KorbenDallas

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

"They laughed when he sat down to play...'

Well. they did.

Fake news Carol, FAKE NEWS!!!  Just listen to this coda by Maestro Trump... they were laughing WITH him when he sat down to play:

This latest accuser's story smells like bullshit.  Sounds to me like Kavanaugh attended some parties and tried to get laid, that's about it.

Kavanaugh appeared on Foxnews with his wife in an exclusive interview, here is a video of it:

One thing about all the witnesses that the first accuser has....  none of them recall it happened.

On 9/23/2018 at 6:28 PM, anthony said:

Yes, RAND's personal "creative process is reason-led..." -- but not for the great majority of creative artists, or viewers. She had to take into account, all of them, their works and their senses of life, too. No?

When one achieves an alignment of the psychological/emotional state with one's conscious state (by reviewing and changing one's subconscious sense of life, in brief), it is then that one's reason can and will always lead the way, in art creation also. How many artists/authors can that be said of?

For my own use, I have the rough view that one's psychology is "that which was done to one", and of one's philosophy - "that which one does for oneself".

In this line, your/my sense of life we initially didn't have much or any choice over - if one (e.g). has/had a bleak universe view, there were certainly influences and occurrences in one's childhood and adolescence which enforced this attitude, damaging one's value-judgments about life, and affecting badly one's emotional responses. Not being fully conceptual, then, there was little one could know to do to adjust that. Until - that is - one gets a little older, when it becomes possible to change one's "plastic" (Rand) subconscious, pre-conceptual "sense of life" with objectivity and reasoning, and with objective evaluations and the appropriate emotions which respond to those. But as individuals get older and more rigid that's harder to change.

I believe it's an understatement to say Rand had both her sense of life and her metaphysical value-premises closely corresponding, in her literature and as an individual. That is, fully integrated. Many artists, like others, have the two in conflict -  often you can see they have a terrific sense of life, but with poor/malevolent world-views. That's why so much artwork one can find to be excellently made, great artworks - but may well not like them.

Just to add to the complexity in TRM, there's the highest significance given to the disparity between what man is, and what man could/should be. Determinism - and volition; naturalism -and romantic realism. And so on. This apparent dilemma we seem to have here about the piority of reason-emotion, emotion-reason, (in art) highlights "is vs. should". Not many people/artists understand and are concerned about "integration".

Tony I don't quite understand what you were saying in this last part (in bold), can you expound on this some?

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Korben, All I can do is point out a few quotes, and explain them from my own experience and thinking. Your one-liner queries are not helpful to discussion. Where is your stand, how do you interpret Rand and what do you disagree with? Above that, from your thoughts and observation how do you think an artist operates? From reasoning, alone - altogether calculating, logical and empirical?

Here's one more:

"This does not mean that a sense of life is a valid criterion of esthetic merit, either for the artist or for the viewer. A sense of life is *not* infallible. But a sense of life is the source of art, the psychological mechanism which enables man to create a realm such as art". p.35

It seems you want a simple and un-nuanced statement about the precedence of reason (in the creative process). It is not that simple - not everything is conceptual to the artist, it's also preconceptual. He "feels" about how and why he makes it. Where do you believe the creative drive and artistic passion comes from? We viewers then reason, and find value-emotions in there, accordingly.

Well, I'd say: Emotion is a tool for the creation of art. Emotion is not a tool of cognition.  

If you find those statements contradictory, question some premises. What is a re-creation of reality; what is reality? What is subconsciousness; what is consciousness? What is pre-conceptual; what is conceptual?

I suggest a re-read of Chapters 1 - 4 : The Psycho-epistemology of Art, Philosophy and Sense of Life, Art and Sense of Life, Art and Cognition. This is dense stuff, I think I'll take my own advice, been a long while since I read it.

The sequence of titles tracks the mental processes.

So emotions are a tool for the creation of art, yet those emotions aren't being used for cognition?  I'm not really asking a question here, I'm pointing out a contradiction.  I don't think you'll find the answer in RM Chapters 1-4.

Rand's creative process is reason-led, "tapping into emotions" is a tool that she uses, but fore and aft it is reason.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Yes. AR: "Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction..."

"Speaking metaphorically"...to be exact.

What's your point? I mentioned there's much more to this. There is a greater context outside your quote about creating art - it has to do with the preconceptual  (unreasoning) "sense of life". 

"A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and existence. It sets the nature of man's emotional responses and the essence of his character". AR

I was showing Rand was highly aware of the artist's emotional (etc). source of art, and that she did not put reason over emotion--  rather, only for the creative impulse - that which a sense of life, his "psychological mechanism" initiates and directs all through his efforts.

