theestevearnold

I wanna play a game that involves music. Please tell me your thoughts on Warriors of Rock or, if there is something better, what is superfun while simultaneously improving my music skills.

Are you just one more satellite Intruding on my line of sight I wanna read that fancy font May-be you wanted me to want I'll get to know you You'd better let me Let's improve the neutron dance My stance is planted for the chance I'll break it down [Funky drumset breakdown] You're starry eyed but not naive Those other chicks are black hole sunned Why haven't you become like them with all the evils that you've seen You've got a power Some sort of power One more chance to do this thing With all thee obstacles it brings I'll break it down [quick breakdown] I'll earn my place upon your wall 'Cause I don't commentate the falls I show the risings This is a rising Another chance to do this thing And all the trouble that it brings I'll break it down [Drum solo]

My girlfriend's orchestra recently performed Ludwig van's Ninth and, if you haven't heard it live, I recommend it. She also sings for our rock band. One of the songs we cover is Champagne Supernova by Oasis. Sometimes a little supergalactic romantic psychedelia can be nice--not as an escape from reality--as a supplement to the quiet visuals of Hubble.

Regarding the apple tree, I agree that cutting it down would be wrong. Every person I don't know is a potential value. It's not naivete; & it's not a benevolent universe guided by mysticism. It's a benevolent universe in which my fellow man, acting rationally, recognizes that to be of value to me will benefit him.

Defiance is my favorite theme to portray when I write (rock) songs. In a way, the lyrics of Rock Lobster were a defiance against taking themselves too seriously. They obviously took their songwriting very seriously, but sometimes serious lyrics can be inappropriate to a song (especially the B-52s fun-loving style), and often cheesy. I recognize that some great bands (like REM) write nonsense lyrics as a combination of a Dadaist disintegration of reason and/or a cop-out of having to produce great lyrics--so I understand the thought behind the OP; nonsensical lyrics can be an exposition of a songwriter's evil philosophy and/or an avoidance of doing the hard work it takes to write great lyrics (or even the product of a songwriter who lacks the courage to expose his soul). The B-52s were just having some light-hearted fun, but there are many examples of other songwriters who purposely write nonsense to harmonies that require serious poetry. I'm a drummer/songwriter. My girlfriend plays violin in the Chamber Orchestra of the Springs (Colorado Springs)--she's got her masters in music. I write the songs and she sings 'em. We love to talk about music theory and analyze scores. She's valuable. So is my new Presonus Studio One recording software. I'll miss Mike Portnoy too.

Consciousness. (And implicit in consciousness is existence.)

I entered a different Objectivist site in which the preamble stated that one of the site's intents was to, while calling their philosophy Objectivism, present corrections to Objectivism. I'd rather not be any more specific. I assure you, there are open system Objectivists who deliberately integrate things, like mystic faith, into the principles of Objectivism, & continue to call their hybrid offshoots "Objectivism."

Amen, Brother. You are a great example of a man who interprets Miss Rand's philosophy in an eloquent manner, & I'm certain you are an Objectivist; so when you clarify Objectivist tenets by "putting it into your own words," the specific denotation of an "open system" doesn't apply. You give it life, & breath, but if you sanction an "open system," you allow O to equal O and non-O at the same time. I understand that you used the "open system denotation as more of a connotation, but here's my (hypothetical) example of an intellectual who could set up straw-men, dilute, or co-opt your philosophy: Objectivism...... John Dough says, on CNN, that he's an Objectivist. (Nobody is aware of the fact that his open system position has altered the "original" Objectivism). He says that, as an Objectivist, his philosophy declares that Capitalism is actually evil after all. When AR left her estate to Peikoff, I don't know if she entrusted any significant editing or additions to him. Maybe. But when there become 2 Objectivisms: the Objectivism named by the woman who gave her intellectual property its name, & the Objectivism (non-Objectivism) changed by the open systemers), I say they should avoid a law of identity crisis by giving their version, in which the principles have been altered, a new name. You, Dearest Repairman, are clearly an Objectivist, and so am I. And when you help me to understand Objectivist philosophy by explaining things in your own words, you don't alter Miss Rand's intent. Open system Objectivists deliberately do so when they get a notion that Objectivism requires correcting. And I'm not talking about errors in syntax.

I used "closed" in the sense that, as you said: "Since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand," I say that nobody else has the right to change the above quote from VOS in any way that would alter her intent.

