Serapis Bey

Geez Louise. I think you're reading far too much into this Mike. Let's review: "Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact." It should be clear that WR was not saying it was you or the regulars here who were dumb, but rather that you had a preference that the contributors here dumbed themselves down. Why would he say this? Probably because he had made an argument concerning The Lord of the Flies which referenced Freudian allegory. His contention was that LOTF was not a parable about real life, but rather a parable about the author's bias towards Freud. And how did you respond to this contention? By asking, "Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?" Speaking only for myself, when I encounter an intelligent troll, I try and pay attention to the substance of their transmission. Any emotional gloss or gratuitous aggression is brushed aside as I would an annoying mosquito buzzing in my face. I'm here to learn and discover useful things (among other motivations). I happen to think his argument merited consideration, but the irony of it all is that I actually agreed with YOU, and was more inclined to see WR's argument as an extension of his quasi-Christian denial of the reptilian hindbrain. Allow me take a moment to address the issue of WR. Up to this point I had simply evaluated him on his statements here. I didn't know him from Adam. Apparently he has been outed as this Darren guy. So I did a little investigation and it seems clear to me that Darren is WR. I haven't been following all the internecine gossip in the Oist community, but it is rather obvious to me that the dude has a SERIOUS grudge of the sort that makes my issues with Objectivism pale in comparision. One would think Leonard Peikoff raped his mother and shot his dog or something. I'll give him this: I think he is sharp as a tack, and funny, and occassionally illuminating. I do happen to share some of his concerns about Objectivism's shortcomings. But his harping on so much minutiae within the Oist community, his tedious hair-splitting over non-essentials, indicates there is something wrong there. If one is so inclined to troll Objectivism, there are plenty of juicy targets which have relevance to real life (for example, Objectivism's tendency to sacrifice social cohesion on the altar of free economic transactions), so Darren's behavior shows me he has issues which go beyond mere philosophical disagreement. I hereby rescind my previous insinuation that you (MSK) were psychologizing Darren's "neurosis" as a way of avoiding the substance of his argument. Looks like you were right. I hope for his sake the reason for his behavior is his having too much time on his hands. If his online work is in addition to him having a normal life, then I can only conclude there is a very unhealthy and obsessive dynamic somewhere in his brain. (In such a case I would suggest he allow aural gestalt to wash over him. I wouldn't expect miracles -- these things take time)Now, where was I? Oh yes. Darren's statement about the dynamic of fragile self-esteem did not come unbidden, and was not an irrational outburst due to his psychology. He had made a somewhat compelling argument regarding The Lord Of The Flies. Rather than engage him, you decided to imply he was merely showing off. (I realize now this analysis is moot if by that point you had written off any serious discussion with him due to his _personal_ insults, but humor me). This is probably a matter of interpretation, but it would be difficult for a casual reader not to see this as your feeling threatened. Why do I highlight this statement of his (other than the fact I think it has some merit)? A couple of reasons. 1) You pulled the same move on me in another thread. You sort of tore me a new one when I used the word "bleating" to characterize the Objectivist blind spot regarding the natural and inevitable growth of tendrils between powerful businessmen and the government. And again, it was the same "Are you here to teach all the _little people_?" nonsense. Frankly, I found it irritating and surprising in light of my admiration for the way you comport yourself here in a very balanced and fair manner. (To your credit, you went on to elucidate your thoughts on the topic which I found myself in complete agreement with). But why even go there with the "little people" insinuations? Why not brush my imperious statements aside and get to the meat of the issue? I don't really believe you think I'm another Darren. I'm pretty sure I have stated in another thread that I keep quiet here for the most part because the regulars are more regularly intelligent and informed than I. Nevertheless, even though I follow Socrates and admit I know that I don't know, the things I do know, I KNOW. Can I be forgiven for being aghast at the way some Objectivists carry water for folks who are their actual enemies? If such is my view, I can't help but see the ideological veneration of "productivity" and "business" and the "free market" as naive bleating in certain contexts. More to the point, lets assume I AM in fact teaching all the little people? So what? Do you not acknowledge the existence of your betters? Or does your self-esteem disallow that possibility? It's interesting how a book like Atlas Shrugged has such an aristocratic and elitist tone, yet in certain quarters, everyone is expected to be "equals" with only their commitment to "reason" the only differentiating factor. To think that no one can in principle be your better is not self-esteem, it is VANITY. I seem to recall that a central word in "Anthem" was "EGO". Is it possible this emphasis on EGO could explain much of the behavior we see in the Oist community? My view is that one is better able to absorb information and achieve one's goals if ego is PLASMA and not a SOLID. Otherwise, it is so easily shattered like glass. Every troll worth his salt understands this, and uses it to his advantage. BTW, Ninth Doctor is right: I have been impressed with your managing of this forum, enough to where I felt the need to verbalize it. Time and time again I would follow a thread, expecting you to veer to the left or right of what I considered Truth, only to find you skate right along that razor's edge of perspicacious objectivity. I can appreciate that your responsibilities here are quite difficult -- you don't have the luxury of referring to some carved-in-stone Orthodoxy to determine who is "in" and who is "out". You are