The limitations of reason?

[audiognostic]

first pieces of electronic music sounded like this

to me this is art

why? because I subjectively say it is and understand its concepts

[caroljane]

If you are interested in aesthetic Randian interpretation, I strongly suggest you read "Music of the Gods" by Lindsay Perigo. I would love to hear what you had to say to him about it.

[audiognostic]

http://hettingern.pe...cal_Culture.htm

This seems a rough outline for a paper using Scruton as his main source. If true, can u point me to the completed paper?

no i cant but the paper outline contains all teh ideas i am talking about which i see relevant to my argument

[audiognostic]

If you are interested in aesthetic Randian interpretation, I strongly suggest you read "Music of the Gods" by Lindsay Perigo. I would love to hear what you had to say to him about it.

well i dont have the time to go into reading large papers.. but i like to read other peoples summaries of a paper to get a quick glimpse

here was a quote

" Mr. Perigo's claim that music of the Romantic composers is superior to other styles of music, particularly what he calls "headbanging caterwauling." He goes on to claim the moral superiority as well. He is not the first to make this claim, nor, I doubt, the last. And I am not one, personally, to shy away from making judgments, when necessary; and as composers, the Romantics were truly accomplished; technically, there is a very strong case that they were “the greatest” up to now"

it is my view that nobody can call any music better than any other music, further evidence for my view of the validity of seemingly irrational subjective judgements

i personally find the vast majority of classical and romatntic era music to be utterly revolting.. and much myself prefer "headbanging caterwauling" or whatever its called

the very idea of claiming a "moral superiority" of classical and a "moral corruption" of modern pop to me seems to be utterly rediculous and hillarious to the greatest extent

i personally find this music to be superior to romantic composers

i would listen to this any day over mozart

[audiognostic]

morally superior to beethoven

why do i say so? because it more directly accesses my emotions.. i dont have to think about it or analyze it from a rational perspective of beauty.. it just hits me..

old peopel call this the moral decrepitation of todays youth.. lmfao

well actually this is more like the early 90s.. but still

I saw this band live.. it was a by far emotionally superior experience to any boring symphony I have ever watched

[shifty]

http://hettingern.pe...cal_Culture.htm

This seems a rough outline for a paper using Scruton as his main source. If true, can u point me to the completed paper?

no i cant but the paper outline contains all teh ideas i am talking about which i see relevant to my argument

I'll just look up Scruton instead some other time.

first pieces of electronic music sounded like this

to me this is art

why? because I subjectively say it is and understand its concepts

For the record, Grunge and this here sound awfully excruciating to me.

morally superior to beethoven

why do i say so? because it more directly accesses my emotions.. i dont have to think about it or analyze it from a rational perspective of beauty.. it just hits me..

old peopel call this the moral decrepitation of todays youth.. lmfao

well actually this is more like the early 90s.. but still

And this is amusingly bad to me. By the way, I'm 25.

Edit: The beat is ok, but just look at his ridiculous hair, swagger, and lirycs. It makes me smile .

[audiognostic]

hah i think its tight.. since everything is objective one of us has to be morally wrong though right? hah

i think i should turn that off and play this instead if i do not wish to destroy my moral virtue

ah you must skip to about 150 for the true moral beauty to begin

[shifty]

hah i think its tight.. since everything is objective one of us has to be morally wrong though right? hah

i think i should turn that off and play this instead if i do not wish to destroy my moral virtue

ah you must skip to about 150 for the true moral beauty to begin

I think It's irrelevant to your moral virtue (and that's bad piano, but she's 105). It does potentially say something about your values, which I have just reasonably deduced. (OMG! I just judged you based on ur subjective pref, I must be a dogmatic cultist). No hard feelings?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. Why does something need to be phrased through a Randian framework for it to be correct.. is Rand the god of reasoning? every philosophy class is Nill unless they speak through a Randian framework?

