Objectivist Roundup

[Jonathan]

Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27240&hl=

"Hooray! I’m fast approaching the break-even point on my expenses for publishing Responsibility & Luck! Hence, new purchases will be paying me for the many hours of labor that I spent editing and otherwise preparing the book for publication… very soon!"

Yippy!

"Of course, I could have opted for the 'respectable' route with a traditional publisher."

Um, yeah, let's pretend that she could've gotten published anywhere she chose, but she just didn't want to.

"Happily though, I don’t care about my academic reputation in the slightest."

I think that goes without saying.

"For by that method, I would have been lucky to have been paid anything more than a pittance."

Lucky?!!! Isn't her book about luck not existing?!!!

"Moreover, I would have lost control over the whole process of publication — to the detriment of myself and my readers, I think."

Yeah, having one's book vetted and proofed and polished by seasoned professionals is always a detriment. It's much better for an overconfident novice to maintain total control, especially when she's so bold and daring as to not care about her academic reputation.

"Just FYI, my plans to produce a podcast series on the book were put on hold due to other commitments..."

Playing with her horse?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I wish Diana Hsieh luck on her book.

I'm not a fan of her approach, in fact I would probably not like the preachiness in her book (although I would have to read it or skim it to make sure), but I am a fan of producing new things and putting them on the market.

Good for her.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If I write another book--don't ask me about the first one--I'd likely self-publish because I've never published a book before and have no agent and because of time constraints. However, if I were to spend seveal years researching and then writing it I'd try to go to a traditional publisher while doing that as one would be able to tell right off the bat if it were bs or not. It also helps who you know. My grandfather was a personal friend of D.L. Chambers, head of Bobbs Merrill which published almost all his books. I doubt Bobbs Merrill made a dime off his work. If you count each volume of his Madison biography that's at least 11 books over 30 years including one mediocre novel. Yes, Chambers was the same guy who didn't want to publish The Fountainhead.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan is a wicked, wicked man.

--Brant

I should know; it takes one to know one

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I wish Diana Hsieh luck on her book.

I do too! I wish her lots of luck in selling her rejection of the idea of luck!

I'm not a fan of her approach, in fact I would probably not like the preachiness in her book (although I would have to read it or skim it to make sure), but I am a fan of producing new things and putting them on the market.

Well, it's not really a "new thing." It's her old dissertation warmed over. It's like if I were to start selling copies of the old drawings in my student portfolio.

Good for her.

I agree. Good for her for being productive once. Congratulations. What's next? I mean other than pretending to be a font of wisdom because she was productive once? Any new ideas? Anything original or deep or relevant?

J

[Brant Gaede]

I went through some of her podcast subjects and came across one on is photography art? Dec. 15, 2013.

No--I think she said no in the write up--"because it is not wholly the creation of the artist the way painting is." This doesn't gainsay the fact that photography has "considerable value" [as art?]--WTF! I gotta say, is bomb-making art if you call the bomb maker an "artist"?

I could not listen to these podcasts. If I were a Catholic it would be like receiving marriage counselling from the virgin priest.

--Brant

my basic beef is I can't stand podcasts; it's the authoritarian authoritative approach to ideas and anti-ratiocination and takes way too much time

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

That is the preacher approach. Make rules. Tell people what they should value and how to behave.

Then sit back think about how wise you are.

That's the cousin of power. I used to think Hsieh was interested in power, but I no longer think this.

She sure does like to preach, though.

Incidentally, I caught the following exchange about power on Facebook with Biddy Bob. I'm leaving all the other text out. The other poster was Jeff Perren.

Jeff: The perpetual puzzle is: "Why do some people want power over others?"

Robert: Why do vampires suck blood?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Begging the question.

--Brant

except Robert expanded on his answer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

He didn't beg the question. He answered with a homomorphic metaphor.

(That means one-to-one correspondence in a "this is similar to that" manner, like a simile except it doesn't have to use "like" or "as" or terms like that. Rather than linguistic, this is a conceptual meaning.)

In other words, some people want to rule others because it's in their bloodsucking nature.

(btw - That "bloodsucking" reference is an isomorphic metaphor, which is a little different--it means one-to-one correspondence in a "this is that" manner, once again conceptually, meaning it may be expressed in what is usually called a simile or a metaphor, but the kinship between the conceptual domains is closer than with a homomorphic metaphor. And even that could be debatable, meaning it could be considered a homomorphic metaphor because only spiritual blood, not physical blood, is sucked in my usage. Spiritual blood could be classified as metaphorical depending on your belief system, and if so, one of the conceptual domains of the isomorphic metaphor would already be a metaphor, ergo that would make it a homomorphic metaphor. It's all in the way you suck blood, I guess..)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I sense a digression.