trying to manage a chaotic system, making allowances for the inherent indeterminancy of free-thinking minds. Like herding cats. I rather imagine it to be like attempting to grow a functioning cell without the benefit of a membrane holding the whole thing together. I'm not really the enemy. Try and think of my eructations as mere friendly elbows to your ribs. 2) I highlight this issue because it has ramifications beyond this forum. The issues surrounding "fragile self-esteem" and "egos" and the responsibilities one has towards protecting or not protecting the egos of others is relevant to so much in the world, not just this forum. I can tell you this is an issue my colleague Kacy Ray and I have locked horns over in the past. To what extent should conversation be restrained in the service of the "other" and his or her emotional needs, or rather, their 'self-esteem", or "fragile ego", or "self-respect"? I would refer you to Kacy's thread "Is it altruism to endure disrepect?" for more on this. I would say Rand was rather imperious and arrogant in certain aspects of her behavior. But we find defenders of her behavior right here. Yet, on the other hand, poor Phildo Coates was run out of town for much of the same. Complex, no? What is the difference between self-esteem and an overweening self-regard? I'm reminded here of that Southpark episode lampooning the hippie liberals in San Francisco getting high off their own farts and smug sense of superiority. Most of the time, Objectivism stands apart from these excesses of both the left and right, but still, there are seeds of the disease, what with their emphasis on ego, and the concommitant "high dudgeon" (new word for me, thanks Brant), we see among Orthodox Objectivists. Like getting high on their own farts, some of these folks get high on their own sense of indignation over the smallest sleights. What a collosal waste of energy, although I understand every person needs their own personal "fix" in order to feel alive. "People seek conflict to the degree they can tolerate" -- Hyatt. The problem is that this seed is the very beginning of the Progressive disease, where "avoidance of harm" is taken to such an extreme that true instinctual independent thought is stifled in the service of not offending anyone. As Jonathan Haidt has catalogued, one of the defining psychological features of liberals is their high score on "avoidance of harm" markers. This tendency finds full fruition in places like Canada (hi Carol) where the feminization of the culture has reached an apex. Canada is civilized, but the argument has been made that "civilization" is primarily a feminine trait. I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting the Great White North, but reports from the field indicate it is a kind of "soft Stasi" where the emphasis on Correct Thinking hangs like a grey pall over people's behavior, gently (and not so gently) nudging them into a conformity of false smiles and insincere goodwill. But since the humanimal has natural aggressive tendencies, these progressive folks find themselves repressing such urges which end up extruding in all manner of passive-agressive and frankly bitch-ass snarky behavior. As an American, I prefer to have my enemies look me in the eye as they throw a right -- I like my punches straight, no chaser. Whew, I'm really on a tear, aren't I? Reining this back in, the comfortable and stagnant culture of Canada can be contrasted with the anarchic Wild West of the U.S. Should it be any surprise the U.S. and it's (waning) tradition of free and open exuberance is far more dynamic and productive than what we find elsewhere? Isn't that how the Life Process is? Messy, chaotic, containing elements of pain? Try and reduce that pain to zero and you snuff the life force out. OK, now I'm out of orbit. The point is, people need to man up and not be so thin skinned. We are drugging young boys with Ritalin to make them suitable citizens for this new feminized culture. On the one hand, it is understandable we want people to evolve and become more civilized, but it is precisely the pogo-stick which exists in the hearts of men which is the source of all that is creative and new. I understand that one must comport oneself with sensitivity in general social circles, say, during cocktail parties or at work. But we here are on a message board devoted to the discussion of controversial ideas! You realize of course the common rule about not discussing religion or politics at dinner parties. That's because such topics are fraught with passion and consternation! So if you open a forum for such topics, how can you expect the discourse here to remain rational and calm? You want to have your cake and eat it too, it seems. Yes, I'm a jerk. I can be arrogant and dismissive. But I yam what I yam. Why is it that every other minority group gets oodles of compassion and coddling, but we jerks are cast to the wastelands? I was born this way. If you prick us, do we not bleed? We jerks need TLC too, you know. I am not an animal, I am a human being! Darren made a quip about "decadent student" in reference to "studiodekadent". I'll admit that gave me an impish chuckle. No harm no foul. But what if SD got on his high horse and took offense to Darren's troll? Over a silly name? I'd consider SD a little bitch, that's what. More seriously though, I should clarify that the interpersonal dynamics I have outlined here are meant to apply only to adult males. You will never see me troll some young eager adolescent or college student looking to Rand as a source of direction. I have my issues with Objectivism, but in the vast pantheon of worldviews, I consider Objectivism to be _roughly_ where it's at. It simply wouldn't be sporting to crush such people. But the big dogs like you and your friends are fair game in my book. I would also lament women taking on the rough and ready mindset I have advocated here. For a woman to consciously thicken her skin in order to play rough with the boys would necessitate a part of her soul dying. It just wouldn't be ladylike. I'll confess to being something of a chauvinist. I'm among that minority who feel that Rand's views on a woman president are _absolutely_ an integral part of Objectivistism, and is to her credit. I lament the Progressive intrusion of women into what were traditionally all-male spaces, where men were free to think aloud without fear of that "high dudgeon." Welp. I think that about covers it. (ya hadda acks)

