lurkers to chew on...drawing connections between our personal lives and issues which affect everyone. I believe Rand is lauded for similarly recognizing unseen links between heretofore disparate phenomena.

The love of my life and I had broken up that day or the day before. Remember that anecdote about Bobby Fisher surrounded by all the other chess players who were discussing events in the news concerning foreign relations and the possibility of nuclear war? He finally had enough and had to exclaim, "What the hell does any of this have to do with chess?" Yeah. It was like that. My memory of the details are sketchy, but I can vouch for ND's account of what happened.

Kacy, I don't think we are in that much of a disagreement; I suspect we are simply emphasizing different things. Still, I have some clarifications to make. Sure, that's fine. If you notice, I basically agree with you when I wrote that one of the two reasons I didn't say anything is because I didn't have a witty comeback at the ready. Albert's outburst was so out of the blue and it blindsided me -- I was momentarily speechless. But I would add that your "alright MF'er" response is also not ideal or properly calibrated. That's not how it's done in my group. When we fuck with each other, we stay calm. Your proposed response is a tad too "hot" IMO. Your response is all too easy. The trick is thinking on your feet and being creative with your reply. But that's not what I said. If you notice, my hypothetical involved rationally and calmly stating that Albert "did not have the right to talk to me like that." No whining or stamping of feet encouraged. (Basically the sort of thing any limpwristed psychologist would call "assertive behavior" as against "aggressive behavior".) How is my hypothetical any different than your experience with Capt. Crunch: But the point of my anecdote was not to illustrate the proper way to respond to "disrespect" (I believe we more or less agree here), but to emphasize the question of when actual disrespect occurs. You say that if it's true that I have a tendency to drift off into Deep Thoughts, then Albert's response is not disprespect because he was saying something that is true. Apparently his characterization of it being "in outer space", or calling me a "fool", or doing so in front of the whole crew is immaterial to you because what he said is true. Ok then. So...if I tell the grieving father of a murdered child that he "was a big crybaby at the funeral", that is not disrepectful, but if I tell some random person that he or she is a big poopyhead, that's where the line is crossed? I corrected myself with respect to MSK when I realized that WR went for the jugular with his "stewed" insinuation. WR's arrogant and abrasive behavior apart from that meant nothing to me. Back to Capt. Crunch: Seems to me you were his bitch up until the point you laid your speech on him. When I think of Albert, I can tell you that it would never had gotten to that point. You mentioned several instances where Capt. Crunch was acting with total disregard for you. But you didn't say anything. You let it happen again and again. Albert would have barked at the first instance and nipped it in the bud. Since you didn't, you let it grow until a relatively tame comment from Crunch "crossed your line." This dynamic more closely resembles passive-aggression where one holds it in over and over, with increasing internal pressure, until one is forced to have a melodramatic "scene" with the other person. Additionally, when comparing your response to my friend Albert, I have to note your emphasis on your feelings and how you felt when Crunch disregarded you in the past. Alpha dogs like Albert never talk about their feelings. They simply do what they have to in order to correct what they consider improper behavior. It doesn't really change things, but if you didn't know Albert beforehand and were present, you would have thought he had hate in his heart. He is someone who has absolutely no tolerance for what he considers to be wrong. Always ready to correct what he percieves as stupidity in another person. He is constantly like a smouldering volcano ready to blow at any second. The rest of the crew have learned to accept his idiosyncracies, and even though he and I are friends, I have a better time hanging with the other 3 or 4 alpha dogs who like to play. Whenever one of us joshes with Albert, we compare it to those "Messing With Sasquatch" commercials. When you extract rank from the equation it changes everything. If all you were doing was enforcing your dominion over your people, how is that different than what occurs in a corporation where Department Head A bickers with Department Head B over what the other can and can't do? In either case, you have a higher authority to defer to, much like a bickering brother and sister having parents to settle the argument. The principle might be the same, but this underscores yet another reason I have disagreements with Objectivism and the emphasis on "principles." The issue you have been avoiding is what occurs in reality when you don't have an authority to settle things. What happens in a free environment where Person A feels he deserves X amount of respect, and Person B judges A to deserve Y amount of respect? Does your principle provide practical guidance here? Principles are over-simplifications for simple minds. Reality is much more messy. I'm not saying Dan is guiltless. I can think of one particular episode where he was gratuitously insulting and poorly calibrated, and on that basis alone I would endorse your exclusion of him from any social situations. Much like WR crossed that line with MSK. As for the question of why he is the only right-winger you have had issues with -- well, to be frank, I have not been impressed with what I've seen of your "right wing" FB friends. For the the most part, they are mostly Tea Party, Fox News types with little sophistication and whom you easily best in debate. It's easy to feel your interlocutors are being "respectful" when you can wipe the floor with them. The only exception I recall is a libertarian who seems to be in a seeking mode, and is a bit more hesistant with his pronouncements. In addition, most of your participants are women and liberals (but I repeat myself), so of course the conversation takes on a more feminine tone. Dan on the other hand is very intelligent and very knowledgable. He's the type of "right-winger" (he's libertarian, actually, but "right wing" from your liberal perspective, I suppose) who makes Progressives snap to attention and clench their sphincters. Sure, he's young and somewhat immature, and pushy and aggressive (he's Jewish after all ;) ), but underneath it all he's a mensch who is not immune to the impatience and frustration which befalls people who are more intelligent than most. It's when folks like that debate folks like you, where things are more or less evenly matched, that sparks fly and the things get interesting. At least from my perspective. But that is because I can be similarly aggressive, and I have a taste for that sort of thing. Not all people do. It should not have come as a surprise to you, but not because you are clued into something I am unaware of. My use of the words "troll" and "trollish" in relation to myself should have made that clear. Did you think I came here to make friends? Unlike you, I do not consider online hugboxes like Facebook to be suitable fora for the discussion of contentious topics. And what exactly is this "poison" I am drinking for treating online personae the way I do? I spend enough of my day restraining my opinions among my coworkers and friends for the sake of civility. The online Wild West we find in the internet is an opportunity to loosen my tie. In short, being a troll is fun. It's a GAS, Daddy-o! Doesn't make sense not to live for fun Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb In closing, I would say that I don't think we disagree all that much. But a lot of what we have been discussing are the finer points of behavior among males in masculine environments, and the pack mentality therein. How much of this is really relevant to what happens among young, male and female fans of Rand who had to endure her peculiarities? It's a totally different dynamic. You had more of a student-teacher dynamic where the folks were seeking knowledge or value from an esteemed individual. But you seem to have an issue with what happened back then. You say that if Rand refused your proposal to work with her in spreading her ideas, and responded to your second inquiry with the explanation that it is rude to keep asking after having been ignored, that you would never spread her ideas again, or at least with her name attached. That doesn't strike me as "alpha" in any way. It sounds petty to me.

