Pianoman83

Zip's post (as short as it was) is probably one of the most valuable posts on love and sexuality I've seen on this forum in a while. Having recently tied the knot myself, I can attest to what you've said. As I see it, sex is the ultimate form of physically expressing love. Why waste it on someone who isn't worth your time? VALUE YOURSELF!!

If anything, you might write an email or leave a comment on ARI's YouTube channel and ask them if they would consider posting the video online. If they think it's a good idea, then you would still be able to watch it for free and (more importantly) ARI's rights would be respected.

I love it!!

In response to the OP, I found a quote from Ayn Rand that seems remarkably apt in this situation.

Sir, I will not have you insulting jackalopes by implication!

Yes. Lisa herself is a practicing Objectivist and—if I'm not mistaken here—has even lectured at OCON a few times.

Well I'm going to take this opportunity to toot my own horn and point everybody to my YouTube video podcast on music and philosophy. Hope you guys enjoy. Episode 5: Improvisation part two Episode 4: Improvisation Episode 3: An Evening With Adam Buker Episode 2: Roark and Me Episode 1: Premiere

Necrovore, I just read the descriptive blurb about your group on NoodleFood. Now that I have a clearer understanding of your group I'm just going to say that this sounds like a great idea and I'm going to mention this on my next video podcast and on my site's blog.

Speaking as a fellow artist (a composer) one thing that I must strongly emphasize is that if you are going to be a serious artist you must not regard your artwork as needing to serve a purpose beyond itself. This includes activism. The whole purpose of art is to demonstrate life as it might be and ought to be. As such, artwork is created for no purpose beyond its own contemplation. This is what gives art its power. It presents an artist's metaphysical view of life through deliberate selection and creative interpretation of elements of reality that confirm that view. Think of the great stories you've read, paintings you have seen, movies you have watched, etc. Whatever different genres, styles, scopes, or media such work might have been, I am willing to bet one element that they all have in common is that the themes presented in such works are timeless and universal. If you try to narrow the metaphysical scope of art to a political end, you will end up with nothing but unconvincing propaganda that no rational man could want to read. Does this mean that you should keep Objectivism from appearing in your work? Not at all, but you must be careful about how you implement it. As an artist, your purpose is to create great art, in your case the kinds of stories you would want to read. It is not your purpose to convert people to a particular worldview. If you focus your work as a vehicle to win people to Objectivism then you'll destroy your work by placing greater importance on convincing others of something rather than creating an engaging story. I appreciate your intention as I too wish to see this philosophy spread as quickly as possible. However, this is the wrong way to go about it. Look at Ayn Rand's novels. If you were anything like me, when you first read them I bet you were so eager to find out what happens next. Rand is only able to do that because her first goal as a writer was to create engrossing stories full of the kind of characters she admired. Since Rand cared so deeply about the quality of her stories, we as readers are able to do the same. Only through her abilities as a writer was she able to concretize her most complex ideas through a dramatic plot in a way that many of us could understand and make us care about them. Had she not cared about the quality of her work as an artist, I doubt there would even be an Objectivist movement at all. Read The Goal of My Writing in The Romantic Manifesto. In that article she basically states that her purpose in writing her novels was not to teach Objectivism, or to spread her ideas, or anything like that. She states that her goal is the presentation of an ideal man. In fact, rather than using her characters to demonstrate her philosophy, she had to discover the principles of her philosophy so she could write about her characters! Now I'd like to add a word on "Objectivist art." There is no such thing. There are artists like Bryan Larsen who are also Objectivists. Though Objectivism has plenty to say on the subject of esthetics, the idea of an Objectivist school of art is absurd for the same reason that the idea of the Objectivist party is absurd in politics. The reason this is wrong is that Objectivism refers to the written system of ideas that Rand presented/endorsed during her lifetime and nothing else. It doesn't even refer to Peikoff's excellent DIM hypothesis even though it's true and conforms to reality like Objectivism. Now can you imagine any philosophy in history that has as part of it's canon, a painting, a piece of music, etcetera? Now this is not to say that it impossible or improper to have a school of art based on the principles of Objectivist esthetics. It's just improper to use the term 'Objectivism' to label it. Now to address your main question of forming a writers group/mailing list: Yes it's a good idea.

