Thoyd Loki

Being equal to being a Hollywood megastar?! Wow, what an exaggeration! But, the failure rate is abysmal, nonetheless.

I've been in the industry for 21 years now. If you do not love it, don't do it. If you are not thinking of food 24 hours a day, don't do it. If you don't enjoy waiting on people, washing dishes, cooking food, cleaning restrooms (you'll be amazed how many people can't get a poo-poo or pee-pee in the can), being a cashier (think your employees are coming to work everyday? not in this business, buddy), don't do it. Don't want something that will consume every waking moment of your life 7 days a week without end, and maybe you'll break even for the first few years, but the odds are much better for bankruptcy? Don't do it. Better learn Spanish if you are in a big city. Better learn it anyway. Want to do all this with your odds of success being equal to being a Hollywood megastar (failure rate for new restaurants in the first three years are abysmal)? If this isn't a truly burning passion, it'll rip you a new one, mark my word, I've seen it again and again. If it is, best of luck to you, you'll need it.

Actually "cookie monster" properly belongs to Brian Johnson of AC/DC since he lost his voice some years back. I was thinking more along the lines of Soulfly, Cannibal Corpse, Lamb of God type of crap. My boss loves these bands and plays them all the time - it is a test to my strength of sanity - believe me, you don't want to hear this s***. Thank you! I was trying to think of them, but it kept slipping away!

First, we need a definition from you on what is heavy metal. Then we need some concretes (actual bands and songs) that you have listened to to form your abstract assessment of the genre. Why do you pick on just a single emotion - anger? While I admit that it is an emotion milked to death in the genre, it certainly doesn't cover everything. I find it ironic that you choose to criticize heavy metal by pitting it against classical music, since it would be glaringly obvious to anyone who has listened to it to notice how much classical music has influenced heavy metal. Indeed, it is one of the ways to distinguish it from rock n' roll or hard rock which has a more blues and country influence. Here are a few bands and artists to sample that fly straight against your entire description. Iron Maiden (esp. Flight of Icarus) tell me how that is a rejection of structure and form in all its aspects. And where is Mr. Dickenson's unfocused screaming? Ever heard of Randy Rhodes? Try (although not your great sense of life song) Diary of a Madman, Dee, or Over the Mountain, and tell me how this guitarist rejects musical form and structure. Yngwie Malmsteen. I actually think of him as more of a classical musician with an electric guitar, and his singers actually sing. The kind of music you described is certainly a class (and unfortuately a growing one) or subset of "heavy Metal", but it does not describe the entire class.

Man, I love your commentary on music. I actually have a little dance I do to Beethoven's Piano Sonata 3 especially if I am sick because it becomes my little "rebellion". Not only is classical music good for listening to in your underwear, it is also good for simple old fist pumping. Where the hell do you think it came from, everybody? Tchaikovsky had the news.

Why let other people determine your support for Objectivism? Why let the interpretations and/or distortions of others determine what you think of the philosophy? Objectivism is a set of principles, not a population of followers. If all the Objectivists you know (the good, the bad and the ugly) died tomorrow, it would reflect not a drop on the philosophy nor change a principle in it, nor its ability to help you think and live. It is your mind and reality. I noticed several posts ago that someone criticized a movie you like, Dr. Strangelove (I haven't seen it) by explaining its message or meaning. He did it in complete imitation of exactly the way you said someone (a "hard-liner") would. This is very illustrative of the way some people digest Objectivism. Notice how a description of the "message" was equated with its value as a work of art as if there was no distinction. Does that sound like the Objectivist aesthetics? It certainly does not to me. And I am right. "Ah, this depicts the victory of the Christians over the Pagans! Bad!" "Arg, this movie's message is how man is defeated if he tries to reach too high. Awful!" "Yew, this is a story of unrequited love, and is tragic. Disgusting!" Were you asked why you liked this movie? You were not. Were you asked if you understood the meaning of the movie and if you agreed with that? You were not. Were you then asked do you like it despite its message? You were not. Were you asked of any context of your own self at all? You were not. You were given a one line synopsis, and you are supposed to reject it on those grounds alone. It does not agree to Objectivist principles-BAD ART. Suppress yourself, deny what you like for the abstraction. I implore you not to consider that an application of Objectivism. That is Objectivism as ingested through a Rationalist Cheese-Cloth.

What are you implying with the question? Whether or not Mr. Provenzo's review implied "with me or against Objectivism", your question amounts to a sanction of a stand like that. The question is not "can someone be against Objectivism and with you", but "can someone be against you (Mr. Provenzo-namely, his opinion of the movie) and with Objectivism". That is the question. Or are you saying that disagreement with Mr. Provenzo equals disagreement with Objectivism? If this is not your stance, then your question entirely irrelevant. It is not a phantom, you did make the statement, and it was argument from intimidation. I did not get that impression from Mr. Provenzo's review. Then again I let my own eyes and ears and mind be the judge. I do think that he should leave movie reviews to someone else, as I almost never agree with him in this department, and this particular review tanked big time.

Why not make up your own mind? Maybe he is wrong.