great essay (for Carol) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html

Here's an example from my own life that I think might serve to illustrate things. I mentioned the environment in which you work in my last post. It is an archetypal masculine environment. However, as I noted, it is also somewhat regimented. I also happen to work in an archetypcal masculine environment, but mine is a tad more anarchic. A few months ago at work the whole crew was in the breakroom shooting the shit. Some topic concerning the job was brought up and it turns out that I was completely oblivious to a certain event. After asking for clarification, I wondered aloud, "How could I have missed that?" Then one of the alpha-dogs in the crew whom I know well barked at me (and I do mean barked -- he has a voice like a megaphone), "Because you're always out in fucking outer space, fool!" I could only smile, somewhat reddened by embarassment, because 1) I had to admit there was some truth to his statement (I tend to drift off into thinking Deep Thoughts when I'm bored at work), and 2) I had no witty comeback at the ready. Bear in mind this exchange occurred in front of the whole crew, all of whom got a good laugh out of it. One of the other alpha dogs (whom I didn't know as well) came over to me to say with a smile, "That's just how he shows his love." I nodded knowingly, but inwardly felt disappointed. I already knew very well that such was the case, and did NOT take it personally, but this other fellow's need to clarify it for me indicated that I was not viewed as one of them and did not sit at the Big Boy's table. At this point I could have done one of several other things. I COULD have "demanded respect" and engaged in a very calm and rational soliloquy stating, "you do NOT have the right to talk to me like that." And I can tell you exactly what would have happened. Everyone in the crew would have gone quiet. The alpha dog (let's call him Albert) would have grumbled or made some noises acknowledging me and the topic would have moved on to something else. Furthermore, I can assure you that I would never be spoken to like that again. The rest of the crew (or at least the alpha dogs) would have given me wide berth. In short, events would have unfolded in just the way you rationally think they should. But the reality is that I would have been given a wide berth not because they respected me, but because they viewed me as touchy and overly-sensitive. Oh, sure they would give me the outward signs of respect, and would never be so impolite as to tell me to my face what they really thought about me, but I would no longer be considered one of "them" and subsequently politely ignored when invitations to their reindeer games were sent out. In short, they would not have respected me in their hearts. You are right about the reaction of alpha dogs to disrespect. With me and my jerkish tendencies, I've taunted Albert in the past. And he did not like it all. Not one bit. I could see the anger in his eyes. But he gives as good as he gets, and came right back at me with his own. I understand this is how the game is played. Funny enough, we still remain friends to this day, and spend time outside of work every now and then, even though we are completely different types of people. That's because I value his particular qualities, and he values my perceptiveness. Now, in trying to tie all this subtle and complex analysis all together, I would quote myself from earlier in this thread for your benefit:

