Styles2112

I think the best place to get Rush lyrics is at www.2112.net/powerwindows A pretty good site if you're a big Rush fan. My Favorite Rush song changes from week to week. Lately, I've had "Chain Lightning" in my head. Otherwise, I've been pretty stuck on Snakes and Arrows and "The Larger Bowl"

DOH! I hate it when I do that! (combine books in my head) Arg. I meant Dominique (obviously). Thanks for pointing that out.

Okay, I haven't posted in a while, but something someone said to me recently got me thinking about a topic. I'm not the best at phrasing questions, so please bare with me (if you will). In the Fountainhead, when Roark, Dagny and the sculptor (whose name I forget) build the temple, I got the impression that they all had a feeling of ownership in the temple. Is it not (or how is it not) a feeling of collectivism (bad word for this, maybe?) when a group of people feel so attached to a mutual creation? in possible other words, what is the distinction between collectivism and that sharing of creation with others? (I'm not talking about property rights or intellectual rights either, in case that comes up). Thanks for your time and opinions on the subject.

Fish, not as likely, but dogs? Sure. A dog does not have to be domesticated if it doesn't want to be (I've seen such dogs). HOwever, the dog stands as much to gain from the domestication as the human. Free food, secure home, companionship. If you really don't think there is a value for value trade in domestication, I think you're mistaken. This only applies, really, to domesticated animals, since hunting/eating is an entirely different matter all-together.

Want more? Bees aren't higher functioning animals like cats and dogs. You seem to see everything in black and white, and it isn't. Though, I would be interested in further insect study. The same would be true of humans, then. It doesn't take away from choice, though. Remember, I'm not advocating some kind of full consciousness or animal rights. I'm just saying that BASIC choice making and consciousness ARE there and it's been proven (for higher functioning animals, at least). Right back at you.

I provided a couple sources, how does that not substantiate my claim? Not really in the mood to go into this... I've said my piece.

I didn't see the challenge until today. It's either from The Rush in Rio CD/DVD (which is what I think it is) or from one of the Snakes and Arrows liner notes (to which the Dragon makes another appearance. I think more the former, though.

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ and a whole book on the things he did to get that kind of power http://www.amazon.com/Pride-Before-Fall-Tr...t/dp/0066621178 Look, I really don't care. I thought what Gates did with his will was kind of cool. He's rich, and I admire that, but I just don't fool myself about how he got there. Anyways, I just wanted to make a couple points, not really worth pursuing the discussion.

Right, and Bill gates didn't do anything immoral or shady building Microsoft. I get sick of people talking about Wal-Mart as some Objectivist giant, too. They sell the lowest common denominator crap to the lowest common denominator people. The are the ultimate Wynand industry.Like your second example though, I think that Alternate Mode (an electronic percussion creator) is MY ultimate Objectivist business. They make a powerful, unique, and practical instrument (product). You don't have to buy a NEW one every two years, because they can update the original machine for much cheaper. The constantly seek to IMPROVE their product and they have outstanding customer service. To ME, anyways, that's the true definition of an Objectivist business, but I understand there are those who disagree. Huh? Why are you redefining it? Either their sole purpose is survival (an automon) or they can make a choice. You want it both ways? Can you prove your claim? I've posted the studies several times on here backing up mine.

Not true. There are numerous examples where animals CONSCIOUSLY put themselves in harms way (and I'm not talking trained police dogs or anything like that) to protect humans and other animals. That's a very blanket statement made that you can't back up. Recently, there was a story on yahoo about a Chihuahua who jumped in front of an infant (family dog) to take a rattlesnake bite. If the animal were a pure automon as you suggest, the dog would merely have run and allowed the child (other species) to die. There have also been NUMEROUS studies showing a (at the very least) basic consciousness (decision-making) level in animals. Just google Animal sentience and you'll come up with a ton of scientific studies.

I agree, but that was not my point. Likewise, when Peter DID change, it was Roark who told him it was 'too late.' Quite contrary to Miss Rand's quote there.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I kind of see Peter as an example of how vulnerable man can be without a consistent moral basis to guide him. I pitied Peter because he was a victim of his family and the society in which he grew up in. It's not hard to see why he was confused. While he certainly had the CAPACITY, to change that situation, I think his story was, in particular, a shining example of MOST people in modern society.

Indeed. Counterparts was an EXCEPTIONAL piece of work. I'm highly impressed with Snakes And Arrows, as well. Probably along the same level, in my opinion.

One more Peart Also Peart

I don't know if I agree with this. Speaking from a rhythmic stand point (since I am a percussionist) much minimalism is quite interesting to me. Over the years I've found that I've come to enjoy the complexity of sound that it can create. I'm not a fan of philip glass, but I really like Steve Reich's percussion pieces (Namely; Sextet (six marimbas), and Music for 18 Musicians). I love the shifting melodies and tones, and ever changing wall of sound that is created. But, overall, I find that minimalism is best when comebined with other musical styles. Bands, such as Tortoise, do a phenominal job of combining minimalism, jazz, rock, and electronica into emotionally moving pieces of musical art. Even in my own composing, I'm finding a great use for minimalist ideas (in a work in progress piece, where it starts of with a 7/8 marimba chordal movement with mandolin and keyboard shifting elements of the main rhythm/melody against each other. Then the bass comes in playing the root of the sequence, while everyone drops out, and it then goes into a jazzy section utilizing the bass sequence, with an off-beat keyboard rhythm hits, and (eventually) a Vibraphone/mandolin counterpoint melody over it). Basically, all I'm saying is that the IDEAS of minimalism can be very cool when used in conjucture with other musical forms or ideas. It can be cool on it's own, too, but I think that's much harder to do, and used too much will create, yes, a boring piece. I don't, however, find it to be trash. But then, I think I'm a bit more liberal in my definition of music then most here (not THAT liberal, though!!! I'm still conservative by most standards).