Since you made the ad hominem claim of insolence in your post proceding this one, I would suggest you look up the meaning of insolence. Because your double standard demand above is surely a case of insolence! I understand, btw, your argument completely. I do not buy, however, that your reading of Objectivism is as wide as you claim. Productivity is one of the cardinal virtues of Objectivism. How can you be asking for a definition of it? It is covered extensively throughout the Objectivist corpus. And your claim that there is no difference between the producer and the heroin addict is to overlook or evade so much data as to be quite outside any considerations of philosophy. If you really want to indulge your whims (and feel that your exposure to Objectivism is holding back the elation of doing so) feel free to do so. You can't validate subjectivity and emotional whim-worship. You must just say: "my desires: right or wrong". Denying that there is any such thing as right and wrong will help you a long way to this goal. Also, when the consequenses of your philosophy start to come to light, there is a sure fire way to keep yourself insulated from the knowledge that you are the agent of those consequeses. Learn to evade and deny the law of causality. I do not know whether you take drugs or not. But, I would suggest doing so as numbing your mind will make it a lot easier to be guided by your feelings; it will also keep you away from facts. I have now set you free.

I think they should have something that covers this sort of thing. Anyone know the slang for "taint"? They cowed to that?

So any engineer testing the prototype hotrod is engaged in productive activity, all those that enjoy the result of that are mindless thrill seekers? Just as an electrical engineer who is designing and testing a new guitar amplifier is engaged in productive activity, but anyone plugging it in and getting a kick in its sound and power are mindlessly thrill seeking. Just as a movie-maker who produces a new way to shoot a special effect is involved in a productive purpose, but all those that get a thrill out of seeing it on the silverscreen are indulging in mindless thrill seeking. If you get the principle, I could do these examples until my fingers bleed. Are you against enjoyment?

And I have proved to you in my post above (that you will ignore) that you do not look at context. I.e. you do not look at facts. Dismuke's point was to point to a context. You threw out any and all questions. "Damn that kid to Objectivist hell. He purposely and knowingly suspended his consciousness!" Did he? How would you possibly know? Your judgement is a two word proclamation: Drunk, therefore evil. Based on a quote that you will not apply to facts, but use it to obliterate facts. Your approach is dogmatic, intrinsic, rationalistic, not because you want to consistently apply Objectivist principles (apparently only certain ones because you sure as hell have missed the whole of the epistemology) but because you want to apply them Platonically, irrespective of the facts of a particular case.

You have yet to acknowledge that there is a difference between a few drinks and getting drunk. Your response here seems to indicate that you might not even be aware of the difference. You also completely ignored several posts that pointed out JOHN GALT CONSUMING ALCOHOL. YOU HEAR ME? JOHN GALT CONSUMED ALCOHOL! The man you have been quoting, according to everything you have said so far, engaged in the "willful suspension of his consciousness". Hold on there cowboy! Again throwing away reality and going straight to scripture. Context and facts be damned! We'll just look up what Ayn Rand said. You didn't seek any more facts to fill out the example Dismuke offered. Bam! Willful suspension of consciousness, this kid is evil. Here are a few questions. Has the kid ever even drank before? Was this an instance of someone being way out of their context? Maybe it was his 21st birthday, and he finally tried this yummy thing called a Long Island Iced Tea. Was he busy with finals all day and realized that he had forgot to eat all day? Does he do it again the next night? Ever? What if he marked his mistake (yes! a mistake!), and never did that again in his life? (Too bad, context is for kids, Evil!) Frankly, for myself, I like the taste and challenge of alcohol on occasion. I like to feel the relaxation and diminished inhibition while keeping my mind sharp. For my body weight, six beers is the limit. I guess that makes me Joe Six Pack, doesn't it? Now I want to have a giant cup of coffee. I like to drink so much coffee that things on the periphery of my vision shimmer. I call it the Jazz.

To be fully accurate here, Mike's fifth beer was the only number referred to, so it should be - at least five.

I would like to know how you get from that quote to: "alcohol is immoral". Cigarette smoking is immoral on these same grounds as it impairs the olfactory thus impairing the grasp of reality. Or our we picking out certain senses as preferable, or senses vs. reasoning? I would like to know how relaxing with some drinks (while enjoying a game, reading (hopefully something light), while playing poker (is that immoral as well?)) is an impairment of one's ability to grasp reality. Granted that past a certain point that quote does enter the context and one blanks out facts and concedes to impair one's functioning. You equate anything below the level of full, 100% focus as evasion. Relaxing is a form of lowering one's level of mental functioning. Sometimes on Saturday afternoon I have such a satisfying meal that I find myself absently daydreaming drowsily on the couch for awhile, much more "impaired" than a six pack of beer would make me in different circumstances (such as relaxing to a good selection of Beethoven-that actually suggests wine, but let's not get all technical). Is that immoral? If you have a definate "yes" or "no" answer here, then you have a problem of reasoning. That problem is judgement without context, i.e., evaluation without facts. That would mean an intrinsic interpretation of morality. X is wrong, period, in any circumstance, at all times. Those are catagorical imperatives, not reasoned moral choices. No page numbers here. He also shared one with Dagny and Fransisco in the valley when she was still a scab. Dagny, Wyatt, and Rearden shared one after the first run on the John Galt line. Also, one of Roark's best friends in The Fountainhead, Mike, downed five beers with Roark after work one day. Five! The hooligan.

