Your TAS Dollars at Work

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The funny part is that this is my honest evaluation and I gave my reasons. I asked people if they had any other ideas, but nobody said anything. Or if they did offer an idea as to why Jim did one thing (repeatedly) and said another that contradicted what he did, I couldn't make sense of it. William even called me an asshole, but that wasn't much of an explanation.

You know, the more I think about this, the more another Inconvenient Fact is surging. (And I know, here comes trouble, but I am stuck with me. I see what I see.)

Objectivists condemn turning the other cheek as sanction of the victim. Evil, evil, evil. That's what they say.

But what they are doing right now is disagreeing with me because I am not turning the other cheek enough. They want me to turn the other cheek more. And they think that this would be good.

Good, like in ethics good.

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Michael, ~no one~ appreciates being told they are either stupid or immoral.

I'm sure that includes you, you cretinous bastard. :-)

I mean, aren't we trying to stick to a higher road that the one travelled on LP's site?

Maybe a bit more Zen, a bit less Fundamentalism

A bit more judo, a bit less karate.

OK?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

LOLOLOL...

At least cretinous bastard is a bit more colorful than "asshole."

So nobody likes being told that, huh? But they don't mind doing something stupid or immoral (especially on someon else's dime) so long as nobody says anything?

I missed something somewhere...

(scratching head...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Zen???

Woah!!!

I have public domain Zen.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," it really becomes warfare rather than communication. :nuke:

Do you understand that?

I mean, this is ~your~ living room. But do you want to host it in that manner? :no:

Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy." :frantics:

A little more discernment, a little less blaming.

A little more "I hear you," a little less gotcha.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy." :frantics:

Roger,

I did say "mentally deficient," but crazy works for me as a possibility. I can see it.

That's the most objective thing I have heard so far about this.

I have a question and I would like your opinion. It sounds like a loaded question but it isn't. I am sincerely interested in getting to the root of an unhealthy Objectivist kneejerk. (I say it is unhealthy because a package-deal concept is always involved, spiced with a little intimidation.)

Would you say that "taking the high road" is the Objectivist equivalent of "turning the other cheek"?

I'm serious.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy." :frantics:

Roger,

I did say "mentally deficient," but crazy works for me as a possibility. I can see it.

That's the most objective thing I have heard so far about this.

I have a question and I would like your opinion. It sounds like a loaded question but it isn't. I am sincerely interested in getting to the root of an unhealthy Objectivist kneejerk. (I say it is unhealthy because a package-deal concept is always involved, spiced with a little intimidation.)

Would you say that "taking the high road" is the Objectivist equivalent of "turning the other cheek"?

I'm serious.

Michael

"Taking the high road" basically means not stooping to your opponent's tactics (or worse). It means treating your opponent with respect, or ignoring him if you are unable to do so. (But slapping the shit out of him, if he violates your rights, of course.)

Think Howard Roark.

If someone had started misbehaving egregiously, or spoken glowingly about someone who had mistreated Howard, in Howard's own living room, he wouldn't have harangued them about their either being stupid or evil (or crazy). He would just have said, can it, or you're out of here. (And we all know how he handled the violation of his agreement with Peter Keating about Cortlandt Homes.)

But what they did, or said about him, in their own living rooms -- or even newspapers -- he could have cared less. "Sticks and stones...." ("Howard, what do you think about me?" "I don't think about you.")

That's why I've counseled Zen, judo, discernment, acknowledgment of what the other is saying -- while fighting the urge to lash out and smack someone who is talking crap. I really think it would be a good exercise to try -- and habit to cultivate.

But I'm not advocating this from a position of moral superiority. Lord knows, how many times I've "fallen off the wagon" and taken my best shot at some jerk who I thought was being deliberately intellectually dishonest. ("All have sinned and fallen short of the Roark.")

Just trying to help us get past a lot of needless tension and strife here in Objectively Livid.

REB

[cjsmall]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," [...] Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy."