2. it seems to me like they are the ones opinionating and saying non sequiter statements while I am only consistently logically refuting every single thing they say

3. I am just getting frustrated because the only thing I see is that they pick and choose and ignore everything I have said that they cant refute.. and come at me with many of the same things over and over again so I have to keep phrasing myself in different ways.. then telling me I lost the argument.. the whole thing is getting rather rediculous

Pope,

You misunderstood once again--and that's a chronic curse of refusing to slow down when thinking through something is necessary. But, it's your mind.

I think you should start by correctly understanding something. Like, for instance, correctly understanding my suggestion. From your response, you didn't.

But let's take your points in sequence.

1. Nothing has to go through a Randian framework to be correct. But if you are going to assign meanings to Rand's ideas, it's a good idea to assign the right meanings, i.e., understand what she meant, including what others well-versed in her philosophy understand her to mean. And it's not that hard. She's very clear, with a few exceptions.

In other words, it's OK to disagree with Rand. It's bogus to assign a false meaning to her ideas, make statements that are totally at odds with them in a weird, haphazard manner, then claim you have refuted them.

If you want to refute something, you have to understand it, first. That's the minimum requirement to saying something is wrong and claim validity. Get it right, then refute or attack or agree all you want. But get it right before all else. How can you ever hit a bulls-eye when you're aiming and shooting at the wrong target?

From your posts, you are using what I call a normative before cognitive approach. This means judging something before correctly identifying it. Don't worry, though. You're in great company. It's an error that is more common than people think.

2. I have no comment about your opinion of your logic.

3. You are frustrated about people ignoring your comments, but try to read them from a neutral perspective. Lots of unfounded claims, incorrect meanings of the ideas of others, and so forth. And this is mixed with some sporadic good ideas and clarity.

Do you get high before you post sometimes?

I'm not being snarky. I see the signs--especially the inconsistency, imbalance and impatience--and I think it is better to ask. Anyway, if you do, I suggest you stop.

Michael

[caroljane]

Shifty!I am 107 and just wrote about piano playing on Canadian Boring -- talk about moral virtue, although the adjective is redundant.

How indestructible and inextricable from the human spirit is music.

[audiognostic]

it definitely says things about my values.. but my values are based off emotion anyway, what i think is "cool" vs what i think is not cool.. so its rather redundant..

a short list of things which cannot properly be judged or analyzed using rationality:

a beats "groove"

a comedians "timing"

a rappers "swagger"

a "melodic expression of rain" for example...

even when you look at a person.. they have a certain "feel".. some people are "cool" while others are "not cool but trying to fit in".. they may be wearing the same clothes, doing the same things, but you can "just tell they dont vibe"

a salesmans "charisma"

the different "feels" one gets when entering a rennaisance style home, vs a modern european sleek style home

the reasons for different "feelings" evoked by a certain color or temperature in the sky.. or the way teh sun shines through the bushes...

you can attempt to categorize them.. but the fact of the matter is nobody ever has, nor can anybody ever write step by step books explaining how to rationally re create that.. no rapper can ever read a book to "teach him to have swagger" no kid can read a book to "teach him how to REALLY be cool".. no comedian can ever read a book which logically teaches him how to be funny... these are all things one must develop a "feel" for.. as far as Im aware, Rand would call this type of "feel" irrational mysticism and dismiss it as not existing or being valid to her worldview

these are all things which extremely left brain rational people simply do not comprehend.. and therefore they are "uncool" "stiff" "out of touch" and "nerdy"

all other things which cannot rationally be explained to left brain reasoning

presumably things that dont exist... since they are irrational...

so why do you need them?

perfect nerd thinking : why wouldnt i wear glasses with a strap and a pocket protector and walk totally straight upright? my glasses wont fall off.. my pens wont leak, and i have good posture.. why do people make fun of me?

This shows that left brain logic and reasoning is not the only valid tool of cognition

[audiognostic]

1. Why does something need to be phrased through a Randian framework for it to be correct.. is Rand the god of reasoning? every philosophy class is Nill unless they speak through a Randian framework?

