StrictlyLogical

No need to get personal. I respect Rand very much but her definition of Art according to objectivism (which I fully agree with re. Man's need for art) and her assertion of Music as being art are inconsistent. I merely point out the inconsistency. What I see here is a definition (Art according to Objectivism) and an arbitrary exception (Music), and some statements by Rand re "intelligibility" of it. If there is a rational foundation or argument showing Music itself (not in combination with anything else) is Art according to the definition then by all means present it and we can have a rational discussion of this. All I am asking for is some (excuse the redundancy) "independent thought".

HD: 1.If an Objectivist society is someday founded (on a planet out there for example) would it be proper for that society to have ANY form of Government? If your answer to 1. is NO then the following are inapplicable. 2. If an Objectivist government is formed are you in agreement that its sole function/role is the protection of individual rights? (This is the Objectivist position on the proper role of government... please watch Yaron Brook's debate with Miles Rapoport on the "Proper Role of Government") 3. Does this protection of individual rights via a government require the codification, agreement, creation of an objective standard, i.e. Laws? Or can there be such a thing as a "lawless" government, or the "arbitrary" protection of individual rights? 4. To protect individual rights according to an objective standard set of laws do you believe there is a functional/phenomenological necessity for the government to protect rights from foreign invaders, adjudicate disputes and contracts, actualize/enforce contracts and protect citizens from internal criminals, or do you believe the necessity only extends to a subset of these (or perhaps other functions) and why? 5. Suppose, if necessary, there is a branch of government which ensures enforcement of contracts and ensures protection of individuals i.e. actualization of justice rather than merely pointing out what is wrong and what should happen... and we call it the police: a. Does it matter who the particular individuals that make up that branch are. i.e. hobbies, personalities, affiliations? b. Does it matter how the particular individuals in that branch are organized and paid? c. Does it matter whether or NOT the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS i.e. the laws adopted by the entire objectivist society for the protection of individual rights ARE FOLLOWED by the individuals in this branch? d. If someone, anyone, any organization, sub-organization, and group of people serving the function of this branch act outside of the LAW or ignore the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS of JUSTICE... who dispenses, actualizes, performs the enforcement functions to bring them in line? I submit the answer to d. is the military. 6. Can a government temporarily delegate to one or more parties the branches or functions it oversees/is in charge of? As long as it remains administered, does the organizational status, employment versus contractor, matter? 7. What is the overarching definition of the government which has specific roles delegated by individuals but can see that they are carried out by any lawful means/organization/mechanism? I submit the answer to 7. is the adherence to the objective standards or the law. My conclusion is not that there is NO branch of government which acts to protect individual rights and enforce contracts, my answer is that those functions which involve the use of force should be "limited to" proper use in accordance with objective standards i.e. the law, and hence SOME body, person, group, people are "responsible" to ensure the branch of government entrusted with those functions works, whether or not it involves contractors, organizations, private security, individuals, etc. Strict adherence to the functions, acting on behalf of the government, which in turn is acting as central (yes central) delegate is likely necessary to live in a rational peaceful society.

I DO care about the CONCEPT of Art according to Objectivism, and Objectivism the Philosophy as a whole. The "exception" made for Music does not have a strong rational foundation and unfortunately I think it makes the concept of Art according to Objectivism and Objectivism as a whole slightly "weaker". To "permit" such an exception (without a strong rational foundation) to simply "sit there" on a basis which seems arbitrary or whimsical... is quite simply wrong... and in some sense goes against the entire philosophy grounded in objectivity and reason and reality.

I have never said anything about the "validity" of a subjective experience, emotional, mystical, wondrous, macabre or otherwise. Subjective experiences occur. I merely point out that it is incorrect to identify a subjective experience of ones own imagination with the objective experience of reality. These are very separate things, the confusion of which LEADS to things like religion, superstition, Platonism and the like. As for what the mind is doing between what could possibly be defined as separate thoughts, I do not know. This is a question of objective fact which may be answerable by neurologists, if not presently perhaps at some point in the future. Mental passivity may be involved but it may have some "noise floor" of minimal chaotic behaviour. Perhaps cyclic feedback currents, signals or whatnot... maybe subconscious musings... what does the mass of grey matter do when it is between thoughts? I have not the slightest clue... and this is unanswerable through introspection since the act of determining requires thinking, determining (introspectively) what is happening when you aren't thinking is simply impossible. I find it inexplicable you "disagree" with my not knowing the detailed nature of the phenomena of "thoughts". I find it presumptuous of you to claim to know that I know what I actually do not know. I daresay many years of research and millions of dollars are likely being "wasted" right now on niceties of human cognition and brain function, "wasted" since you already have that knowledge. Others do not have your "insight"... I include myself among the "ignorant".