When one asks an artist for the motivation of his work, he might say - This is what I - felt like - doing, I had the instinct ('intuition') to create this in such a way. 

In a way he is right, but his impression of an "instinct" as such, isn't correct, instead being some consequence of early pre judgments of life and existence made in his subconscious.

IOW. He is drawing from the raw, vague and un-formed sense of reality he has accumulated subconsciously, and from feelings about existence that he's left consciously unexamined--these will come out in his work as "the how" - broadly, the "style" of the work.

Without tapping into his sense of life, he'd have a quite drab, unappealing, or prosaic, artwork/novel (stylistically); one very much appearing to be painted (or written) formulaically and unoriginally, I think.

Alone, evidently "style'" would be totally insubstantial, however. A picture has to have objective form, a novel needs a plot, characters (etc.)

So, obversely, the "what" (the content and subject) for visual artistry will be in his selection of particular elements which an artist chooses to concretize an abstraction he *consciously* holds - like the deductive process.

("...it has to be translated into objective (communicable) terms" AR).

If he is drawn to - by his "metaphysical value-judgments" - depicting the innocence of youth, he'd (e.g). paint a child at play in a bright meadow. If it's the tranquility of nature, he'd pick a harmonious landscape. If, the unpredictability and malevolence of nature, perhaps a stormy seascape in which is a small boat and frightened sailors. If the competence of men, he'd capture a serious human subject involved in his work. Etc.

And the viewer applies further reasoning, the reverse process that "resembles" induction, to take the selected concretes back to an abstraction. (Back to the peacefulness, the innocence, the competence, a violent nature man is at the mercy of, and so on) Perceptions integrated into concepts, like one does for any real things. 

 

So emotions are tools of cognition?

Yea it's on page 25 in mine, I have noticed a difference between page numbers on the lexicon and my copy as well.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

[..]

I disagree that Rand specified "reason first" over emotion, Korben (in art creation, specifically). One's sense of life, she spent some pages explaining, is by necessity chock full of emotion (my reading)  - because - it is "pre-conceptual and subconscious", and unintegrated. An artist's childhood-formed sense of life provides the energy source for his art creation, so you could say this is "the initiator" of his work. The viewer's own sense of life responds. But, of course, there's much more ... My paraphrasing from memory, so don't hold Rand responsible.

Hi William. Good questions.

On page 25 of RM Rand says "the creative process resembles a process of deduction".............................

2 hours ago, WilliamHalley said:

I have been studying the Romantic Manifesto and trying to really understand it completely. However there are some aspects that mystify me. I was hoping someone would be interested to discuss these points and spread their rationality by pointing out what I am missing. I have tried getting answers to these questions elsewhere without any luck so I'm trying here.

1. THE ARTIST

1.1) According to Rand an artist portrays what he considers metaphysically essential to make a new concrete that shows the abstraction. Do artists really always do this? Isn't it imaginable that an artist would portray something inessential. What if a novelist were to write about someone going to the bathroom because it's necessary for the story or some other reason? Or what is a painter was forced to paint an insect by a pope. It seems perfectly possible to create metaphysically inessential things in art.

1.2) Rand writes that the purpose of artists is to bring their view of man and existence into reality. I can't say I have ever heard an artist say this was their goal. How do you know the artist didn't just want to paint a pretty picture or write a fun novel?

2. THE AUDIENCE

Rand writes that people seek works of art because they have a need to see their view of existence confirmed and see his values concretized. I have never heard anyone say, "Let's go to the cinema, I really need some concretes today!" Don't people engage with art because of fun or beauty? Rand herself wrote in the same book: "I read for the sake of the story" (156)

3. STYLE

3.1) On page 25, she writes that all the decisions of the artist are controlled by his sense of life. Didn't Rand write in various places that "Form follows purpose" and that the artist should make all his decisions based on the theme and purpose of the work? Shouldn't you rationally think about your choices instead of letting your emotions take control? This makes it sound like an artist is just a robot following its sense of life programming to create art.

3.2) She also wrote that a art style that is blurry will move people who are motivated by the fog of his feelings. Isn't it imaginable because of the same "Form follows purpose" rule that an artist would want to express chaos or a moment of confusion and therefore paint a blurry picture or write a confused sentence or film a blurry shot?

4. ETHICS

Here I am just confused. Rand wrote that the focus of art is on metaphysics not ethics, but she also says that an artwork necessarily projects a message and metaphysical judgment. So the metaphysical value judgments are not ethics, but aren't the metaphysical value judgments also value prescriptions for the viewer? Doesn't that mean it's ethics? Are there two different messages? A metaphysical one (what should a man be) and a ethical one (the theme or message)?