Michael, my apologies. I was unaware of the multiple meanings of "stewed". I stand corrected

Hey now - don't lump me in with Weird Rand. Just because I share trollish tendencies with him doesn't mean I admire him. The old saying, "There is no honor among thieves" is equally applicable here. On the other hand, I do acknowledge he is quite a bit sharper than myself. I'm not too proud to admit that. And I do find value in some of the things he has posted. My highlighting of the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with him as a person. It was merely an endorsement of a delimited observation of his. I do find some of the responses to him interesting, however. As far as I can tell, he has not gotten personal with anyone here. His battle lies entirely in the realm of ideas, seasoned with some superficial (perhaps immature) nose-tweaking. It's not like he has engaged in any sort of psychologizing about people's "neuroses" as an explanation for their behavior. He seems to consider the participants here as cyber-entities and judges them solely on the philosphical statements they make. If one truly has the courage of their convictions, then it is only natural to regard those who differ as being inferior, or befuddled, or stupid, or ignorant in some way. That is always a recipe for impatience and frustration. I understand this is your clubhouse and you make the rules, so you wont hear so much as a peep from me if you decide to throw the riff-raff out. Good fences make good neighbors after all. But I have to wonder about the request (from you? Brant? Selene? I don't remember whom) that Weird Rand provide the details of his life. Why would you need to know his job status or academic credentials or age? How is that relevant? His fight as I mentioned is purely in realm of others' ideas. He is not asking anyone to trust him, or take his statements on faith, so his personal character is not dispositive. How would his divulging this information be in *his* interest in any way? I can see how such information would allow you and others to get a handle on him... Whoever said I'm not already plying my trade in that big internet out there? I go where the Spirit moves me. Sometimes here, sometimes there...one must seize opportunity wherever it arises.