Oh come on Rodger, that's only three alternatives. Didn't you forget a forth? :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

[James Heaps-Nelson]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," [...] Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy."

Oh come on Rodger, that's only three alternatives. Didn't you forget a forth? :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

Very funny, Jeff! You know how tricky those tetrachotomies can be .

Jim

[Laure]

Not to stir the pot or anything, but the fourth alternative is that he's right.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's not fair to be funny!

Dammit, I'm trying to promote a schism!

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," [...] Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy."

Oh come on Rodger, that's only three alternatives. Didn't you forget a forth? :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

Jeff's comment was so sly that I missed the misspellings. There probably is a fourth alternative, but being a computer lover and a Scot enamored of the Firth, I prefer the forth. Also Rodger the codger probably prefers Roger :-).

Jim

Edited January 9, 2008 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Roger Bissell]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," [...] Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy."

Oh come on Rodger, that's only three alternatives. Didn't you forget a forth? :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

You know, Geoff, I ~did~ forget the fourth. Musta been 'cause I was hittin' the fifth a bit too hard. <hic>

Guess I'm just a Drooling Beast. Heh.

Seriously, yes, in Twelve Step meetings I used to hear this tetrad of alternatives: sick, crazy, stupid, or bad.

They're not mutually exclusive, obviously, so it's not a real tetrachotomy. :-)

REB

[James Heaps-Nelson]

What I mean is: when you corner people with "you're either stupid or immoral," [...] Also, it's a false alternative. You forgot "crazy."

Oh come on Rodger, that's only three alternatives. Didn't you forget a forth? :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

You know, Geoff, I ~did~ forget the fourth. Musta been 'cause I was hittin' the fifth a bit too hard. <hic>

Guess I'm just a Drooling Beast. Heh.

Seriously, yes, in Twelve Step meetings I used to hear this tetrad of alternatives: sick, crazy, stupid, or bad.

They're not mutually exclusive, obviously, so it's not a real tetrachotomy. :-)

REB

Well, Roger as a music lover you must know that going from a forth to a fifth is easier than going from a fourth to a fifth. All you need is a little vodka and tonic. I now think my puns are going from bad to awful

Jim

Edited January 9, 2008 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Robert Campbell]

I've now heard from Ed Hudgins.

Ed has been in New Hampshire, is just now getting caught up in the office, and says that he needs to be doing some online forum research.

Ed states that he does not share Mr. Perigo's recently proclaimed opinion of the regulars here at OL.

Before taking any further action or engaging in any further advocacy, I'm content to give Ed some time to sort through this mess.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I've now heard from Ed Hudgins.

Ed has been in New Hampshire, is just now getting caught up in the office, and says that he needs to be doing some online forum research.

Ed states that he does not share Mr. Perigo's recently proclaimed opinion of the regulars here at OL.

Before taking any further action or engaging in any further advocacy, I'm content to give Ed some time to sort through this mess.

Robert Campbell

Did he run into any political bigwigs at the primaries in New Hampshire?

Jim

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

I don't know about bigwigs, but it's clear that Ed was up there in the snow on account of the recently concluded primary.

It's 71 in Clemson at the present moment. I ain't complainin'.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I don't know about bigwigs, but it's clear that Ed was up there in the snow on account of the recently concluded primary.

It's 71 in Clemson at the present moment. I ain't complainin'.

Robert Campbell

Wow, you've got even better weather than here in Phoenix. High 50's and spotty rain.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

I to talked to Ed this morning. In a message I sent MSK Ed said he would comment shortly about the whole problem. He did tell me that Will is out of the country.

He was near John McCain in New Hampshire.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[cjsmall]

You know, Geoff, I ~did~ forget the fourth

Hey, sorry about the misspelling. I used to be a pretty good two-finger typist but as I get older I seem to get worse and worse. It doesn't help that my current Sun keyboard likes to occasionally duplicate a letter here and there. And now it's started inserting rogue 'd's. When will the madness stop!

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Jonathan]

Over on SOLOP, Mark Hubbard is upset about this post of mine. He says that he has tried to post his comments here, but didn't succeed.