Just a couple of quick comments, Rand was hung up on formal and final causation, so some of the formulations in the Romantic Manifesto can seem a bit off, and in my opinion they are.  Efficient causation as applied to creating art is the action of actually creating the art, yet Rand will want to focus on the final causation instead.  Also, due to Rand's reason before emotion primacy, how she says art is created has to involve reason first and can't be emotional first.  I don't know how good art is created this way, without letting emotions to lead the artist at times.  I like Rand a lot and consider myself an Objectivist, but in my opinion the Romantic Manifesto was the weakest of her non-fiction.

This reminds me of the Electric Dreams episode "Kill All Others" in a way.

I live in Florida that has involuntary commitment, it's called the Baker Act here.  There are other states with similar laws.  The fundament for the law is to have law enforcement and the judicial system intervene when someone is mentally ill to the point that they pose a danger to themselves or others.  Sounds like it might be helpful on the surface, but there have been people that have been locked up and drugged against their will without anything wrong with them.  Some get locked up and not drugged, and are released after their "eval".  I 100% disagree with it and it is unlawful and violates human rights.

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump has the fake news media so confounded they are doing news stories about his dick.

sigh...

And we're doing the same...

Even me...

Michael

I think they are trying to attack him, Daniels doesn't write anything flattering regarding the Royal Member so they are trying to upset Emperor Trump.

Quite a low blow (pun intended).

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A big crack appears among the recently indoctrinated. 

VIDEO: Liberal students admit Trump is helping economy

I think they are just parroting what they are hearing on CNN, MSNBC, and others.  Those outlets are saying the economy is good right now.

I think Trump will get re-elected based off of the economy improvements...

23 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Check out this bumbling twit:

[...]

He makes Trump look like a genius and a poet in comparison.

Aw comon', you know that video was a super-cut to make him appear to be that bad.  I'm no fan of Obama, but he's not that bad at his bumbling, "uhms", and stammers.

On 9/16/2018 at 11:51 AM, anthony said:

Look for commonality before dismissing: independence (and so, individualism) is loathed and feared by narcissist and globalist-collectivist. Both share a loss of selfhood, "self-sovereignty". There is or could well be, causal compatibility between a pathology and an ideology. (Within an individual).

But "all" of them? I didn't say or believe that.

All S is not P. 

All e.g. actors, are not narcissists. All career politicians are not narcissists. However, due to the nature of those professions, ie. receiving public attention and adoration -and having the power over others lives - it would be a very safe bet that there's a higher incidence of narcissists among them both, than the national average .

I really wasn't dismissing anything, my point was when MSK said, "Crony elitist globalists certainly are narcissists" it means All globalists are narcissists.  Which they aren't.  So when you say All S is not P, that's amphibole and it's ambiguous:  logically the statement could mean No globalists are narcissists, or it could mean Some globalists are not narcissists.  So by saying All S is not P to try to clarify things, it's actually not clarifying them.

On 9/16/2018 at 11:51 AM, anthony said:

Look for commonality before dismissing: independence (and so, individualism) is loathed and feared by narcissist and globalist-collectivist. Both share a loss of selfhood, "self-sovereignty". There is or could well be, causal compatibility between a pathology and an ideology. (Within an individual).

I don't agree with this necessarily.  Like I said earlier, I don't agree with the idea that all narcissists have low self-esteem or are they in fear.  You're saying here that a narcissist and globalist-collectivist has a loss of self, so they become collectivists.  But the problem is that many narcissists have a strong sense of self, and don't become collectivists.  I know two narcissists that are like this, meaning the Objectivist/NB pathological explanations for them do not fit these two at all.  For a principle to be valid, it has to work on all members of the class, and it doesn't.

On 9/16/2018 at 11:51 AM, anthony said:

All career politicians are not narcissists. However, due to the nature of those professions, ie. receiving public attention and adoration -and having the power over others lives - it would be a very safe bet that there's a higher incidence of narcissists among them both, than the national average .

[Some career politicians are narcissists], yes I agree with that.  And I agree that politics attract aggressor personalities.  But I don't agree that all narcissists need attention and adoration, that comes from Freud and not many psychologists still believe today.  Covert narcissism exists, convert narcissists don't need attention or adoration, and in fact they can be quite the loners.  I will agree that all narcissists want a measure of control over other people's lives.  You're right that in politics there are a higher incidence of narcissists and aggressive personalities.  You'll also find this in bureaucracies of any kind---hospitals, government, the red cross, etc---they love the power structure and manipulation possibilities and their ability to "hide" their true personalities.