That's not a proposition. It's a statement of opinion. A proposition is a statement about reality - as in, the metaphysical nature of reality. An opinion is a statement of value judgment, or simply judgment. I'm afraid your reply raises more questions than it answers. My first reaction has been anticipated by Bob. I'm not into the whole "logic" thing, but my limited understanding of the subject meshes with Bob's: a proposition, in the most fundamental sense, is simply a declarative sentence which is intelligible. You are free of course to draw a line between propositions which "relate to reality", and propositions which are "a statement of opinion", but isn't that begging the question? Who decides which propositions fall into which category? Do you think value judgements are not rational or objective? To wit: "Independence is a virtue". Is this a statement about reality, or a statement of opinion? Ethics and morality are all about value-judgements. Anyone proposing an "objective" code of morality better believe that value judgements relate to reality.

What is that crap about, anyway? Bob, try ingesting a few hundred micrograms -- give or take -- of LSD, and all will be revealed ;) [sorry for the pithy response -- it's been a long day. But in the tiniest nutshell possible: Our concepts of life vs. death draw artificial lines between the two. But these are just conceptual categories created by the mind. In reality, the Life Process and Death Process are inextricably bound together in a unified organic whole. That's how it's been since the beginning, and will continue to be (for the forseeable future, anyway). Life (which involves the consumption/killing of other resources, i.e., living things) demands it, and this can sometimes apply to mental processes as well]

p.s. That "This Will Destroy You" track was awesome. thumbsup

I hear you. Those two bands trend towards the more "conventional" or "accessible" side of things. But I would caution against an unwarranted emphasis on "ambitiousness". That impulse can sometimes be a source of self-indulgent effluvia. Even though I love a fine steak, sometimes a greasy burger is just what the doctor ordered. But I have a character flaw that attempts to "have it all" at once -- perhaps it's better to render unto pop what is pop, and to progressive what is progressive. In any event, I'm all to familar with seeking "ambitiousness" for its own sake. That's an impulse one would be wise to be cognizant of. No, I had not heard it. Very cool. Just one more nudge for me to give his work another chance. Richard D. James (AT) is quite a character. Very difficult to draw a bead on him. Some of his stuff is sublime, but then he also has UGLY UGLY output like the video for "Windowlicker". I'm not quite an Objectivist, but it is art like that which makes me sympathetic to some of the Oist hyperbole about "malevolent", "hatred of the good for being the good", Tooheyian "veneration of the ugly to destroy the beautiful", etc. Of course, I won't let such judgements sway me from giving him a fair shake. Somewhat in the middle of that divide, here is the song "Milkman". I post this for Ninth Doctor's sake -- I think he'll get a kick out of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlZz0aui6g This one is pretty neat from a technical standpoint (the interesting part starts around 3 minutes in): 100%. I recently bought a MIDI controller for my computer to try my hand at electronic composition. Just for piddling around. It immediately became apparent how steep the learning curve is on this sort of stuff. Actually, I'm not that much of a fan of GY!BE. I find them to be too dreary and dirge-like. And I say this as someone who has a taste for "dark" music like Tool. Tool at least has fire in the belly. GY!BE just sounds defeated and deflated to me. But I recognize their talent, and they do have some outstanding tracks. The sliver of their output that I enjoy can be found more consistently in, say, Sigur Ros. Many of the songs I've posted are my own idiosyncratic favorites, but I think Sigur Ros is very "Objectivist-benevolent-sense-of-life" that some here would enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr_MJAOyOeU (Incidentally, I can't recommend their """concert"" DVD Heima enough. High praise for that one. I own about 60-70 concert DVD's of various acts, and "Heima" is truly unique. The presentation is just so perfect for that band, and is a great experience. Highly recommended) I realize you don't like Tool (wtf is wrong with you), but just for shits and giggles, here's a sample of one of my recent favorites, Meshuggah. I'm not a fan of metal in general (except for standouts like Tool), but these guys are doing something unique to the genre -- their style of highly intricate rhythms influenced Tool on their last record. Try and get past the vocals and listen to the ferocious rhythm section -- so tight and precise. That's enough "intellectual stimulation" for me -- the rest of it a good satisfying punch to the gut. I think it's fair to say Meshuggah are not on Lindsay Perigo's top ten list. All I know is that listening to them feels like mainlining pure adrenaline. \m/