Kacy, I would remind you that the environment you are in is one in which the personal decorum of everyone involved is highly regulated and formalized. This is not to say there is no sincere goodwill, rather the stability required for you guys to operate effectively as a team necessitates that people bite their tongues. I'm sure you are genuinely respected by your peers, but do you really think there is not a single person who privately has thoughts about you and reservations about some of your personal habits? Do you take their behavior at face value, in other words? I think you are laying WAY too much of your regrets over former social faux pas at the feet of this whole "respect" thing. In other words, I think you are oversimplifying. For example, you mention your marriage to M and the way you two bickered in public. You want to imply that this would not have happened were it not for the whole "lack of respect" dynamic that all of us were ensconced in. But do you not remember that both T.D. and I were embarrassed by you and FOR you whenever the public bickering occurred? He and I discussed it. How is it possible that he and I would have had a different perspective if we were all part of the same dynamic? Speaking for myself, my reservations were along the lines of "one should not air one's dirty laundry in public" or "keep it in the family" or simply, "that is pretty classless." (As I've matured, I would amend that to say I wouldn't entertain an argumentative woman in my romantic life under ANY circumstances, simply for my peace of mind) Since we were all close friends, T.D. and I didn't have the luxury of distancing ourselves the way some of your other acquaintances did. I seem to recall that we both tried to gently correct you (probably more for our sakes than yours), but you were not having it. No sir. You were convinced that you were absolutely RIGHT, and M was absolutely WRONG, and you were going to let her know it, by God. Damn the presence of any onlookers. You had irrationality to fight! And you probably WERE right most of the time, but you were more concerned with your EGO than you were with the larger context. Where in any of this does your "respect" epiphany play a role? Moving on: Now here, there is a certain danger. So you are not talking about active disrepect, but rather the failure to show due respect, the level of what is "properly due" being determined presumably by the person feeling slighted. You've made some noises acknowledging that some people have an inflated view of their self-respect, but seem not to understand the implications of it. I would paraphrase a comment Bob made over in the "Arbitrary" thread: who is the objective arbiter of what is "properly due"? You do not "stand outside of reality" to make that determination. You are imprisoned in your own solitary experience just like the rest of us. Consider some of Brant's experiences: So Brant was being his good-natured wise-cracking self and some other fellow interpreted his remarks through his own lens as disrepect. So the other guy went on the offensive. The other guy was not about to take no shit from no one. In your view, was his response legitimate? He was refusing do endure disrepect, after all. "somehow had the idea I had done something intimidating to him." I'm sure Brant was not being a jerk. Yet the other guy felt the need to enforce his need for "respeck." Imagine if you were in public and saw a family which included a toddler, and the mother was smoking a cigarette around him. Your concern for the child's health motivated you to tell the mother that doing so is not good for the child. And then imagine that the meathead father gets up in your face screaming "who the fuck are you to tell me how to raise MY family?" and works himself up into a lather and proceeds to beat your face to a pulp. What you are arguing for is a kind of ghetto thug society where only those who are willing to endure violence are the only ones able to say anything. Everyone else, who may or may not have helpful thoughts to teach which might improve things, are relegated to bowing their heads in fear, keeping arms and legs inside the ride at all times. Is this your ideal society? No thank you, sir. But this is only one of the possible outcomes of your perspective. All the way at the other end of the spectrum is the fact that when people are allowed to indulge their vanities, you end up with a race to the bottom where the most thin-skinned in the population win the "Victim Olympics." Consider the following website, and spend some time there. I assure you that the website is completely serious: http://www.microaggressions.com/ "Microagressions", indeed. This is the end of the Progressive road. As I characterized it in another thread: "The World become Maternity Ward of Mewling Babies." Since there is no objective arbiter, when people are left to their tender feelings and precious egos, this is what you end up with. Imagine trying to socialize with such people! You would almost never be able to say anything if you had a scintilla of empathy for them and attempted to be a Good Person in speaking with them. But the truly insidious element here is that such people have discovered the power of victimhood. By digging ever deeper into themselves for signs of hurt and pain, they have been allowed to wield their outrage as a club to silence others. Hence, Political Correctness, and the corresponding urge to supress free speech we see in certain sectors. As I mentioned earlier, Jonathan Haidt's exhaustive study of the psychology of liberals and conservatives shows that liberals score very highly on the "avoidance of harm" measure. (But you're not a liberal, right? Riiiiight) These types of folks are notorious for their guilt-tripping and political shakedowns of various people or institutions in order to get their way. The world has gone topsy-turvy where folks who scream the loudest about 'sensitivity" are in fact being quite agressive and manipulative. I would characterize is as _aggression through victimology_. The racket is VERY effective and now ubiquitous among all the various political/racial/ethnic factions. In anti-Semetic circles, they have characterized the dynamic thusly: "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." I think that's fairly accurate, and not just about organized Jewry. Any man reading who has been married can probably recall fights he's had with his wife... Bringing this back to a more personal level. What if Bob had a hissy fit about my post concerning the Jewish Question? What if before I posted it, he had been spazzing out about "anti-Semites" and whatnot. I might think, "Damn...I think Bob is a fairly cool guy. Oooo, maybe he has family members who were killed in the war. Maybe I should just keep this to myself." And I might be inclined to indulge that line of thought if I were a woman. Or a Canadian. But I'm me. I'm a man. And an American. If I truly believe something to be true and important, I will not let the personal neuroses of others stop me from asserting myself. (Of course, this is only possible because 1. I'm not a close friend of Bob's, and 2. we are relatively anonymous here.) "There are only two ways of telling the complete truth: anonymously and posthumously" -- Thomas Sowell Do you remember when I first started broaching this topic on Facebook with you? I made a similar argument about Jews and immigration and your only rejoinder was to wonder what our Jewish friend Dan would think if he read it. That was it. Nothing more than a diversion from the topic to the question of offending someone else in order to shut me down. In fact, Dan is well aware of my opinions and is capable of discussing things with me calmly. He might not agree, but he doesn't excommunicate me for it. And that is why he gets my respect, and you got...well...something less than respect in the ensuing discussion.