--Brant

call me Vlad

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think this is the right thread.

I just took a peak at SLOP and it looks like it is whimpering back to activity.

Let's see if the owner will save the world this time around.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It seems to be invitation only. You can sign in but not post or comment. I don't think LP has recovered from being run over by Moller on the Kennedy assassination. In his own word, applied to someone else, he got "Mollered."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Still no world-saving Credos (which were due back in early February), but Pigero is back to the tired old routine of asserting the "objective superiority" of his consumer tastes in music, while still offering nothing of philosophical substance to back it up. Yawn. This time he's trying to get the attention of TAS and ARI by taunting them and more openly pissing on Rand (for her recognition of the reality that there is no current means of objectively judging music as an art form).

Do you remember back when Pigero wrote his "Music of the Gods" and his "Why Catholicism Is Beating Objectivism's Ass" rants? That was back in 2008, and he promised to "flesh out" the "skeleton" of his "argument." Well, despite his getting an ass-kicking from me and others on those threads, including my phrasing my challenges to him in the form of a "Turandot Challenge," which he never answered (http://www.solopassion.com/node/4585?page=5 http://www.solopassion.com/node/5662?page=10), he's back yet again with nothing of substance. No "flesh" on the "skeleton" despite having years to come up with something, but his taunts and denunciations have become even more shrill. You'd think that he'd eventually learn that he's going to have to do at least a little intellectual work. It's almost as if he is incapable of understanding how real philosophy actually works.

Anyway, here's his latest:

Part of the reason ARI shills, and the ARI itself, are morally disarmed in this matter, is their imperviousness/hostility to Evgeny's art and to the notion that Romantic Music is objectively the best (this reflects their faithful, mindless reiteration of Ayn's mistaken mantra that we cannot yet distinguish objectively good music from objectively bad). I here present empirical, ostensive refutation of their evasive, evil nonsense. And I dare a single cowardly TASian/ARIan/NZ shill to take me on...

Heh. I especially enjoyed that last line: "And I dare a single cowardly TASian/ARIan/NZ shill to take me on."

Does he actually believe that pretending to be the triumphant king of the hill who inspires fear in "cowards" is going to impress anyone? Does he think that no one remembers his getting his ass kicked on the subject in the past? Does he seriously believe that he's fooling anyone? I mean, that tactic may have worked somewhat on some people back when he could name-drop the fact that certain intellectual heavy-weights were associating with him. But now, it just seems to be a pathetic fantasy.

J

[Jonathan]

Hahahaha! Kyrel opens up a can of objectivity on Pigero:

"Isn't most of this music too slow and dull to be truly enjoyed? Life strikes me as being far more exciting, interesting, and fun. I find human existence to be pulsating, throbbing, important, dangerous, dynamic, vital, hyperkinetic, dramatic, volcanic, hyperbolic, and passionately unpredictable. High-quality rock 'n' roll often captures this. Classical symphony-style music just can't come close in terms of value and enjoyability, in my view. I wish somebody would educate me differently. How can you listen to Beethoven and Mozart without giving up most of the driving, hungry, and exciting elements of your life? All you get back -- after listening to the vast majority of their slow-paced, dull-witted, effete, overrefined, overcomposed, overintellectualized, rather mindless and soulless artificiality and pretension -- is something far less than what you started with, in my judgement. Maybe if you smoke a ton of weed beforehand you can enjoy it..."

I love the fact that Kyrel makes reference to characteristics that can be objectively identified in the music that he likes, and that he derives meaning from those objectively observable and explainable aspects, where, on the other hand, Pigero, when asserting the "objective superiority" of his tastes, only makes reference to his own emotional experiences while listening to music, and is incapable of objectively identifying and explaining how his emotional experiences were caused by what was contained in the music versus being caused by what his own weepy consciousness contributed.

J

[Jonathan]

Pigero shares his method of doing "philosophy":

Kyrel, you say you wish someone would educate you differently. Someone has tried, via hundreds of "KASS Music Gem"s, and you have been deaf and indifferent. Apart from that, don't you think the onus is on you at some point to educate yourself?

Yup. His method of "proving" his position that his favorite music is "objectively superior" and of "educating" others to that "fact" is to post hundreds of youtube clips of his favorite music as a substitute for rational argument. No definitions of the terms that he's using ("romanticism" versus "head-banging caterwauling" versus any other form of non-romanticism), no backing up anything with any substance, no objective demonstrations of people successfully identifying "artists' themes"/conceptual meanings in romantic music while being deprived of access to "outside considerations," or of failing to do so when listening to "head-banging caterwauling," no separation of moral versus aesthetic judgments. Instead, all that he's got is, "Here, listen to this! It should make you have lots of feelings just like it does for me. See how it's objectively superior! No? Then there's something wrong with you!"