Regarding Mr. Weird Rand, I agree with those who say his gratuitious insults are beneath him. And I say this as someone with sympathies towards trolls. If you're going to light up a place, you don't do it with schoolyard taunts. "Michael 'Stewed' Kelly"? Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that. On the other hand: I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

Kacy, how would you characterize the following proposition: "Rush (the band) is good." (I'm being serious here)

Oh come on Brant. I have the feeling you know exactly which "varietals" pair with the course offered up in this thread. As it happens, while I was skimming YouTube for the song posted originally in this thread, I came across another fan-made video for one of Tool's classic songs. And I have to say, it is quite something. Probably the best of its type. Whoever made it is quite obviously a serious Tool fan, and someone who knows what it like to be...ah..."Experienced" Have you ever been "experienced"? After watching this video, you will be. I've never seen images put to music which so closely resembles what the experience of synesthesia is like -- the way the feedback from the music informs perception, where both the abstract content of the lyrics and the tempo and visceral feeling of the raw sound coalesce into a single point to offer a representation of the who experience. I'm sure some reading will experience the shock of recognition. I'm also quite sure Jimi Hendrix is eating his heart out at this very moment (watch in 720p, fullscreen, natch):

Someone please tell me now to embed my YouTube videos so they show up as images. TIA

Calvin, those were nice selections. I was not familiar with any of them. My impressions: Floating Points was nice technical ambient. I found the off-kilter rhythm engaging at first, but it became a tad irritating after a while for not resolving to something more pleasant. swod was similarly pleasing in an ambient sort of way. It reminds me of something I would have loved when I was younger. I found it induced a state of self-reflection in me. But, it went on a bit too long with no development to keep me interested. I can see it really "hitting the spot" after a glass of wine and a toke or two of the sweet leaf, however. Trioscapes was a blast. I would absolutely love to see a band like this live in a small club, no doubt about it. Very Zappaesque, but without the needless noodling. Strangely enough however, I would never write music like that today if I were to sit down an create art. Not quite sure why that is. (The bassist had a nice phat tone, though) But my favorite without question was the Samuel Jackson 5. I really dug that track. Will definitely be looking into their other stuff. To me, they hit that "sweet spot" which straddles both natural, gritty analog instrumentation and synthetic atmospherics. To my ears, THAT is "progressive music", not playing a million notes per second, or repetitous classical scales (which you seemingly averred in your appreciation of Human Abstract). As you say: Yes, but I would clarify that the "intellectually challenging" needn't imply "technical playing" or somesuch. For me, "intellectually challenging" has as much to do with arrangement and the textural sculpting of sound...the manipulation of perception. A band I discovered recently which hits that "sweet spot" for ME, is The Life And Times. They are similar to Oceansize, without the Tool-ish heavyness. A bit more accessible: Another (yet again underrated) band which has impressed me is Doves. They too find a nice balance between traditional rock structures while introducing more "progressive" sounds and features. Somewhat psychedelic in spots, but they still rock with their feet on the ground. It's hard to find a representative track, since their style can vary so wildly even between tracks of the same album. Here's a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6e-cbY7YP4 If I had to characterize the general "sense of life" of their music, it would have to be "nostalgia", or "wistfullness" or "longing". Which makes me wonder: what does the Objectivist aesthetic theory have to say about such things? Is art which reflects the sense of "nostalgia" or "wistfullness" Objectively """correct"""? Glad you enjoyed it. I believe he and Aphex Twin were contemporaneous during that period. Not sure who influenced who, although from what I can tell, they both have their own distinct styles. I never really got too deeply into AT, even though I appreciated his technical mastery (he truly is one of the "geniuses" of that style of music -- a real Roarkish "maverick") He was always a little too strident and insistent for my tastes, but now that I think about it, I ireally ought to give him another chance. i DO know that he also had an incredibly developed ambient side when not skittering over his drum sequencers. One of my favorite pieces of music is by him -- the track "Rhubarb". Who could ever imagine that a mere 4 or 5 chords repeated over and over could be so immensely evocative? Here's another aesthetic question which art like this makes me ponder: Could this piece have the incredible power it does if one were to arrange it for a traditional orchestra? In other words, does the magic of the music reside in the notes? Or does the unique texture and *sound* of the synthesizers elevate something simple to something sublime? I think this is an important question, because if my hunch is correct, it would mean the tradition of 'serious" music being played always by the same collection of instruments is anachronistic and regressive. Could new frontiers for music be found in technology and not necessarily new (if that is even possible) combinations of the same 12 notes?