He writes:

Anyway, especially to the OL poster, Jonathan:

Jonathan said, or rather, to create a new verb, biled:

Now, of course I'm probably posting this message because I resent Rand's greatness, not because her views were nutty regarding the public's response to Hickman. But I think that my degree of Rand-hating and evil is mitigated by the fact that I strongly disagree with Pigero's accusation that Rand was a moron -- his view is that "Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)," and, since Rand's official Objectivist Esthetics states that there is no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible in the field of music, that our musical tastes must be treated as a subjective matter, and that no one can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others, clearly Pigero is calling Rand a moron.

Imputing 'Rand is a moron' onto Linz through this convoluted misdirection is one of the most vicious pieces of reality denying character assassinations I have seen for some while. You're obviously a creep, Jonathan, I suggest you repair to the facts of reality by actually reading some of the threads on SOLOpassion. Mind you, character assassination which has no bearing on the facts of reality would appear part of the course in this thread, and the absurdity of much of it, from people who profess to be living rational lives, is chilling, albeit, thinking rationally I know there must be other considered, good people in this forum: well, I assume so, although few voices raised here toward a defence of such reason. Speaking of which:

...and why does James Heaps-Nelson like the idea of Pigero calling Rand a moron?

And then you continue toward a what? Witch hunt? James's post to this thread are honest observations, from what I can glean (I don't know James) and honourable because of that. I have to respect a man who does not use weasel words, perverting maliciously the meaning of another mans words (such as yourself).

So after my first visit to OL, I am reasoning there are not many reasons to continue visiting. From my time on SOLOpassion, I know a post like Jonathan’s would have been taken to task, often mercilessly, as would be appropriate in this case, and he would have been asked to justify his claims: here, it would appear from the silence afterward, no such honesty can be expected.

I'll gladly explain my comments.

Pigero says that the title of one of his TAS topics is "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)." I took that to mean that anyone who doesn't get the idea that Romantic music is objectively superior is a moron. Since Rand did not get the idea that Romantic music is objectively superior, but in fact explicitly disagreed that any type of music can be said to be objectively superior, then that would make her a moron by Pigero's formulation. (Rand wrote that until a conceptual vocabulary in music is discovered and defined, there is no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible in the field of music, that our musical tastes must be treated as a subjective matter, and that no one can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others.)

Now, it's possible that Pigero meant something slightly different. Perhaps he meant that anyone who "doesn't get" Romantic music is a moron. If so, what does it mean to "get it"? It can't mean that one experiences strong feelings when listening to Romantic music and likes it. That would merely be a subjective response, and not the type of objective understanding and evaluation that Pigero is claiming applies to music. A person can have a strong emotional response to anything, including a sunset or a delicious meal, for example, but that doesn't mean that he objectively "gets" the sunset or the meal. "Getting" something means understanding its meaning. According to Objectivist Esthetics, in order to "get" a piece of music objectively, a listener would have to apply Rand's requirements of objective aesthetic judgment and identify the composer's intended meaning based only on the information contained in the music and allowing no outside considerations. Rand believed that we can't do so, and, therefore, she recognized that she couldn't objectively "get" Romantic music. So that would mean that she was a moron according to Pigero's statement.

It's also possible that Pigero is not even fully aware of what he's saying other than that he wants to call people morons because they have different tastes than he does, and he wants to try to bully them into thinking that he's representing the Objectivist position. It wouldn't be the first time that his entire "argument" was nothing but an attempt at intimidation.

Anyway, my point is actually pretty simple. Pigero's position on the objective superiority of Romantic music directly contradicts the Objectivist Esthetics: unless he 's prepared to present a well-defined conceptual vocabulary of music -- a task that is way beyond his abilities -- he is not taking the Objectivist position, but opposing it, and the names that he calls those who oppose his views necessarily apply to Rand as well, since her views opposed his.