Similar to how a man with a healthy mind won't choose to commit suicide, that man will subconciously choose to focus. Note that I submitted the "prime mover" is his subconcious, which removes the chicken/egg quandry and places focusing as almost an automatic action done by men with healthy minds. Since focusing is optional, it retains its greatness by the fact that it's not a biological (robotic/programmed) mandate. Free @$@#!&?$! Will is like marrying for love while the animals are stuck in arranged marriages. An inquiry should be made into why men choose to evade. Intellectual cowardice was why I evaded. Then I grew a pair, dropped the oriental mystic-altruism--I was a Vedic driven Taoist/Buddhist for 20 years, evading causality--to finally accept reality. It's not as fancy as a Hindu demon in a Himalayan Ashram, but I can count on it. A will always equal A. My soul doesn't fear the truths anymore, so I subconciously I choose to focus. This action is greater than a response to the sensory stimuli of a loud noise. This is about a man with the courage to address existence. What's the difference between a hero's and a coward's soul? I don't care. I'm glad we both have the free will to put our souls into action.....or not. (I'm the hero.) I'm not implying that That I'm a Hugh Jackman. My pecs need work.

Three lines was correct for haiku, but the syllabic meter requires a 5/7/5. Try karaoke. It's fun. Regarding the OP: if you don't drop context, you're problem is non-occuring in reality.

To the degree that a nation has a government that protects property rights, is the notch on my list to which I base my standard.

I believe haiku require four lines. I aint no naive poet. R U a poet? I, in the greatest sense of I, (not in the common courtesy of Japan--though, bein born n raised in Hawaii, I share much of their culture, like takin my shoes of before enterin your home and preferrin white rice with meat instead of potatoes) require more than a haiku-ish dictate) shall consider a metaphorical bow if you show me your greatness as a philosopher the way AR did. Or if you have written a great song. Or painted a great picture. Or written a great novel Why should I bow to you?

I don't know. That's an excellent question. It implies a type of Catch 22: the type of soul I build will determine whether or not I choose to focus, but in order to build the type of soul that chooses to focus, I must first choose to focus. Since a paradox can't exist, my premises are flawed.

I'm sorry I wrongly attributed that quote to you. I agree with you, and it was well said.

I was molested as a child and a drug addict but I know that all day long, judges sentence addicts and former molestees, so at my sentencing for a federal firearms charge, when I stood up and spoke in an attempt to convince His Honor to sentence me to the least amount of years possible, I didn't waste my time asking for leniency based on the drugs I did and the molesting done to me. And I didn't go for the downward departure for snitching because it wouldn't have been right to do to a gun dealer who never did me wrong. Judges have a little leeway WITHIN the guidelines, so a good explanation might get you the lower end within the guidelines range. His Honor gave me the max, and said he wanted to give me more but the guidelines prevented it. So the guidelines can work both ways in protecting against judges acting on whim, which is important for an objective legal system. Even judges shouldn't be able to act on too much discretion, but sometimes they can and do. Aside from the specific departures Nicky mentioned, and the departure for C.I.s (confidential informants) that I mentioned, Federal criminal courts judges may deviate from the sentencing guidelines. It's extremely rare, requires an explanation for the record, and if it's an increased sentence, it almost guarantees (sentence) appeal and risks an overturning and resentencing.

1. Animals have a subconscious. 2. Animals don't have free will. If you agree that 1 and 2 are true, then your assertion is illogical. If

Your tribalistic thinking is for savages.

Nice.

I'm an independent contractor who does work for Union Pacific Railroad. I'm an Objectivist without an adjective. If "blue-collar" was meant to imply that you're physically tougher, and more aware of day-to-day reality, than "white-collar" Objectivists, you're a snob. There are many of us on this site who are non-"limp-wristed," but since we're ACTUAL bad-asses, we don't denigrate other men in the prejudicial manner that you did. The fact that Hume aknowledged he was wrong wasn't the equivalent of creating a correct philosophy. Troll, maybe. Epic, never--except to the fools who want him to be.

The law of identity is an absolute. logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Since you've named your brand of social subjectivism, Faith-Logic (not Faith-Sophistry), please reconcile your contradictory statements.

I'm not impressed.

Yep, it's not a general solution. It's an awakening, which is an important step. Let me define "sanction of the victim": It's when a victim WILLINGLY cooperates with his victimizer. Duty was a word AR opposed. The preachers of altruistic theologies/philosophies, and statist propagandists have ingrained a sense-of-duty into many men. They don't know they're being victimized. They feel it would be evil to withdraw sanction. The moment a rational man realizes he's been WILLINGLY cooperating with evil, his sanction is withdrawn. This awakening is just a step, and often goes no further or leads to no solution, so I see your point in saying it's not Thee Solution. The victim might still cooperate, but not willingly.

I agree. I should've said consensus.

I agree. I just wanted you to say it for me. I'm hesistant to assert a conspiracy theory for fear of finding my article in Sasquatch Magazine. Even if authors never conspired with each other to keep Rand and Objectivism out of their books, it still amounts to a conspiracy when the people with power in academia have a history of unjust bias, when influencing what is taught.