Welcome to the forum!

I saw this article posted in Yahoo Finance and thought that this would be a great opportunity for people to fight for our ideas. The related video grossly misinterprets her ideas and declares that neither the free market or Keysian economics are the answer but the truth is in the middle of the road. The intellectual sloppiness provides many great angles to approach. You will need to have a yahoo account in order to make a comment on this. Yahoo accounts are free and can be set up within a couple of minutes.

So in other words... If a person is going to beat the monkey, choke the chicken, rough up the clam, etc. they should do it on their own private property where they would not be noticed doing so . [edited for grammar]

I'm flattered whenever a woman I respect and admire can pay me a direct compliment or even state why she feels the way she does about me. I think something of this nature is reciprocal for both sexes. I'm sure you'd love it if a man that you respect and admire can do the same in kind. Though such compliments are subject to context (like other romantic gestures) I think in the right circumstance it can lead to a beautiful relationship. I don't even think it matters which sex pays the initial compliment either. I really like what you say here. This is really great advice that took me years to learn. I've wasted many moments of my life pursuing relationships that went nowhere simply because there was no direct communication taking place. If I have any doubt as to where I stand with a woman, I will ask her directly. Her answer (or lack thereof) will tell me all I need to know. I truly wish more women were like you in that way. If a woman is willing to be direct in the way you describe, she would show a great deal of respect for the man. Nothing makes my day brighter than when a woman I respect and admire demonstrates in word or action that she respects and admires me. It also shows me she has confidence and strength in that she is not afraid to voice her admiration. I think the same applies to men as well. As my standards for what I want in a woman have increased over the years, I have noticed the side effect that there aren't as many women that I'd like to date (if I were single that is.) As for the relationship I'm in, so much of what we have is based on direct communication and not shying away from what we think. Even though we know we aren't going to stay together in the long term (she doesn't want to move to NYC with me in three years) we are committed to enjoying what time we do have left.

To elaborate on what's already been said, I think that in order to have confidence of the sort needed to attract another, a person has to already have found value within themselves. I think this is one of the reasons that dating was much harder for me as a teenager than it is now in my late twenties. When you're young and just beginning your life you are still in the process of forming your own identity and therefore may have doubts as to who you are and what you'll ultimately become. As I have become older I've noticed a shift in my own mental approach to dating. My biggest concern in trying to land a great relationship used to be, "Does she like me?" and that line of thinking lead me to commit quite a few blunders when it came to dating. I would worry about enacting the kind of gestures that I thought were romantic (giving flowers, jewelry, holding doors, etc.) only to discover in retrospect that when I performed such actions they probably weren't wanted. After so much failure, I focused on what I wanted to do with my life and my work and figured that I'd rather be alone and happy with myself than miserable trying to make someone else love me. I realized that the whole point of dating is simply to get to know the other person (instead of trying to make them forever mine) and that made me able to authentically respond to the woman in question. Nowadays, my biggest concern with dating a woman is, "Do I like her and why/why not?" I no longer worry about when to enact such romantic gestures as the context of the relationship in progress naturally suggests what is appropriate at what time. Naturally, I enjoy the idea of love and romance more than I used to yet it is not as big of a concern to me as it used to be either. That sense of needing to bolster my confidence in order to approach a woman faded away when I changed my priorities when it came to dating. I didn't have to change who I was, act cocky, act sensitive, or act on confidence I didn't have. What I did was build my life into something valuable and realize that the right woman will understand that value for what it is. Learn how to say the 'I' and everything else follows. [EDIT 11:07 Changed wording in first sentence.] [EDIT 11:22 Fixed grammar error in second paragraph]

This article from the Charleston Daily Mail offers some insight on the reasons why BB&T accepted Treasury funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given that BB&T has undoubtedly paid more in taxes than the amount they received from the Treasury, and that they actively oppose the program itself, are they ethically justified in electing to receive such funds?

That has to be one of the most awesome LOLpics ever made. This is definitely going to be my new facebook profile pic.

You mean you have rectangles for legs and wear a red bra with inverted crosses on them? Yeah I also look like that in the mornings sometimes...

Whatever happened to Festivus for the rest of us?