"Experiencing a table" is to be distinguished from "Experiencing my imaginings or my thoughts in connection with the table" The object of the experience in the former is an actual existent (the table), whereas the object of the experience in the latter is mental contents, albeit mental contents which were caused by a chain of causation by the actual existent (the table). When a person says "I am one with the table", they are indulging in an imagination, what of? Of a connection with a table which does not exist. An experience which feels like a "direct" (as through revelation perhaps) access or knowledge of the thing's being... I don't know exactly the "experience" but the confusion is in the person's not recognizing that the table is not the object of this relationship... the table can only be perceived... it is the wild hallucinations, imaginings, emotions, etc. that the person is experiencing. (As a complete aside, "oneness with a table" may not be something one can properly imagine the way one can imagine falling down or eating a burger because oneness with a table is impossible. What IS it like to BE ONE with a table? Such a question is meaningless. ) All of these things: imagination, emotion, experience, are wonderful but being confused about their origins (the table versus the mind) is the problem. So, someone who says, or thinks "I can (think I can?) imagine what it would be like to be one with a table." or "I can put myself into a mental state I will equate with what it is like to be one with a table" is not making an error as long as they recognize the relationship with the table is NOT oneness. Flying may make you feel like you are "infinite". Believe me when I say you have NOT experienced "THE infinite", THAT does not exist. In conclusion: a mystic IS having an experience is feeling something, it can be called "mystical" (based on various definitions) but WHAT is being experienced is primarily mental contents, or a feeling, NOT the universe. You asked: If there is X, what IS X. X is undefined, so I cannot speculate, if there is X what it is. X could be nothing or meaningless. Space and thought are not in the same "realm". If you could explain what you mean in another way, perhaps I could try to answer you. If you mean time, I think it is possible for time to pass between thoughts. I am no neurologist but I do not know that thoughts themselves are something that can be measured as having discrete sharp discontinuities between them or even if they are things that can be strictly enumerated. Thinking, mental activity or mental content is probably less problematic when discussing the phenomenological activity of the brain.

My Point IS: (and I understand why it may seem somewhat contradictory since my use of "Art" is somewhat sloppy) Of all the Arts (as popular culture defines them) the one which I love the most and find the most enjoyable is Music, and it happens to be that this "Art" (as popular culture defines it) is in fact according to Objectivism, NOT art. It's kind of funny, but I personally do not care whether Music falls within the definition of Art according to Objectivism. I like it just the same. In fact, I like the culinary arts, VERY much as well... food can be absolutely and insanely rewarding from an experiential point of view... I don't insist that Objectivists call a Black and Blue 3 inch think steak with mushroom and wine sauce Art... no matter HOW much I really cherish it! I believe VERY strongly with Objectivism's general concept of Art, and its function for Man. I believe that it is self consistent, rational, and absolutely CORRECT. As such I also do not believe there are any exceptions, Music included (by that I mean music should be excluded from art... it is no exception... you get my meaning).