That's very true. I come from an intel background and was thinkin of the old intel joke "You know you're in Intel when, after recieving an order, the first word out of your mouth is, 'Why?'" It's funny because it's true. Yeah...I wish that theory worked a little more THROUGHOUT the army, but overall, yeah. That's been my point.

Likely. That's why I'm not in the ground troops. I like being in the rear theater. I suppose that would depend on the civilian jobs. I know people who have much harder task masters than I've had in the Army. Again, I think that, like any other job, it really depends on the individual you're working for. I have a LOT of freedom in both sections of my job (granted, I'm in the band, but I've had it in other jobs, too). Also, given our current state of homeland security, I wouldn't say your life is in any better hands. And it's not for everyone, I admit (I don't think it's a career for me, but it was a nice start with education and experience, but I haven't fully decided yet). There are certainly those (of the rational selfishness kind) who can make a phenominal career of it.

I can't link you to the argument, as it's an army forum (meaning only army personell, or AKO users can access it). His personal website (which lists his beliefs as a 'truthseeker') is www.truthseekersfellowship.com Well, right. But what about in terms of justice for murder? I mean, I understand the point about living, but I'm not sure how that addresses the subject of justice (especially in terms of injustice. i.e. when someone dies before justice can be brought to them). Or is the issue that I'm trying to win the argument on his playing field? Here is a poor segment of the argument (which has dissolved a bit into ad hominems from both sides) I bolded his statements for clarification. Also, thank you for taking the time to help me address this. I appreciate it.

Well, he's playing tricks by saying god 'may or may not exist' (though, he clearly believes it does). What he's trying to do is establish a NEED for a god/Ultimate Justice. What we're trying to do (there are several atheists arguing with him) is establish two things; 1. the Justice he advocates is as flawed as the earthly one 2. That there is no NEED for a god (while I find much of it obvious, I have a MUCH harder time putting into words. He like to use intentional miscommunication (or wordsmithing) to connect ideas. Such as, accusing atheists of not being open to ideas via his "We should be open to all ideas and believe in the things that provide sufficient evidence." However, in that case, I've been trying to establish that you don't base one's philosophy/life on things that may or may not exist, but purely on the things that DO exist.

As one can imagine, I'm engrossed in a theological debate with a chaplain on a military forum. I've held my own so far (as, obviously, he doesn't have any NEW arguments for god), as he's trying to establish both a probability (propensity?) for god and also a need (one to correlate the other). Anyhoo, among his arguments for a 'need' for god is an Ultimate Justice, since he views our current justice model to be irreplacably flawed. His main example throughout ALL the debates has been Hitler and his crimes (I tried to explain to him Godwin's Law, but he's just not getting it). His view is such that because Hitler killed himself prior to us being able to do anything to him, that justice is not served (thus a god is needed to ressurect him and torture him eternally... ). His view states, that since death occurs to us all, it is not a punishment, nor justice. However, I'm having a hard time rebutting this particular argument. I've tried establishing: -It's not that you die, it's how you die (i.e. a happiness angle) - Justice is only measured through the victims (i.e. unless he is a direct/indirect victim of Hitler, why does HE need justice from it) - The fact that his name and face and history is stated to make him the most evil man to have walked the earth. These are, clearly, weak arguments and I'm not sure how to attack this particular angle. If anyone has any suggestions, insights, I'd be very grateful. He's fairly arrogant against the atheists he attacks (attaching Moral Relativity bombs at us every chance he gets). Anyways, Thanks for the help. (Also, if this happens to be in the wrong section, or has already been answered recently, please feel free to move or merge it, but I didn't see anything, and I thought this pertained to ethics.)

Well, you know...that's all we do in the military is peel potatoes..... A lot of that particular attitude is fading from the military (though, thankfully, not all segments). There are certain MOS's which REQUIRE one to ask questions and to understand WHY you're doing such things. Especially with the younger crowd coming into the military today, who aren't huge on being told what to do. There are some very cool jobs in the military (I've done a couple of them), there are also some jobs I'd never want to do. Also, you can do things to change the military. If a rule or regulation does not make sense to you (usually many) you are free to re-write it and send it up the chain for revision. If your change is liked, it will be used (privates have been able to change regulations). The army/military continually wants to better itself and its soldiers. If there's a way to do it, then they will usually do it (unless, apparently, it has to do with berets...then we're stuck). Anyways, it's really only in the ground troops that you enter that "don't ask questions" mentality, and there's a GOOD reason for it. Beyond that, most CS/CSS (Combat Support/Combat Service Support) tend to be a bit more on the reasonable side (also for good reason).

On the other hand, they are a, fundamentally, Christian band. (I have, pretty much, all their albums). I do like the music itself though.

I don't know. I certainly wouldn't call it music. "Audio art" maybe? My percussion instructor made a piece after recording the sounds his laptop made. I think it's a neat use of naturally made sounds, but it certainly isn't music in the sense of what we traditionally refer to as music.

I suppose, to my own defense, the speeches felt long because I ALREADY agreed with the premise, and I, being of lesser patience than others, wanted to get moving onto the plot. Regardless, the cartoon was not really meant as some kind of snotty intellectual humor. Just funny as a quick quip about the length of AS. I apologize to those who found no humor in it.

Great, now I feel bad for loving jeans and wanting a moped.... wait...no I don't.