As for my asking why James Heaps-Nelson likes the idea of Pigero calling Rand a moron, I assumed that James knew enough about Objectivism to understand that Pigero's topic is in opposition to the Objectivist Esthetics and that Pigero's judging people as morons based on their disagreeing with his anti-Objectivist views would apply equally to Rand. If Pigero were to announce that he was going to be giving a speech called "Marxism is objectively superior, and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron," and James Heaps-Nelson said that he liked the topic, I'd ask why he, as an Objectivist, liked a topic which disagreed with Objectivism and rated Rand as a moron.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Over on SOLOP, Mark Hubbard is upset about this post of mine. He says that he has tried to post his comments here, but didn't succeed.

He writes:

Anyway, especially to the OL poster, Jonathan:

Jonathan said, or rather, to create a new verb, biled:

Now, of course I'm probably posting this message because I resent Rand's greatness, not because her views were nutty regarding the public's response to Hickman. But I think that my degree of Rand-hating and evil is mitigated by the fact that I strongly disagree with Pigero's accusation that Rand was a moron -- his view is that "Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)," and, since Rand's official Objectivist Esthetics states that there is no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible in the field of music, that our musical tastes must be treated as a subjective matter, and that no one can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others, clearly Pigero is calling Rand a moron.

Imputing 'Rand is a moron' onto Linz through this convoluted misdirection is one of the most vicious pieces of reality denying character assassinations I have seen for some while. You're obviously a creep, Jonathan, I suggest you repair to the facts of reality by actually reading some of the threads on SOLOpassion. Mind you, character assassination which has no bearing on the facts of reality would appear part of the course in this thread, and the absurdity of much of it, from people who profess to be living rational lives, is chilling, albeit, thinking rationally I know there must be other considered, good people in this forum: well, I assume so, although few voices raised here toward a defence of such reason. Speaking of which:

...and why does James Heaps-Nelson like the idea of Pigero calling Rand a moron?

And then you continue toward a what? Witch hunt? James's post to this thread are honest observations, from what I can glean (I don't know James) and honourable because of that. I have to respect a man who does not use weasel words, perverting maliciously the meaning of another mans words (such as yourself).

So after my first visit to OL, I am reasoning there are not many reasons to continue visiting. From my time on SOLOpassion, I know a post like Jonathan’s would have been taken to task, often mercilessly, as would be appropriate in this case, and he would have been asked to justify his claims: here, it would appear from the silence afterward, no such honesty can be expected.

I'll gladly explain my comments.

Pigero says that the title of one of his TAS topics is "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)." I took that to mean that anyone who doesn't get the idea that Romantic music is objectively superior is a moron. Since Rand did not get the idea that Romantic music is objectively superior, but in fact explicitly disagreed that any type of music can be said to be objectively superior, then that would make her a moron by Pigero's formulation. (Rand wrote that until a conceptual vocabulary in music is discovered and defined, there is no objectively valid criterion of aesthetic judgment possible in the field of music, that our musical tastes must be treated as a subjective matter, and that no one can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others.)

Now, it's possible that Pigero meant something slightly different. Perhaps he meant that anyone who "doesn't get" Romantic music is a moron. If so, what does it mean to "get it"? It can't mean that one experiences strong feelings when listening to Romantic music and likes it. That would merely be a subjective response, and not the type of objective understanding and evaluation that Pigero is claiming applies to music. A person can have a strong emotional response to anything, including a sunset or a delicious meal, for example, but that doesn't mean that he objectively "gets" the sunset or the meal. "Getting" something means understanding its meaning. According to Objectivist Esthetics, in order to "get" a piece of music objectively, a listener would have to apply Rand's requirements of objective aesthetic judgment and identify the composer's intended meaning based only on the information contained in the music and allowing no outside considerations. Rand believed that we can't do so, and, therefore, she recognized that she couldn't objectively "get" Romantic music. So that would mean that she was a moron according to Pigero's statement.

It's also possible that Pigero is not even fully aware of what he's saying other than that he wants to call people morons because they have different tastes than he does, and he wants to try to bully them into thinking that he's representing the Objectivist position. It wouldn't be the first time that his entire "argument" was nothing but an attempt at intimidation.