Why do you think Trump was so attracted to government and politics?   He is the kind of narcissist that needs attention and adoration, his twitter feed screams narcissism, he lies, manipulates, deceives others, and he makes sacrifices to innocent people---and yet somehow isn't a narcissist?  Is he fit to be President because he's a narcissist?  I didn't vote for him, but I don't think he should be removed from office.  Certainly previous presidents have been narcissists.  But Tony, Steve Wolfer said Trump was a narcissist, and I am saying it, and other Objectivish people have said it, so I'm having a hard time understanding how you can think that he isn't a narcissist?

So did MSK and Anthony just form the principle that All globalists are narcissists?...  Are they?

I mean, what aboot the sociopath globalists, and the psychopath globalists?  We don't want to leave those out!

2 hours ago, anthony said:

My feeling is narcissism is poorly understood, much too often diagnosed lately. It might be used as a smear tactic against anyone who is considered too extroverted, brash, assertive or - "selfish". I have strongest doubts about President Trump's oft-called narcissism. But the neurosis is true to some. I once had occasion to research the condition (painful story involving a woman), and if I recall right, there is a craving common to such people involving getting their "Narcissistic Supply"- from anyone and everyone. Most often the prominent quality they have is a potent charm, like a powerful lamp which they can switch on for the fortunate recipient, then arbitrarily remove, holding one in their thrall for a long time. It is as if they create an addiction for their approval. Seldom, are they crass, blunt or plain-spoken, it is their suave, empathic outward demeanor which finds and attracts to them a constant, fresh "supply" of general adoration from people around them. No, I wouldn't say this of the President who reacts spontaneously, almost guilelessly (who can tell if/when he's deliberately sowing confusion in his opponents?) and without overmuch charm. However, I have suspicions of one or two others' narcissist traits...

I don't believe in "narcissistic supply" with people with the character defect of being narcissists.  Conceptually narcissistic supply will find its roots in either having low self-esteem, or fear, or both.  From my experience with narcissists, they don't have low self-esteem nor are they in fear.  In my thinking, those explanations are empaths trying to explain narcissists from a fundamental of empathy--but there is a contradiction to try to explain a narcissism in terms of empathy, they don't have it (or much of it).  So insofar as narcissism being poorly understood, the best that I have read about it is in the book In Sheep's Clothing.  The book doesn't directly cover narcissism, rather it covers aggressive personalities, how they operate, and why.  There isn't much in that book that I disagree with.  It provides a foundation that explains the roots of aggressive personalities being rooted in aggression---not self-esteem, not fear, nor both of these.

Narcissists are selfish---irrationally selfish.  They don't mind making sacrifices to others and others to themselves.  Rational selfishness wouldn't make these sacrifices, but could still exhibit some of the classic "traits" of narcissism, yet it isn't narcissism, it's rational egoism.  Regardless, concerning traits the key to differentiate is the sacrifices they are making, and Trump doesn't mind making a lot of them.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Even the Weather Channel is doing fake news.

So dramatic! Dude from the weather channel bracing for his life, as 2 dudes just stroll past. #HurricaneFlorence pic.twitter.com/8FRyM4NLbL

— Tony scar. (@gourdnibler) September 14, 2018

LOL...

Michael

LOL

Build that wall!  And Mexico will pay for it!

Wait no, make Americans pay for it!

Wait no, we don't need a wall, pay Mexico to deport their own immigrants!

On 9/12/2018 at 9:50 AM, Marc said:

After 8 years of Trump , it will probably be another 8 years of Trump ! 

Ivanka !!!!!!!!

just do me a solid my man, and when it’s built , come here , and give the man credit ! 

I will do the same if you’re correct !!

Egads!  With Jared as First Mate?  Muh Russians v2.0

Seriously though, I don't have a judgment on Ivanka.  If she would run for President at some point it would make for an interesting time in history, in my opinion.  There have been father/son Presidents, to have a father/daughter dynasty could potentially be great for history.

If she wants to build the wall that her father couldn't build, then I'm out 

Another OLer that doesn't post here anymore was a trained psychologist and said Trump was a narcissist...  so I'm not sure how much that had to do with a "different comprehensive world-view".

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

[...]

Lincoln DID have to deal with "fake news."

[...]

 

Prove that it was "fake news" and not something else

Time to play... Talk... Like... TRUMP!

David Pakman breaks down the Trump GDP/UE lie tweet, and asks the questions:  #1 is it true?  and #2 if it were true, does it mean anything?