Calvin, I'm somewhat familiar with Ventian Snares. I enjoyed that. The other one was pleasant enough, I suppose, but did not challenge me in any way. I'm surprised you like it. What about it grabs you? Funny, I've been having similar thoughts. Not that it is an inherently superior medium, but that never before in history has your average individual had so much opportunity to sculpt sounds on his own, without the cooperation (and headache) of others. I listened to electronic music back in the late 90's. I was a fan of the "IDM" genre. I don't listen as much, but mu-ziq left an impression of where the style can go. The amount of detail these musicians apply to their computer editing is no less impressive than what a "real" musician does with his instrument. Sure, electronic music will always be defined by loop and sequencers and such, but these guys were splicing, dicing, quantizing, enveloping, folding sounds back on themselves, etc. Ever heard a percussion instrument as a lead voice? I'm not sure what "sense of life" this piece conveys (perhaps the joy a child feels in smashing his mothers pots and pans together), but whatever the case, I'm blown away: If one were able to stick a nanomicrophone into the LHC, I imagine this might be the soundtrack.

Ah! Another Oceansize fan. Yes indeed, I became a fan of theirs upon first hearing. Defintely Tool influenced, but in a unique way that stands apart from many other copycats. I have to say Oceansize was the last band I got really excited about. They're younger guys, and so didn't quite approximate the gravitas of the seasoned vets in Tool, but they had a really powerful, unique sound. The last album was a bit of a disappointment, though. Your second video didn't do anything for me. It sounds like something I would have loved when I was younger, but that kind of stuff sounds wankish to me now. Just didn't move me on an emotional level whatsoever.

Yes, the audio on this particular video was horrid. I suspect the uploader didn't understand proper compression protocols. Here is a better version, with much improved audio, for those interested: Mike, Tool has been described (accurately, to my mind) as "avant-metal". Nothing else quite like them, I have to say. Many critics have cited Tool, along with Radiohead, as the "Pink Floyd of our generation" (Gen-X, that is), albeit upgraded and modified to reflect the benighted time in history we now live in. Not exactly Twiddlediwink music. Here's a quite interesting fanvid for the song "Lateralus". It was made as a school project, but went viral. I think it gives a good taste of the general Tool "ethos." The vocals in "Vicarious" are typically obscure, but the lyrics might serve to inform the images in the video. I think they suggest something more "disturbing" (MEM) than Jonathan's reasonable reference to "social metaphysics" BTW, for anyone intrigued by the "Hall of Faces" CGI in the video: that was the work of artist Alex Grey, who frequently works with Tool on the visual side of things. His work is utterly fascinating, albeit psychedelic. I wonder what the Objectivists here would think of it? http://alexgrey.com/ Thanks, Serapis "not Brad Trune" Bey

Mystical? Malevolent? Reductionistic? Anti-Life? Perspicacious? What's your take?