Why do certain Objectivists have such a strong urge to destroy the concept of objectivity by asserting that their subjective responses are objective? Why do they need to believe that their emotions, and only their emotions, are a criterion of objective aesthetic judgment despite Rand's clearly demonstrating that they are not? Why are they willing to be vicious "Rand-diminishers" over her properly identifying musical tastes as subjective?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Kyrel had some interesting things to say, but while his criticism of classical music is good for him it's not addressing the value to be found there much less why. Just as reading a book is a huge step up from reading Internet and magazine articles apropos learning things and thinking about them, classical music, including opera, is a huge step up from all other types in the way it engages your brain. Nathaniel Branden was once asked how does one improve one's creativity? I already knew the answer: Listen to classical music.(I think he also said elsewhere his taste in music generally was very broad.) He said he didn't think he could live if he didn't have music. Understand that Nathaniel back then was an extremely impatient man. He thought things happening around him were happening extremely slowly, yet he more than tolerated that kind of music, he wanted and needed it badly.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

Heh. I especially enjoyed that last line: "And I dare a single cowardly TASian/ARIan/NZ shill to take me on."

He's up for single combat against a cowardly shill? That's about an even money bet. Assuming he gets to delete his opponent's posts once the going gets tough, which it probably won't.

[Jonathan]

Kyrel had some interesting things to say, but while his criticism of classical music is good for him it's not addressing the value to be found there much less why.

I think that Kyrel's comments do address the value to be found in classical: the value is subjective and depends on the interpretations and emotions of the listener. What does or does not affect Kyrel is not true of all people.

Just as reading a book is a huge step up from reading Internet and magazine articles apropos learning things and thinking about them...

That would depend on the quality of the book and the quality of the net or magazine articles. That fact that something is printed in a book doesn't magically make it better than something published electronically.

...classical music, including opera, is a huge step up from all other types in the way it engages your brain.

Whose is "your brain"? Everyone's?

Nathaniel Branden was once asked how does one improve one's creativity? I already knew the answer: Listen to classical music.

Well, then that's a bad answer. The question was how "one" improves "one's" creativity, not how Branden improved his. If Branden improved his creativity by listening to classical, great. It's pretty silly, though, to suggest that the same would, or should, be true of everyone.

Did Stephen King's creativity suffer because he listened to rock? I think not. Does Drew Struzan's suffer when he paints in silence? Um, no. I visited the artist John Berkey in his studio many years ago, and talked to him about the variety of music that he listened to while painting. Using Branden's theory on improving creativity, shouldn't we be able to tell which of Berkey's works were created while listening to classical and which were not? Shouldn't we be able to look at certain images of his, judge them to be not as creative as others, and therefore conclude that they were created while listening to evil, creativity-destroying, icky, head-banging caterwauling?

(I think he also said elsewhere his taste in music generally was very broad.) He said he didn't think he could live if he didn't have music. Understand that Nathaniel back then was an extremely impatient man. He thought things happening around him were happening extremely slowly, yet he more than tolerated that kind of music, he wanted and needed it badly.

And others have the same need of the music that they love, even if Branden doesn't get anything out of it. Feeling strongly about one's subjective tastes doesn't make them right for everyone.

J

[Jonathan]

Heh. I especially enjoyed that last line: "And I dare a single cowardly TASian/ARIan/NZ shill to take me on."

He's up for single combat against a cowardly shill? That's about an even money bet. Assuming he gets to delete his opponent's posts once the going gets tough, which it probably won't.

I'd still like to hear about the specific negative effects that Turandot's evil message has had on Pigero and other Objectivist Cultural Warriors who are convinced that evil art is destroying society. Perhaps the opera's glorification of Calaf's shallow, hormonal lust as "love" is the reason that Pigero is so horrible at maintaining relationships? Perhaps he should take his own advice, lift himself out of the aesthetic gutter, and abandon such works of art that have turned him into such a miserable toad?

J

[Brant Gaede]

I think I may have been mistaken to use the word "improve" respecting creativity. The idea was more putting oneself into a creative matrix or getting the juices going. It had nothing to do with coming up with something better only coming up with stuff.

--Brant

[PDS]

Heh. I especially enjoyed that last line: "And I dare a single cowardly TASian/ARIan/NZ shill to take me on."

He's up for single combat against a cowardly shill? That's about an even money bet. Assuming he gets to delete his opponent's posts once the going gets tough, which it probably won't.