For the second time: No. I am not he. Seems like something's got your goat. But I will confess that yes, I am a racist. And an anti-Semite. And a misogynist. Just an all around misanthrope, really. You know what a racist is, right? It used to mean "Someone who doesn't like blacks." Now it means, "Someone the blacks don't like." You know what an anti-semite is, right? It used to mean "Someone who doesn't like Jews." Now it means... Well, you get the point.

I mispoke when I specified the Industrial Revolution. I suppose since the original idea has to do with significant changes in culture, my mind immediately went to the IR. But I imagine the responsibilities in running a factory or managing grunt workers aren't exactly relevant. Since the speculation had to do with _science_ and _technology_, I probably should have moved the date up a bit. (Anyone more learned than I on the history of science and technology feel free to set me straight) As far as composers, I had in mind folks like the eeevul Berg, the eeevul Schoenberg, and the eeevul John Cage, to say nothing of what followed them (and what I recall hearing with you at recitals back in school). Some of the examples listed here of good modern classical music show that they are invariably wedded to some commercial enterprise, and not the pure music-for-its-own-sake I had in mind. That's not to say there is no greatness there. I adore Ennio Morricone, for instance. But he did film music. Somewhat relevant: I once had a dream to be a film composer, and that dream was inspired by my love of Morricone's music. Unfortunately, I didn't realize at the time that much of my love had to do with the fact that the music was wedded to film, and my emotional response had as much to do with the drama unfolding on screen as with the music itself. I didn't realize that in time. Alas. Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just found it thought provoking. Thanks for the replies.