I think the reason why delegation of the use of retaliatory force is ideal, has to deal with the actual randomness, subjectivity, and emotions, ... chaos if you will, which can occur in situations where that retaliatory force would be needed, and the various factors which affect an individual's ability to fully exercise that right. It is correct to assume not all men in society would be rational all the time... otherwise the "initiation of force" would not have occurred in the first place, and no retaliation would be necessary. Men who normally DO act rationally and peaceably in society may NOT be emotionally, mentally, or even PHYSICALLY prepared to properly and indeed to EFFECTIVELY exercise the RIGHT of the use of retaliatory force. Other men also (third parties) have an interest in the VICTIM being both capable of not accidentally harming others and capable of dispensing justice (apprehending the perpetrator etc.). These considerations lean heavily toward a devoted group of people, a branch or branches of a minimalist government, who have been delegated the power to use the retaliatory force according to OBJECTIVE standards. These people would be trained, the issues not personal to them. These people would also be held to a high accountability, non-harm to others, and importantly they are STRONG enough and armed enough to carry out the acts necessary for justice. Man IS man. He is noble but fallible. Anarchy is dangerous and inefficient and ineffective. I submit that any group of rational Objectivists deciding how to deal with the use of retaliatory force would eventually settle on what Rand espoused. There will always be bad men and good men who in extreme circumstances react imprudently. By limiting the use of force and focusing it, all free individuals can bring to bear their requirements, expectations, need for accountability, etc. and as such "retaliatory force" itself becomes a known quantity, under scrutiny, on a leash... rather than a widespread and interspersed powder keg of death and violence roaming wild and free.

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes the answer to your question (actually a meta answer) is that the answer does not matter. "We", or "America" is not something that has a consciousness, or free will, and any group you belong to, no matter what its extent DOES NOT reflect on you individually and your individual choices, certainly not if you march to your own drum... the same applies to your individual family members, friends and loved ones...so really... "we" does not matter. Why other people are so mislead I think is due to a great many factors including mysticism, evasion,, disintegration and well popular philosophy which permeates the culture. A great book on integration, misintegration and disintegration, "The DIM Hypothesis" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff will likely have many of your answers. It addresses philosophy, science, education and politics.

I think The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged truly serve best as Art, i.e. they provide the sum which represents a sense of life, at the core of man's need for Art. So, even though these works serve as an excellent introduction to a philosophy including metaphysics, and epistemology, ethics, including values, principles, virtues, etc. and in fact can be a way for the uninitiated and mislead to see the way to reality and morality, the real value of these works of fiction is reaffirmation/validation of already held knowledge and understanding. As much as you appreciate these the first time around they get better and better the more you know. For learning Objectivist Philosophy I suggest getting lectures on CD or getting audiobooks. OPAR by Blackstone audiobooks is truly wonderful and its on Audible (Amazon). There are other titles available as well such as Q&A with AR etc..

I'd like to know their answers to your and my questions, not in terms of what they FEEL as parents in the legal framework of a modern STATIST society but what they THINK morally...as Objectivists (if the term applies).

I think he means that unfettered autonomy to do anything and everything with property does not exist for anyone including adults as it is already morally limited by avoidance of harm to others.

What do you mean by moral authority? Is this a moral "right" of the parents to ownership of gifts given to their children or "income from a job" their kid had earned? On what Objectivist principle does a parent have moral "right" to such ownership? Does it derive from the nature of Man "as parent" to actually own (rather than act as steward for) their children's earnings?? Is this actual ownership a blank check (it must be if it is actual ownership by the parents) for the parent to do anything whatever with those earnings? Child actors, celebrities or musicians who have had millions of dollars bilked and stolen from them by their parents (examples of which abound) are not victims of any crime? This in the name of some moral authority?? I would need a solid rationale to identify such ugly vice as proper and moral.

Perfect. CrowEpistemologist I am reminded of the question asked at the debate between Yaron Brook and Miles Rapoport on the proper role of government which is appropriate to repeat here: "Does your life belong to you?" Does a child's VERY life, liberty, and right to pursue happiness belong to him/her? If not who owns it and if so does not that imply ownership of a person? Theft by the government or society (majority rule 50% + 1%) is not OK according to Objectivism but theft by parents IS?

Sorry for not staying on topic. Infinite sets always seemed to me to extend a specific easily visualizeable concept, "a" collection of discrete things, the collection being something capable of being "a" "thing" and extend it into "some-like-a-thing" quite beyond concrete visualization. I think there is a BIG step between conceiving of let x be any integer and thinking of "a thing" which is ALL the integers. It's the difference between: ANY number and ALL numbers. try applying THAT kind of thing in the process of measurement omission.