Ninth Doctor: Wow. I just finished reading that Perigo essay you linked to. Holy shit. And I thought YOU were a snob. I beg your forgiveness. I am at a loss for words. I mean...there is a lot of really good stuff in that essay but also a lot of naivete and puff and blow. Good lord...I'm tempted to go over there and troll his ass. Wow...it was you who taught me to appreciate "difficult" music...to learn how to be "uncomfortable" and rise above the all too human desire to sink into comfortable harmony. To really SIT and PAY ATTENTION. It is not masochism to listen to another's plaintive wail. It is simple open mindedness...which doesn't necessarily imply acceptance or sanction. It means being open to the other's unique experience... Godamn. I'm not sure what to say. For the moment, I'm reminded of that Dire Straits song:"That little faggot with the earring and the mink coat....yeah, buddy, that's his own hair..."

lol. you're absolutely right! BTW...GO LEAFS!!! I don't know the first thing about hockey. (hi duance)

O.K. You win. I am now a Rush fan. Ba'al Chatzaf Glad to hear it. I would suggest staying away from anything after 1986 however. That was the tipping point where Peart's Objectivish leanings started transforming into saccharine and maudlin progressive political correctness. There are still a few gems here and there in his post 1986 output however.

Oh Mike.... Mike, Mike, Mike.... SMH.....sigh... Is it too much to ask that you read me with just a tad more charity? Do you truly have "charity towards none"? For the sake of argument, I'll accept the charge of "Rand Basher" you have imputed to me. But where in the world did you get the idea that I endorse our current state of affairs? Following your own logic, I was merely pointing out facts -- making identifications - with no normative syrup poured on top. You could have just as easily characterized me as a leftist who wished to "fight the power". Whatever the case, you appear to have grabbed a thin strand of my thought and ran with it. That is fine, since I found your elucidation of a certain psycho-epistemology insightful, but it really has no bearing on the central thrust of my post. When I'm in a more lucid state of mind I hope to get back to this topic, but for the time being, I am glad you made this statement: "It is true that there is a tie between big business and big government that exists on levels people interested in Rand tend to brush aside." That's all I was really driving at. Regarding the veneration of businessmen -- I worry that the totems and symbols of Rand's universe, which her fans clutch to their chests as a source of motive power in their own lives, sometimes leads to them projecting outwards onto the current bigwigs of the world's chessboard. The noble entrepeneur is not fiction, but he is a minority. The folks who run most mega corporations are not Hank Reardens, and it behooves us to keep this in mind at all times. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming useful idiots in the service of those who don't give a damn about us.

Fear not my friend. I have it on good authority that I shall be visiting ND in the near future, and I know his weaknesses. His "thermal exhaust port", if you will. Perhaps I shall start by sureptitiously scratching his coveted classical recordings while he is taking a whiz. Or hell, just smashing them outright. Those classical "composers" are just dead white males, right? Stop living in the past, ND. Did Bach ever appreciate the sounds of an analog synthesizer like the mini-moog? Could Mozart ever dream of the creamy distortion produced by dual rectifier amplifiers? I THINK NOT. More seriously however -- am I the only one who has noticed how Neil Peart closely resembles the physiognomy of Rand's "Ideal Man"? You know what I mean - the sort typified by Gary Cooper and Frank O'Connor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4

Wisdom:

GODAMMIT. I understand most people here not liking Geddy's voice, but I will not abide Ninth Doctor's elitist dismissal of the Rush ouvre. Rush has done more to spread Objectivism than Harry Binswanger ever did. Ninth Doctor (and others), please take a moment to meditate on these young men in 1977 who were innocently trying to make sense of Objectivism (you bastards):

So here's the REAL rub -- people who have power tend to hobnob with others who also have power. It matters not whether the power flows from capital or government decree -- the fact is, those who have power seek to consolidate it through strategic alliances. Where in history have we NOT seen government figureheads making backroom deals with the captains of industry, the movers and shakers? NO-WHERE. It is inherent in human nature for those with monetary power to align with those who have authority power. Such is the nature of the beast. The folks here who proffer paeans to the Founding Fathers are relics of a dusty anachronism. That's just not how the world works now, or at any other time in history (the reasons for this are another discussion entirely, but I digress). Oh, sure, we can write a list of rules on a piece of paper to keep everyone in check. Suuuuure... Do abstract laws have force? Not on their own. They require PEOPLE to enforce them. But if the people in power find it beneficial to cut slack to greedy corporations, THEY WILL. This is the reality. There is no higher authority, and all the Objectivist bleating about justice is just whistling past the graveyard.