I'd say watch it, read the book on which it's based, then read James Valiant's Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Also, check out Diana Hsieh's False Friends of Objectivism webpage. That should give you plenty of evidence for you to decide if Barbara Branden version of events is anywhere close to reality.

Happy birthday Dan.

I think I'm in love... *sigh*

Welcome Rosemary. If you are into linguistics, you'll want to send a message to Dave Odden. He's one of the admins on this board and a professor of linguistics.

I would recommend checking out Apple's Safari browser which is available for both Windows and Mac. http://www.apple.com/safari/

First of all don't get discouraged. Most musicians going into college have at least 3-5 years experience playing music (with many that have close to a decade) through combinations of private lessons and ensembles (school related and otherwise). I've been in situations where I've had to compete for spots where my competition had nearly twenty years of experience despite being the same age as myself. The simple fact is that this business is tough. There will always be a player who has more chops, better intonation, and sight-reading skills. So what are you to do? Well first, stop comparing yourself to other players and focus on what you want to accomplish and how you will get there. If you let other people be your ruling factor, you will never develop a voice of your own as a musician. Look at Roark. He couldn't have gotten anywhere with his career if he was always comparing himself to other architects. Second, realize that being a musician is a huge commitment of time that will rule over everything else in your life. If you're looking to have fun and party a lot and maybe hold down a job part time while going to school, you will quickly find yourself overwhelmed at the amount of practice time you need verses what you actually have. Outside of your peers in class, you realistically cannot have any sort of a social life. I would also advise against a job that requires more than a 15 hour per week commitment unless your financial situation dictates otherwise. If you must work, a campus job is the best option in this case, as they must work around your schedule. Finally, realize that you have some work to get you to the level where you can handle being in a college jazz ensemble. To be frank, if you can't follow a walking bass line from sight, you're not ready to be in a college level jazz band. To help with a walking bass line, buy yourself a copy of the Real Book in C. If you've listened to a lot of jazz, you'll recognize many of the charts as standards. Just practice reading through a couple of charts each practice session. Since the bass lines aren't written out in most cases, this will teach you to read by following chord changes. Now as far as sight reading written material, counting is everything. If you have to make a choice between getting the right note and the right rhythm, go for the rhythm. By the time you find your right notes, the rest of the group is somewhere else and you're lost. I would also recommend studying music theory and analyze the playing of bassists you like. If you feel comfortable with it, you should transcribe their solo's as well as this can be helpful in understanding what they are doing and has the added bonus of improving your music reading ability. It would also serve you well to find a drummer and a pianist/guitarist to read through charts. That way you can get comfortable working in a rhythm section and take what you learn back to your ensemble. Plus, if your group becomes good enough, you can play side gigs for money. If that seems daunting, you might want to concentrate on your gen-eds first while becoming more sure of yourself as a musician. This is a lifelong journey so be sure to enjoy it. Although you will be quite busy for the next five-seven years (as if any music major gets out in four ha!) you should as much as possible stay connected to that which made you want to become a musician. If nothing else I hope the following video helps takes the edge off of everything.

Then why don't you show which of his arguments are wrong and your evidence that he is wrong. Without that, all you have is an unsubstantiated attack against one of Objectivism's greatest thinkers. The fact that you are willing to state without any proof that his arguments over the last ten years are wrong implies that his ideas not worth consideration. That you wish to have the reader accept this at face value as if it's obviously true shows such blatant disrespect that I cannot simply dismiss this as mere disagreement. If it was merely disagreement you should have left out your parenthetical remarks as it does nothing to support your argument against Peikoff in this specific issue. What makes your remark an attack is the implications it has for Peikoff's intellectual honesty. To state that a man with Peikoff's intellectual track record has been wrong for the past ten years is tantamount to saying that he is dishonest. There is no possible way that a person with his knowledge of Objectivism and its application to the facts of reality can be consistently wrong in just about every issue for a whole decade without evasion. I believe it may be possible for such a person with Peikoff's knowledge to be wrong or inaccurate from time to time and still maintain honesty provided he corrects any errors he makes when the knowledge becomes available to him. Given that Peikoff had studied for over 30 years with Ayn Rand, if he has been consistently wrong for the last ten years, how could he be anything but dishonest?