Ah, I see. Carry on then. troll reckonize troll *fistbump*

Thank you , dear. But I question my sanity every day.

Brant, I'd be more inclined to take your point if I saw any indication -- any at all -- that there was a widespread appreciation for certain intangibles which characterized the greatness of American culture around say, the late 60's. I'm more inclined to view the populace as happily anesthesized with their soma and bread and circuses. But, good luck anyway.

I find it interesting that out of the 3 macro factors I listed as influences on the immigration issue, the only one which drew comment was (3). I would have thought impugning the capitalistic drive for profits would have caused more of a stir on a site like this. Anyway. I'm disappointed by your invocation of the hoary "conspiracy" canard. I suggested no such thing. If you unpack my assertion you will see it consisted of two ideas: 1) The claim that Jews make up a highly disproportionate number of positions in Hollywood and the news media, relative to their percentage in the general population. 2) The claim that they share a common motivation for the advocacy of policies and philosophies which increase the diversity of the society they inhabit. Claim (1) is a statement of fact, but I will not be interested in debating it. I know anyone wishing to contest it is not interested in reality, but rather their commitment to ideology. Claim (2) is debatable, and I think it fruitful to do just that. ("oh god no" -- someone right now) What may be the patina of "conspiracy" in my allegation is simply an identification of the personal and individual self-interest of a group of people happening to align in concert. Unlike Objectivists, I don't see the history of the world as one where the power of Ideas is the prime mover. I'm more of a cynic, and view human nature as one of raw pragmatic self-interest, in which Narratives ("Ideas"), are self-serving rationalizations that either hide the truth from oneself, or serve as squid-ink to keep other people from seeing the truth, (a.k.a. "covering one's ass") The nice thing about Objectivist histioriography is that it turns history into an enjoyable and dramatic opera. Like Greek myth, we watch the Gods (Ideas) battle to and fro, with the Good Guys eventually coming out on top. Although the truth is often much more prosaic, I can appreciate this approach. However, the danger of this approach is the Bad Guys on the losing side of history are cast as Evil Evaders and consigned to Hell, when in fact their true motiations may be more sympathetic and understandable. To the issue at hand: my macro-factors (1) and (2) are fairly easy to comprehend: they relate to immediate self-interest regarding either money or power. (3) is a bit more subtle. My contention is that Jews, being an historically persecuted group who had no homeland for quite some time, always find themselves as aliens in whichever country they emmigrate to. Because of this, they have psychological reasons for having some measure of antipathy towards the homogeneity and customs of their host countries. Putting myself in their shoes, I would analogize thusly: imagine you found yourself at a large party full of people you don't know. They all come from a different social strata than you, and seem to be more wealthy and sophisticated as well. You immediately feel a bit awkward. To make matters worse, you decide to use the bathroom, and upon looking in the mirror, discover your face has been covered with pink polkadots. Now your self-consciousness is off the charts. Would you not feel some relief if by a stroke of luck, the party was infused with people who had zebra-stripes on their faces? Takes some of the pressure off, no? The motivation is completely understandable and all too human. No need to hypothesize about "nefarious Jews." (This also explains, I think, why you will often find jewish pundits at the forefront of the intellectual normalization of questionable things like homosexuality, pedophilia, transgenderism, etc. All of the aforementioned are examples of "boundary bending", i.e., they disintegrate traditional lines and seperations between things. I believe the opposition's affirmation of such boundaries, i.e., what is "in" and what is "out", feels threatening to Jews on a very fundamental level, even if they themselves are not homosexual, transgender, etc. But I digress) Given their history, anyone with a heart is inclined to cut them some slack. On the other hand, the fact that they have been so successful in this country leads me to view their hand in the destruction of immigration boundaries and national pride among the Gentile heartland with a somewhat jaundiced eye. One would have expected perhaps a more respectful attitude towards the country that has afforded them such opportunites. Tsk tsk. Such ingratitude. Such chutzpah. This article is unintentionally funny. It purports to debunk the myth that Jews "control the media", but it really amounts to saying, "Yeah, sure, Hollywood is up to its eyeballs in Jews, and ditto for the print media, but look, there are a few CEO's and editors who are not Jews". Pretty weak sauce, if you ask me. In my view, guys like Ted Turner and Murdoch shouldn't even be characterized ethnically. What they are is part of the global elite who have zero sense of fellow-feeling or noblesse oblige to the country. I wouldn't even think of George Soros as a Jew. He is someone who has Fuck You money and doesn't have a whit of honor towards the country of his own origin! I have to admit to a strange fascination with such people however. The strain of Objectivism that exists in me, with my adolescent love of Atlas Shrugged, leads me to a grudging respect towards those who truly "straddle the world", and have the ability to "go on strike", as it were, while the rest of the world burns. Alas, I am just an Average Joe, and have to endure the effects of such globalists' policies. So I turn back to what is in my interest. To anyone reading who has a sense of American cultural pride, this tension between your sentiments and the Objectivist emphasis on radical individualism should be apparent. I'm not here to begrudge Jewish success. They are talented and intelligent. I raise the issue because "with great power comes great responsibility." It has been noted in the Oist and Libertarian and Conservative community that the battle has been lost in the realm of politics. That the REAL power in shaping this country comes from the media in all it's forms. We have to ask ourselves whether the folks who shape the narratives and images in the public consciousness have the country's best interests at heart. As I said earlier, I used to be a hardliner about immigration. But with the 3 factors I listed arrayed before us, I now believe it to be a lost cause. I'm not really interested in debating it. To the folks who still fight the fight, keep that candle in your hearts and save it for a smaller scale. I forsee a future of more isolated communities, and groups like Objectivists and others can make a difference on the ground in preserving an American ethos. And should the day come when a new "Galt's Gulch" arises, I would respectfully suggest that the time has come for any Jews involved to engage in some hard introspection. When a good-hearted Gentile simply wishes to preserve the customs and folkways of what was a once great culture, try and control your impulse to run circles around his goyische kopf with your superior verbal intelligence and legalisms. He's not out to hurt you. This doesn't apply to you, Bob. I consider you one of the "good ones"