2. it seems to me like they are the ones opinionating and saying non sequiter statements while I am only consistently logically refuting every single thing they say

3. I am just getting frustrated because the only thing I see is that they pick and choose and ignore everything I have said that they cant refute.. and come at me with many of the same things over and over again so I have to keep phrasing myself in different ways.. then telling me I lost the argument.. the whole thing is getting rather rediculous

Pope,

You misunderstood once again--and that's a chronic curse of refusing to slow down when thinking through something is necessary. But, it's your mind.

I think you should start by correctly understanding something. Like, for instance, correctly understanding my suggestion. From your response, you didn't.

But let's take your points in sequence.

1. Nothing has to go through a Randian framework to be correct. But if you are going to assign meanings to Rand's ideas, it's a good idea to assign the right meanings, i.e., understand what she meant, including what others well-versed in her philosophy understand her to mean. And it's not that hard. She's very clear, with a few exceptions.

In other words, it's OK to disagree with Rand. It's bogus to assign a false meaning to her ideas, make statements that are totally at odds with them in a weird, haphazard manner, then claim you have refuted them.

If you want to refute something, you have to understand it, first. That's the minimum requirement to saying something is wrong and claim validity. Get it right, then refute or attack or agree all you want. But get it right before all else. How can you ever hit a bulls-eye when you're aiming and shooting at the wrong target?

From your posts, you are using what I call a normative before cognitive approach. This means judging something before correctly identifying it. Don't worry, though. You're in great company. It's an error that is more common than people think.

2. I have no comment about your opinion of your logic.

3. You are frustrated about people ignoring your comments, but try to read them from a neutral perspective. Lots of unfounded claims, incorrect meanings of the ideas of others, and so forth. And this is mixed with some sporadic good ideas and clarity.

Do you get high before you post sometimes?

I'm not being snarky. I see the signs--especially the inconsistency, imbalance and impatience--and I think it is better to ask. Anyway, if you do, I suggest you stop.

Michael

haha no i dont get high before i post...

actually to tell you the truth.. the only thing i set out to refute is rands statement here

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

and I have read the lexicon post on emotions

so as far as what i am ACTUALLY trying to refute.. i believe i have a pretty clear idea of..

I have also heard many times the positions of Ayn Rand on her beliefs on "irrationality and mysticism" at least what she calls irrationality and mysticism

as far as the rest of the side-chains.. that is more of a result of the flow of the argument, and i dont have time to read about all of that.. that is beyond my main point anyway..

my whole point was that reason has its limitations, that emotions can be proper causes to action in certain circumstances, that humans cannot live by logic alone.. and that in the right circumstances emotions and irrationalities and mysticism etc can be perfectly good tools of cognition

my auxillary point would be that one of the main limitations of logic and one main reason why Rand may not have simply been able to figure out of reality.. whether i read all her materials or not.. is because logic is limited by ones understanding of evidence and ones circumstances.. therefore one cannot simply pontificate on complex matters like the cause of psychology and emotions without clearly understanding all the modern scientific evidence on psychology, brain structure, etc.. which Rand clearly did not

here is a quote by Nathaniel Branden.. essentially proving that Rand was an "out of touch nerd type"

Notice further -- and this is especially true of Atlas Shrugged -- how rarely you find the heroes and heroine talking to each other on a simple, human level without launching into philosophical sermons, so that personal experience always ends up being subordinated to philosophical abstractions. You can find this tendency even in the love scene between Galt and Dagny in the underground tunnels of Taggart Transcontinental, where we are given a brief moment of the intimately personal between them, and then, almost immediately after sexual intimacy, Galt is talking like a philosopher again. I have reason to believe that Galt has a great many imitators around the country and it's driving spouses and partners crazy!

this is what happens when you try to live your whole life by left brain logic alone

the whole concept of making all actions based on reason alone becomes utterly insane while I am sitting here adjusting sounds in my synthesizer so they "sound right"... it is like WHATTT.?? REALLY?> no.. REALLY? LOL ..

this is a rather similar process to dealing with other human beings on an interpersonal emotional level.. it is rather an "irrational art form".. what ayn rand would dismiss as mysticism and stupidity.. probably having very low social skills herself I would bet.. this i think is evidenced how most of her heros are loners with no friends, like.. the steel mill owner in Atlas, or Roark in Fountainhead

I would bet money that not a single person arguing with me here is a musican.. or at least a composing type..