I'd still like to hear about the specific negative effects that Turandot's evil message has had on Pigero and other Objectivist Cultural Warriors who are convinced that evil art is destroying society. Perhaps the opera's glorification of Calaf's shallow, hormonal lust as "love" is the reason that Pigero is so horrible at maintaining relationships? Perhaps he should take his own advice, lift himself out of the aesthetic gutter, and abandon such works of art that have turned him into such a miserable toad?

J

True story: for about 10 years from about 1998-2008, in the "pre-playlist" days, whenever I prepared for trial, I listened to Puccini quite a bit. Not because I thought I was being a Randian hero by doing so, but simply because I enjoyed it, because my music tastes are pretty simple, and because the repetition got my brain in a very creative mode. And, because during those same 10 years, I didn't lose a case, the Puccini vibe was a good vibe.

A couple of years ago I read J's takedown of Turandot and his Turandot challenge, so I pretty much quit listening to Puccini altogether. It is no longer part of my trial preps.

Next thing I know, I lost a case I shouldn't have.

Here's the question: can I sue Jonoathan for this? I am tempted but I kinda think he would kick my ass in the courtroom...

[Brant Gaede]

Just as reading a book is a huge step up from reading Internet and magazine articles apropos learning things and thinking about them...

Jonathan: "That would depend on the quality of the book and the quality of the net or magazine articles. That fact that something is printed in a book doesn't magically make it better than something published electronically."

________________________________________________________

This is not about the value of the material per se but the value of continuous concentration over time. (I have never read a book on Kindle so I have nothing to say about that.)

I am not seeking, imposing or suggesting universalility or objectivity x personal experience. I am merely putting up some observations and an ancedote or two and use them, think about them, ignore them or what-have-you-them as you--as one--will.

--Brant

Jonathan goes into the same class as George H. Smith for competent criticism: George for the history of political philosophy and J for esthetics--at least insofar as Objectivists like to get tangled up in the subject--please note that even if esthetic preferences could be objectified that still wouldn't make room in Objectivism for an Objectivist Esthetics any more than an Objectivist Chemistry or Physics; competent Objectivist philosophy is so simple and easy as to boggle the mind with all the cultural artifacts that have larded onto it, mostly by Ayn Rand herself--e.g., the ideal man; even the idea of living with integrity is only Objectivism applied and is not exclusive to the philosophy (as communism posits the withering away of the state Objectivism implies the withing away of itself into two categories: the philosophy and the philosophy applied, hence the axioms work exactly the same for it and science being common to both)

[Jonathan]

Jonathan goes into the same class as George H. Smith for competent criticism: George for the history of political philosophy and J for esthetics...

I'm flattered that you would say so, but I don't think that I'm in the same class as George. His brain could beat my brain's ass with one hand tied behind its back.

at least insofar as Objectivists like to get tangled up in the subject--please note that even if esthetic preferences could be objectified that still wouldn't make room in Objectivism for an Objectivist Esthetics any more than an Objectivist Chemistry or Physics; competent Objectivist philosophy is so simple and easy as to boggle the mind with all the cultural artifacts that have larded onto it, mostly by Ayn Rand herself--e.g., the ideal man; even the idea of living with integrity is only Objectivism applied and is not exclusive to the philosophy (as communism posits the withering away of the state Objectivism implies the withing away of itself into two categories: the philosophy and the philosophy applied, hence the axioms work exactly the same for it and science being common to both)

Yeah, I think that a truly objective Objectivist Esthetics would begin by recognizing, accepting and embracing the idea that aesthetic response is, by its nature, highly subjective -- that it's a feature, not a bug.

J

[Jonathan]

I just took a cruise around the online O-ist world, and, other than OL, there's nothing left but ruins! RoR is a charred ghost town, SOLO has flushed itself down its own sewer, and most of the children at the OO kindergarten must have apparently moved on to bigger things (is there a first grade Objectivist Facebook page that they've graduated to?). Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, has separated from her husband and they're headed toward divorce (is anyone at all surprised?). She's taking back her maiden name and therefore will just be Dr. Comrade Sonia Mertz Brickell, PhD, and she's shutting down Philosophy Inaction.

So, it's pretty much good news all around (especially for Paul Hsieh)! The control freaks, guru wannabes, and destructive toddlers are fading and failing!

J

[Selene]

As a divorce and family mediator, I always recommend that the parties reduce the financials to business and step back from the emotional pieces.

The separation of therapeutic issues from financial issues is not simple, however it is essential to rational thought versus potentially toxic and emotional conversations that lead to poor choices by both parties.

A...