Anyway, my point is actually pretty simple. Pigero's position on the objective superiority of Romantic music directly contradicts the Objectivist Esthetics: unless he 's prepared to present a well-defined conceptual vocabulary of music -- a task that is way beyond his abilities -- he is not taking the Objectivist position, but opposing it, and the names that he calls those who oppose his views necessarily apply to Rand as well, since her views opposed his.

As for my asking why James Heaps-Nelson likes the idea of Pigero calling Rand a moron, I assumed that James knew enough about Objectivism to understand that Pigero's topic is in opposition to the Objectivist Esthetics and that Pigero's judging people as morons based on their disagreeing with his anti-Objectivist views would apply equally to Rand. If Pigero were to announce that he was going to be giving a speech called "Marxism is objectively superior, and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron," and James Heaps-Nelson said that he liked the topic, I'd ask why he, as an Objectivist, liked a topic which disagreed with Objectivism and rated Rand as a moron.

J

Michael Shapiro who's a music professional and fellow presenter, says he's interested. Besides, if Linz doesn't demonstrate it, he can always be grilled in the Q and A. Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan et al.,

I was going to comment on that post by Mark Hubbard (see). He describes Jonathan's remarks as "one of the most vicious pieces of reality denying character assassinations [he has] seen for some while."

Ironically, Jonathan is the one who is correct as to what Rand herself wrote. Here is an excerpt:

"Art and Cognition"

from The Objectivist

April 1971

pp. 8-9

[Emphases are hers.]

The formulation of a common vocabularly of music [...] would require: a translation of the musical experience, the inner experience, into conceptual terms; an explanation of why sounds strike us a certain way; a definition of the axioms of musical perception, from which the appropriate esthetic principles could be derived, which would serve as the base for the objective validation of esthetic judgments.

[....]

Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music. (There are certain technical criteria, dealing mainly with the complexity of harmonic structures, but there are no criteria for identifying the content, i.e., the emotional meaning of a given piece of music and thus demonstrating the esthetic objectivity of a given response.)

At present, our understanding of music is confined to the gathering of material, i.e., to the level of descriptive observations. Until it is brought to the stage of conceptualization, we have to treat musical tastes or preferences as a subjective matter -- not in the metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense; i.e., not in the sense that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, but in the sense that we do not know their cause. No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it's every man for himself -- and only for himself.

.

I disagree with much in her way of approach to aesthetics to begin with, and the disagreements come to a sort of culmination (because of where the logic of her approach has necessarily deposited her) on the subject of music. However, the point here is that Jonathan's point about Linz's title going counter to Rand's views, far from being "reality denying," is correct.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

Wrong, Jim. I would have a beef with that thesis no matter who was presenting it. As I've already said I think three times, I consider the thesis a reversion to the bad old days of using the aesthetic response as a morals exam. I objected to that then, strenuously. I object to it now, strenuously.

I hope you realize that you have now accused those with whom you disagree of being dishonest -- albeit in a gentler way than MSK's accusation against you, an accusation to which everyone, including me, who has commented has objected. Thanks for now turning tables and accusing us (albeit in a gentler way). How enchanting.

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

Wrong, Jim. I would have a beef with that thesis no matter who was presenting it. As I've already said I think three times, I consider the thesis a reversion to the bad old days of using the aesthetic response as a morals exam. I objected to that then, strenuously. I object to it now, strenuously.

I hope you realize that you have now accused those with whom you disagree of being dishonest -- albeit in a gentler way than MSK's accusation against you, an accusation to which everyone, including me, who has commented has objected. Thanks for now turning tables and accusing us (albeit in a gentler way). How enchanting.

Ellen

___

Why do you impute an uncharitable interpretation onto many things I say? I did not mean to imply dishonesty on the part of my interlocutors. I'm perfectly happy to substitute: Let's be frank in lieu of the original phrase.

Jim