What cracks me up is that most rational scientists are left brain nerds .. which is why in fact they will never get it.. they simply dont see what there is to get.. hahahahha.. if it cant be explained through logical science then it must not be real..

or as Nietzsche said.. : people use reason as a form of negation of the senses

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pope,

I happen to disagree with Rand's quote, too, albeit, if I were getting brain surgery, I would not want the doctor emoting over my open skull and exposed cortex on the operating table. Reason... sweet reason, I would pray (and I'm not even religious)...

Anyway, from reading you, my disagreement is for much different reasons than yours. Starting with the identification of what emotions are.

Michael

[audiognostic]

I am not arguing against reason

Neither am I arguing against emotion

I am not arguing against objective reality

Neither am I arguing against subjective choices

I am actually bringing together both to say they are all valid when they are valid

to dismiss irrationality/emotion/"mysticism" and subjective reality entirely and call it garbage is absolutely retardo in my book

As far as identification of what emotions are... according to science.. the ultimate objective study... NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aka :"irrational mysticism".. the truth about objective science is.. we are in the infancy stages of understanding the brain.. and nobody has yet formulated a rational logical explanation to everything..

to tell you the truth one of the funniest phenomenon in thinking which i see so often among people in modern society is..

evidence shows that :ABCDEFG = 100

people run out and say A = 100!!! .. then someone else runs out and says NO B = 100!.. then someone else runs out and says.. YOURE ALL WRONG ITS E= 100.. then someone else says entierly incorrectly.. NO ITS Q = 100! then someone else says.. NO 100 = 100!

for example people argue all day.. "money buys happiness!" .. "no.. its close relationships that bring happiness!" "no its fancy cars and fame!" "no.. its being healthy and fit!".. "no.. its being mentally strong!".. when in reality its ALL OF THOSE.. the argument is NILL.. except for peopel who hold the position that their and only their point of reference is right..

one should also beware of biases in language.. such as "emotions are what one experiences as a response to something".. which means that one cannot decide things based off emotion.. "intuition is what one can decide things from" "mysticism is witch doctory" "mysticism is anything irrational"

the truth is many of these grammatical word plays do nothing but confuse us.. I believe Nietzche spoke of this too.. the truth is ... if we took away these definitions and simply looked at the picture for what it is.. things may become much clearer and split into rather different categories than our language allows

a good example of this is the word "greed" which is defined as "having more than one needs" having an automatically negative assumption.. this word is in itself rather inaccurate and not well put together... and implies a definition which is not well defined or explicitly made clear

right now the sunlight is coming from my window and shining on my walls in a way which gives me a very posltive "vibe" which caused me to open my window.. is it rationally explained that the reason for this is because I know its not the end of the world since the sun is out?

For example I am a big believer in "feng shuei".. not all their rules.. but in general.. the way you arrange your furniture in your house.. and the look of your furniture and accessories can have a great degree of affect onto your emotional state.. and i personally like modern european style better than lets say classic spanish style.. how can you objectively rationally explain that? how am i not using my feelings as tools of cogition by which to organize my house or live my life

in truth I believe that this makes a large portion of the philosophy of objectivism nill.. since the whole point of objectivism is that everything is objective.. and subjectivists believe everything is subjective.. but everybody really knows its a mixture of both ;).. if you really break down the argument into different terms you can see the stupidity of it.. one side says everything is fact.. one side says everything is opinion.. yet 95% of normal people on the street understand some things are debatable facts and others are undebatable opinions.. even the example on brain surgery becomes rather rediculous.. for when you dont think too damn much about it it just becomes "obvious" you dont use opinions to operate on brains.. it doesnt even take a philosophy book to explain it

I actually read a series of articles once which described that "thinking too much" is a problem among people.. and it takes them away from their true nature.. it is almost like a mental infestation/disease.. he refered to how pure natural thinking is closest to its true state.. then over rationalizing breaks down the mind and takes us further away from our true nature and confuses us