I once read an interesting speculation (can't remember from where) concerning the decline of classical music in our culture. The idea was that in the past, going back to Bach, the most intelligent of the population who were not born into wealth and aristocracy would naturally gravitate to music, since music was the sole avenue through which to express their perceptive intelligence. But beginning with say, the Industrial Revolution, the brightest minds had new opportunities, and began gravitating towards science and technology, leaving the musical field to the also-rans, C-listers, and second-handers. Makes sense to me. What d'yall think?

It's a possibility, but I wouldn't bet money on it. My impression is that most musical tastes are fairly intractable. Oh, I suppose one can jump from "dubstep" to "trance", but larger leaps like "country" to "heavy metal" strike me as unrealistic. I suspect musical and aesthetic tastes have much to do with temperament, and as the current science tells us, temperament is fixed at birth (or very shortly afterwards). I've made a good faith effort to appreciate classical music, but just never seem to feel the urge to throw a CD in the player, unless very exacting conditions are met. Perhaps I've been spoiled by pop/rock music and will always need my musical infusion leadened with strong hooks, or pounding bass drums. Who knows? If you prefer minimalist music, I don't forsee you getting into Tool. As far as your latest contributions: I really enjoyed the BT. I've heard a fair share of his work, and find that half of his output is great, but that the other half is very dance-club type stuff. Being the elitist snob that I am, the snob rulebook states that we must always turn our noses up to anything that is actually danceable. But, my favorite track from him, which left quite an impression, is his "Good Morning Kaia". I believe it's from the same album as the song you posted. The crying infant sounds familiar. It starts out very minimalistic but gradually crescendos to a quite powerful and moving climax. The feeling I get is one of a strong spiritual forward movement...an insistent propelling forward over obstacles...I would characterize it as "Ode to Victory"...the sense is one of struggle and growth, like the lines and planes of skyscrapers stretching towards the sky, in defiance of gravity, and with the spirit of Man standing atop the world. (Oh wow, did I just get all Objectivisty there for a second?) Anyway, it almost elevates me to Ninth Doctorish levels of musical delirium: I enjoyed both Esben and Hop Along, although I found the Esben to be a tad navel-gazingish. But that's probably just a function of my age. They both take me back to my time in college, hearing small touring acts replete with fresh ideas. Indie chick singers --> Indie Clubs --> Indie chick fans...can't go wrong there. The Phillip Glass was impressive and not what I expected. I enjoyed it. [NinthDoctor] Ah... No. [/NinthDoctor]

