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).