If you can look at it like this you may see.. how thinking too much can become a disease and make us less effective in many matters in which we simply should not think so much.. I know it sounds like a wild proposition.. but think about it.. we have to have a 5 page discourse to come to the conclusion that some things are objective facts, some things are subjective opinions, and some things like music belong to a category which nobody really knowws.. a conclusion that most normal.. even stupid people on teh street would be able to come to very quickly

there is an area of intellegence called "common sense" which many very rational people have problems with funny enough.. common sense indicates to us when we should use objective reasoning, or subjective opinion or feeling.. people who only understand logic cannot understand this type of intellegence.. they dont know when to use logic or not use it.. they need somebody to give them some sort of a formula so they can clearly understand..

logic is not the highest form of intellengce.. in fact many "logical" people and careers have been replaced by computers nowadays..

And if logic were the only form of proper thinking... we would have created AI robots which were the "coolest" robots around and which could compose better music than anybody else.. and have more "Swagger" than anybody else.. since they are PERFECTLY rational.. and NEVER make logical mistakes..

ITs like DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH.. thats what im trying to point out the whole time in this argument

In many ways people who think too much are actually not intellegent enough to see what is right in front of their face.. its like you are blind to anything which cannot be mathematically reverse engineered

Its like.. pure rationalists are already out done by computers.. they are barely trying to catch up to the intellegence of a simple logic calculator...

while normal "stupid" people are 10000000 times smarter and quicker than comptuers or calculators

Teh glassez is Rational.. dey help me zee better.. and my hair is rationally dezigned 2 be aerodynamic so i can walk faster..

Da hottest rational value judgement trend of the day...

"I am not doing anything irrational! - I am the perfect human! - them irrational mystical rapstarz who be fuckin all dem bitchez is so morally corrupt!"

rational door lock... promoting and practicing the virtue of intellegence for every visitor.. making the world a better place..]

another excellently designed aerodynamic haircut to help him run 0.1 mile an hour faster to evade predators.. therefore being morally virtuous since it is for the benefit of his life

[audiognostic]

ahhh.. humor.. the morally corrupt practice of denegrating things of metaphysical importance..

wake up and live life

I apologize to any geeks who were offended.. I just had to use emotions as tools of cognition there for a moment because I felt like it would make my point better ;)

lets say one ttries to look cool rationally to be percieved better by people.. but how does one do it? where is the formula?

I think we have all seen these guys.. geeks on the prowl

why doesnt it look cool? do my glasses not fit the golden ratio he says? - i must read more books!

[caroljane]

One of the things people do on this forum, is explore the differences between introspection and narcissism.

[Dan Haggerty]

[audiognostic]

..

[audiognostic]

I challenge anybody who disagrees with me to logically explain at least this one very real phenomenon..

a comedians "timing" and "feel"...

why are there no books that one can read, rationally comprehend, and then instantly become funny?

until somebody proves this we have nothing to talk about

[Matt Faherty]

I challenge anybody who disagrees with me to logically explain at least this one very real phenomenon..

a comedians "timing" and "feel"...

why are there no books that one can read, rationally comprehend, and then instantly become funny?

until somebody proves this we have nothing to talk about

This refers to just one of your many jumbled dichotomies/concepts/definitions. As far as I can tell, here you are confusing "irrational" with "intangible." Intangible refers to "things that are recognized but not easily quantified" (source: wikipedia). It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure qualities like "timing" or "charisma," but that does not mean that these qualities are mindless or irrational. It means that they are not quantifiable or that their quantifiability exists beyond human perception.

I think you are getting at the point that there are times when we utilize these qualities based on "feeling," and this is basically true in a short run sense. A comedian does not sit down and litterally chart out how many miliseconds he waits before saying the next word in his routine. But again, this is not generally irrational. The comedian is conciously and RATIONALLY aware of his skill with "timing" and thus has parlayed this ability into stand up comedy. He RATIONALLY determined the value of his timing and its use. When he is on stage he is likely "in the zone" and acting on instinct or memory muscle, but the entire context of his actions are taking place within rational bounds.