Actually, no. As your conscious awareness slowly faded into nothingness, right before the last flicker of your physiology expended its last spark, you experienced a quantum fluctuation in which your consciousness pierced the diaphanous membrane which seperates one cosmos from the other in the multiverse. You came to in a new world, already programmed with a whole new set of memories predetermined by the intial conditions of this new universe. You think you can verify your identity by reference to your memories, but alas, those memories came preloaded with this new existence. Welcome to the New World. Just kidding Bob. Glad you made it back to the land of the living.

I think this is an excellent and succinct formulation.

I didn't intend to hide the "agenda." I assumed that anyone reading my comments to Roger would recognize that I was (politely but directly) rejecting his implied claim of objectivity of judgments of beauty, and challenging him to back them up with proof, and that I was reminding him that the concept of objectivity has a very specific meaning according to Objectivism, and that I'd expect Roger to follow it in offering proof (I did so because so many times I've seen Objectivists play word games with the concept "objectivity" when they want to claim that one of their subjective judgments is actually objective -- I wanted to preempt any of that type of thing by immediately and clearly defining the concept being used and identifying the standards and criteria of what constitutes proof). Incidentally, I see that Stephen has now deleted everyone's posts on that subject. For those who didn't see them, Ba'al Bob had written something to the effect that judgments of beauty and such are a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Roger replied to the effect that Ba'al Bob's statement was nothing but a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Ba'al Bob then made a brief statement rejecting Roger's. So that's the background of this issue. That's where I came in. What do you mean by "set him up"? Do you mean to do something by deceit and trickery in order to frame him? If so, I had no intention of deceiving or tricking Roger. Likewise, if Roger were to assert that he can teleport, I wouldn't be attempting to deceive or trick him if I were to politely challenge him to prove it. I think that it's quite common for people to have a very negative reaction to potent challenges to their beliefs, especially when they've tried to establish themselves as having a scholarly reputation regarding those beliefs. They do things like delete arguments that they don't like, start flame war rants to complain that they're being mistreated, attempt to use ridicule as a substitute for argument, etc. My initial mentioning on this thread of Roger's use of his wife's comment, and my doing it parenthetically I might add, was a legitimate response to Roger's attempt to claim that my describing others' reactions as angry was an issue of projection. My mentioning it was just a small part of the evidence that I cited to support my view that others appear to be angry when challenged on their mistaken or contradictory beliefs. And my further repeating of it after that is just a response to Roger's demand that I stop mentioning it. I look at it as a moral decision. When someone makes demands when they should be apologizing, I think it's practically mandatory to send them the signal that their demands will not be met. If we were having a discussion here at OL about math, and I were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, and you were to then say that you disagreed, and that you showed my statement to your husband who is a very sensitive appreciator of mathematics, and he said, "Give me a break," I don't think you'd be in a position to be making demands that I not mention your use of his opinion in such a lame attempt at ridicule. You wouldn't have the right to complain that I was laughing at the fact that his statement actually demonstrates that both he and you are anything but sensitive appreciators of mathematics. Additional perspective: Roger's view on the effects of music is that we identify or associate human actions and attributes with the music's form, despite not being given a full or direct likeness of a human being. In viewing music in that way, he is using the same method that Rand used in her descriptions in The Fountainhead of the effects of the abstract forms and colors in works of architecture. He is using exactly the same method that I used in describing human actions and attributes in abstract paintings. He is using the same method that Kandinsky used in explaining the effects of color and shape. The problem is that he doesn't recognize it, and seems to be determined not to recognize it. And therefore he doesn't recognize that I am anything but angry about his views or his attempt to ridicule my approach to identifying meaning in abstract painting. I can't be angry about it. I can only laugh at the fact that Roger and his wife are unknowingly ridiculing Roger's own method of abstracting entities and their actions from music. Mrs. Bissell's "Give me a break" comment is no less applicable to Roger's method of finding meaning in music and to Rand's method of finding it in architecture than it is to my or Kandinsky's method of finding meaning in the forms, colors and relationships in abstract paintings: "The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward. The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child." "Give me a break!" "The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' " "Give me a break!" "Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down." "Give me a break!" "Generally speaking, warmth and cold in a color means an approach respectively to yellow or to blue. This distinction is, so to speak, on one basis, the color having a constant fundamental appeal, but assuming a more material or non-material quality. The movement is a horizontal one, the warm colors approaching the spectator, the cold ones retreating from him...Yellow and blue have another movement which affects the first antithesis -- an ex- and concentric movement. If two circles are drawn and painted respectively yellow and blue, brief concentration will reveal in the yellow a spreading movement out from the center, and a noticeable approach to the spectator. The blue, on the other hand, moves in upon itself, like a snail retreating into its shell, and draws away from the spectator...The first movement of yellow, that of approach to the spectator (which can be increased by the intensification of the yellow), and also the second movement, that of over-spreading the boundaries, have a material parallel in the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction...Yellow, if steadily gazed at in any geometric form, has a disturbing influence, and reveals in the color an insistent, aggressive character (it is worth noting that the sour-tasting lemon and the shrill-singing canary are both yellow)...Blue is the typical heavenly color. The ultimate feeling it creates is one of rest. When it sinks almost to black, it echoes a grief that is hardly human. When it rises toward white, a movement little suited to it, its appeal to men grows weaker and more distant." "Give me a break!" "For me, the secondary re-creation level ('representation') does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities...[a melody] is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects...Consider instead the popular song 'My Heart Stood Still.' It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics." "Give me a break!" Yes, I'm thinking of Rand's early aesthetic responses. More on that subject later. J Dude, what are you hoping to accomplish with this. Perhaps I am missing something. I haven't read you too closely but I can tell you are passionate about art. Do you create art? Why not get busy with that? How about enjoying art. Or discussing your favorite art with others and sharing impressions. Why this need nail down some "correct" theory of art? I can understand the practical value in being clear about one's epistemology, or ethics or politics. But does this discussion really serve you in any practical way? Does having an Objective theory of art allow you to create art more effectively than you otherwise would? Since you are Objectivish, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not seeking approval from others to feel good about your own aesthetic choices. What's the deal here? It's starting to give me a headache.