Sure, I will go through it a third, and final time. Here is the original post of mine that was quoted by someone else and posted on the opener of this thread. Here is the direct question that I asked. Instead of an answer to the question, I get a stupid link to a fallacy website. Trouble is, there was no argument posted. If my question suggests that you have committed a fallacy, you do not get out of it by trying to tell me I have constructed a fallacious argument when I have made none. You say: "No, that is not my view." And then, if you please, you clarify what you mean. Or maybe even: "No, that's not my view. How did you get that out of what I said?" A question is a request for information. It is not the positing of information, but the soliciting of it. I did, in that question posit my view of what he meant, but the meaning, that I was checking this against him for verification, was clear. Thus, the whole basis of this thread is based on erroneously quoting me in the act of fallacy, when, in fact, none was made. I cannot even say I was quoted out of context, the damned question mark is still there.

Is the question mark at the end of my sentence in the quote in post #1 of this discussion invisible to everyone but me? I did not make an argument. I asked a question. I did not know that the analogies would be unrecognized as being lifted verbatim from Atlas Shrugged. But, then again, if you cannot recognize the difference between a statement and a question, that book was probably too hard anyway!

I don't know what it means either because I didn't write it. That was my stupid brother-in-law. He thinks he's funny, only I never know what he's talking about, and he's not supposed to use my computer. Thank god he didn't post a picture of some guy's butt or something. I'll sign in manually from now on.

Why don't you read the links he provided to his prior posts where he has already answered these questions?

I'm picking up extra weapons at the next Celtic festival based on that story. I am a wizard at cutting flesh. Damned time I was valuable! Does anyone think that was a positive story?

Wow. I had never even considered that myself, and I think about music a lot. Although I am still not at all happy with today's Cobain inspired dirge. That being said, it is not arguable that today's sense of life in music is pathetic compared to any recent times. At least in the realm of popular music, or the music that people under 30 listen to predominantly, or that sells in the millions. Mmm, love the internet. Just got Dan Baird's album Love Songs for the Hearing Impaired. No worries, just what RnR is supposed to be after a tiring day, something to make you smile. You guys fret for awhile. Bye.

You are misinformed. Not only is that not a quote of Ayn Rand, but classical music was not her favorite. Her favorite music, from the sources I have gathered i.e., Peikoff, is not even that technically difficult musically. So please do not make any judgements on what I can tell is not correct information.

I really started to throw too many questions out there, didnt I? Drums are certainly a musical instrument, they even have to be tuned. Ever heard a set of toms out of tune? Yech. I don't think drums by themselves can constitute music. But that is a tricky thing to peg down. Even the tribal beats can be said to evoke the savage's sense of life...But, do we accept the savage's experience as an acceptable datum on our understanding of music? I think this is something I'd like to pass to Christopher Schlegel if he happens upon this. He is by far more qualified to answer whether drums by themselves constitute music than I.

I answered most of your point in my post to Groovenstein. It was a tuna sandwich, not tuna fish. That whole food genre was brought up to show the absurdity of dispensing with melody as a necessary ingredient in music. I was also making the point against a nominalisitic attitude to concepts. You don't think you can get people to buy records of whirling tuna fish sandwiches? Just tell them its profound and they will. Destroy the concept first, of course, always necessary to incapacitate your victim before you kill them. Yes...very necessary...very important...mmmm.... What would be a "non-music auditory artform"? Would it be something that would be considered music? Or do you mean something else like sound production/effects for movies?

I am more than hinting at it when it comes to the poetry aspect, although because of it, I am not ready to defend it. I was merely trying to avoid using the word poetry, I personally do not want to ascribe the word poetry to it. There may be instances in the genre of phrases that I may say, "yeah, that's poetry". Maybe even good, perhaps bad. You cannot exempt something from the field merely because it is bad or below par. I have not made enough of a study of poetry as a form to be able to say, objectively, that it is not poetry. I'd love to be able to, but I cannot. I would say that considering some of the slime that is dumped in Hip Hop as poetry would lead to the destruction of poetry of the beautiful form. Though I hasten to add, this would not be the fault merely of Hip Hop. Care to learn some Too Short or Snoop Dog in college anyone? Now as pertains to music. There is no "Scotsman" argument there. Bad music and bad poetry can certainly exist. It is good music and good poetry that I am sometimes led to question the existence of! See my post 39 for the answer to the second part of your question. I have no answer, yet, for the poetry part of the question, sorry. I can't see why there is anything wrong with sound modification. You mean like reverb, or delay effects, compression? I see nothing wrong with that. If the original sound fits the nature of music, was musical then it just changes the character of the sound. Now it were squashed into a screech, then no. Anything electronic? You goddamn bet!