Though I don't know how much you will get out of this explanation since you refuse to consider the true meaning of "reason" (it is not just "cause and effect").

[audiognostic]

One of the things people do on this forum, is explore the differences between introspection and narcissism.

to me.. narcissism is a virtue.. even though Ayn Rand never said it

[audiognostic]

I challenge anybody who disagrees with me to logically explain at least this one very real phenomenon..

a comedians "timing" and "feel"...

why are there no books that one can read, rationally comprehend, and then instantly become funny?

until somebody proves this we have nothing to talk about

This refers to just one of your many jumbled dichotomies/concepts/definitions. As far as I can tell, here you are confusing "irrational" with "intangible." Intangible refers to "things that are recognized but not easily quantified" (source: wikipedia). It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure qualities like "timing" or "charisma," but that does not mean that these qualities are mindless or irrational. It means that they are not quantifiable or that their quantifiability exists beyond human perception.

I think you are getting at the point that there are times when we utilize these qualities based on "feeling," and this is basically true in a short run sense. A comedian does not sit down and litterally chart out how many miliseconds he waits before saying the next word in his routine. But again, this is not generally irrational. The comedian is conciously and RATIONALLY aware of his skill with "timing" and thus has parlayed this ability into stand up comedy. He RATIONALLY determined the value of his timing and its use. When he is on stage he is likely "in the zone" and acting on instinct or memory muscle, but the entire context of his actions are taking place within rational bounds.

Though I don't know how much you will get out of this explanation since you refuse to consider the true meaning of "reason" (it is not just "cause and effect").

AAHH AAHH... OK I THINK YOU ARE GETTING ME....... YOU ARE GETTING ME.. ok...

intangible ... ok.. I WILL TAKE THAT.. ok...

wikipedia defines irrational as: It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives - ok according to that definition.. i will accept your word "intangible"

at least in my understanding I believe Ayn Rand called these "intangible" things to be "irrational, mystical, and nonexistant" - there is much evidence for this as far as Im aware if you listen to her.. unless I am missing something..

although I will amend "cannot easily be explained" to "has never yet been totally explained.. and has a possibility of never being explained"

perfect...

lets use your own words..

"he is likely "in the zone" and acting on instinct" - you said muscle memory also.. but I think that has more to do with sports.. this is more like "brain muscle" memory.. if you can say that.. comedy in particular.. and every joke has a slightly different timing.. which has to do with being able to read the crowd and their "vibe" as well.. so its not like a repetitive movement which can be calculated

this is very similar to when I have worked with musicians in a recording studio, and worked with professional engineers.. who explained that musicans have many rules for their "vibe" .. and this is part of their proffessional work is to understand that.. like many musicians cannot play if you keep interrupting them, or if the lights arent right.. or unless they go through some ritual.. it is "seemingly irrational" but doesnt fit the definition of irrational since it works and its not less useful than other alternatives.. so i would stick with "intangibile".. this is so serious.. that if a Recording Engineer doesnt understand how to work with these concepts.. he may lose his job.. same thing like if a comedian cannot work with "vibe and timing" he will lose his job..

also I have had many similar "intangible" experiences myself when working on my music

and trust me im no crappy amateur musican .. you can hear some of my work on this site: http://ilmatikmusic.webs.com/ check it out.. check out this bmw commercial demo soundtrack I made in my spare time.. BMW is my favorite car.. I have no idea why..

I used the visuals to inspire the sounds.. HOW did this happen? NO IDEA.. explain that

WHERE did i come up with these ideas "rationally"??? seems more "intangible" to me than anything

YOU SAID: " there are times when we utilize these qualities based on "feeling,"

that is EXACTLY what I am saying..

so Im not sure if this proves what im saying in terms of definitions or not.. but what it shows me.. unless im just defining something wrong..

is that emotions CAN be used as tools of cognition and decision in that sense

and as far as i know things like "in the zone" or "instinct" were things which Ayn Rand did not agree with.. it is one of the reasons she called Nietzsche a mystic and an irrationalist .. because he believed in concepts such as "instinct".. where as she didnt