Yeah, I heard. Like Jonathan said, your approach seems a good tack to take. But I see problems: Example two tells nothing about the object you are discussing if you have already assumed that "beautiful" is a property of the subject and not the object. Do you think beauty does not exist in nature? Is this where Rea$on leads us? I understand this example is complicated by the fact that art and aesthetics are a tricky thing. So how about this: "Honesty is good" Peel the onion layer on that one for me. [Rick] Naw...Naw!! Rush is GOOD, goddammit!!![/Rick]

Give it up. Like you, I used to be a hardliner on the immigration question. But the fix is in. No stopping it now. The folks who have vested interests in renting this country out piece by piece hold the levers of power. We have: 1) Capitalists who will do anything, including lobbying, to ensure they always have a source of cheap labor (but hey, that means lower prices for us consumers of junk, right?) 2) The Democratic Party which is now the patchwork coalition of every """oppressed""" group, (i.e., those who vote Democrat) 3) The preponderance of Jewish influence in the media and Hollywood. Their (somewhat) understandable paranoia about being a persecuted minority means they will always agitate and propagandize for a diverse society where they don't feel so singled out as the Other. Basically, start getting used to the New World Order. Adapt or Die. Oh, and bye bye Miss American Pie

My father has said his impression is that folks like you on ships are forbidden from drinking during the entirety of the tour. Is that true? If so, that sucks.