I think she would call "working off vibe" "feel" or "irrationality" as being "irrational mystical concepts.. and that emotions couldnt be used as tools of cognition"

let me quote her again

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

[audiognostic]

ok enough of self boistering.. but check it out... here is a mix i did for a dj set and recorded.. If you want to know what im saying.. watch it for at least a few minutes.. if you like dance music.. you may just be captivated

!

you can see me live playing off "feel".. I didnt just come up with some formulas and map it all out rationally based on what scientifically affected the human body.. every move i make has to do with me using emotions as tools of cognition

lol I love this mix.. too bad it got taken down from youtubes search results for copyrighted music

In the beggingin for the first 3-5 mintues its tight but im kind of "getting in teh zone".. then after that it just takes off when im fully "in teh zone"

this mix got 5 star ratings on youtube when it was up.. for some reasons apparently beyond my reasoned comprehension.. i guess people "vibed" with it..

now here is my question.. what kind of intelligence does it take to be a good dj and keep an audience captivated?? certainly not the same type of intelligence it takes to proove logical theorems and do math

this takes us back to the 8 intelligences chart:

LOGICAL INTELLIGENCE IS ONLY 1 TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE

people can be utterly brilliant at discourses in logic... but be utterly retarded in everything else

this is usually the place where "geeks who think they are smarter than everybody else but cant see the world around them" fall into.. people who live ONLY by logic.. and wear pocket protectors and glasses straps because "they make sense and they are ergonomic".. they have no sense of "style" or "character/charisma" because that is "illogical nonsense"

so Nietzches "passions" are irrational and mystical and dont exist HMMMMM>?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Passions do not exist!! they are irrational and mystical!! this dj is just hiding secret logical dj formulas from us!!

to quote her directly from the lexicon

Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

and to quote her directly again

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

again all this is only proof of how little Rand knew of psychology

as she told Nathaniel Brandon.. and i quote her directly:

, "I don't know anything about psychology, Nathaniel."

and Nathaniel quotes

I wish I had taken her more seriously. She was right; she knew next to nothing about psychology. What neither of us understood, however, was how disastrous an omission that is in a philosopher in general and a moralist in particular.

what I am going after Is not Rands views on capitalism, etc.. but directly on her views that "everything is objective.. there is no subjectivity.. there is no inspiration, there is no passion.. that is all mystical irrational garbage.. everything is either based directly in logic and intellectualism, or it is stupid and irrational and fake"

at least thats what i have understood her to be saying

Also as a final point on this.. it seems to me that for example .. many people speak of "following your heart" or "following your passions" when picking a career.. it seems Rand would call these "irrational impulses " that "primacy of passion doesnt exist.. but rather primacy of reason.. and that is based on whats best for the continuation of ones life" meaning.. dont follow your heart because there is no such thing.. instead follow what makes you the most money..

notice specifically what she says at the end "its circular.. you exist to continue your existance.. whats the point"

Rand argues against the existance of a seemingly incomprehensible "passion" "instinct" or "drive" like Nietzsche speaks of.. she im sure would refer to the chasing of one like this "irrational hedonism".. since she does not believe emotions are valid tools of cognition.. or valid reasons to make life decisions, etc..

Nietzsche speaks of this as being "weak minded reason".. that the sole purpose is self preservation.. because it is based in FEAR.. where as "strong minded higher reason" is based in a will to power.. and one is willing to risk and sacrifice ones own life and well being.. for a greater cause.. for ones passions..

Seems like Rand would advocate that it is "moral" to take the "safe high paying job" rather than trying to risk everything and go alll in and follow your passions.. unfortunately this does not lead to happiness.. but Rand speaks against pleasure seeking and against "hedonism"

here is a good paper by Nathanael Brandon that goes into some detail of what happens when people repress their "emotional drives" in such a way as being "irrational"... and the consequences of Rand not knowing anything about psychology

http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html

[audiognostic]

[Dan Haggerty]

..

Explore what I did there, then contrast with how you did it, and ask yourself the difference.

Focus, dear Watson. Focus.