This is the unstated premise (perhaps something I overlooked in your previous posts): You believe that in a proper Objectivist society there should be the concept of a "legal adult" ("legal" being with reference to the laws of the proper Objectivist government which has been set up according to Objectivist principles) which kicks in upon reaching a certain age (like the age of majority of current modern STATES), or if dealing with mentally challenged who are nonetheless slowly progressing, upon their crossing some mental threshold. In your ideal Objectivist society (NOT any current modern state): What IS the "ownership" status of the "certified check" when it is handed to you as a child? What IS the "ownership" status of the FUNDS deposited into your account as a child? What IS the moral status of the action of your parents DIVESTING you of the VALUE of the money without your consent? (when they took it, squandered, spent or destroyed it)

Can we separate that which "leads to standard" mathematics and is hence useful, and that which does not? Also, just because you "can" do something with some sort of mathematics does NOT mean you have to. That is a choice each Mathematician makes. So for example if cardinal numbers are useful (I may have that wrong) in some respect but because of their definition you open up infinities of different sizes which may not in fact be useful, then perhaps it is up to the Mathematician to know what to do with the cardinal numbers (or whathaveyous) and what not to do with them... and perhaps choose a different specialty. Then again it is hard to know what will and will not eventually be useful in mathematics. Wasn't the solution of Fermat's theorem very involved (non elegant) with widely varying types of mathematics (elliptical functions or something or other)? I think some sort of standard regarding the "probability" that some thread will be made back to more basic and useful problems could help ground a mathematician. That said I think it is very difficult to say any particular branch of pure mathematics is utterly useless and/or disconnected from reality or anything in it.

I have to agree completely. Strict and consistent application of objectivist principles with regard to art inexorably arrives at the conclusion that music is simply not art. The mere fact that Rand and we enjoy music is not enough of a reason to take something which CONCEPTUALLY is "non-art" (as Objectivism defines it) to simply call it "art". If the Objectivist concept of "ART" is to be coherent and rational and consistent it must exclude music, because in fact EVERYTHING unique, foundational, and essential to the concept of art according to Objectivism excludes music per se.

Let us imagine a hypothetical which teases apart issues of "punishment", "discipline", and all issues surrounding "parenthood" other than property, from issues directly associated with property. Also lets dispense with current modern STATISM entirely (and the regulations associated therewith). Imagine you as a child of age X are given a sum of 1 million dollars (a certified check) by an eccentric billionaire, for something you said to him in the park. (Yes he is likely a little foolish but the gift is given voluntarily). After you deposit your money in your account somehow your parents gain access (without your consent) and take the money. they spend, destroy or squander it, etc. or otherwise deprive you of the VALUE of the property. All of the following are merely specific examples to the main question, which is the one to be answered: On what objectivist principle would a proper minimalist objectivist government whose role is the protection of individual rights, refuse to recognise the transfer of property rights in the gifted money to the child? 0. On what objectivist principle would a proper minimalist objectivist government "grant" the right of ownership of one person (absent consent or the right to consent) in whole or in part by another person or of wholesale or "partsale" ownership (NOT mere possession) of one person's property or "right to property" (absent consent or the right to consent) by another person? 1. In a proper objectivist society at what age do you have the right to approach the minimalist objectivist government (which protects your individual rights to property) to get your money back from the parents? 2. At what age would you have had the moral right (were there no government to delegate your powers of the use of retaliatory force) to seize, by force, the property taken from you without your consent? 3. In a proper objectivist society would the eccentric billionaire be able to approach the minimalist objectivist government to have the money returned to you? 4. What would you and the eccentric billionaire need to do, in a proper objectivist society, to ensure a gift is given to you without interference from third parties, including your parents? Since the issues are "simple" these questions should be easy to answer.

Your reasoning is persuasive. I believe reasons may be wasted at this time.

Some of Bachs works which are my favorite are mostly mathematical, well patterned, logical. If you've seen a spirograph, the Mandelbrot set, serpinski gaskets, things like these are the closest non musical things that remind me of his works. The emotion I feel from the that particular kind of music... is not like sadness, happiness, not like anything I feel in relation to people, events, accomplishments, life. the feelings I get from Bach's best pieces of music are ... unlike anything else in, of, about, life, or my experience of it. It does not remind me of anyone, anything, any event.. it is its own thing. It is in the sense of this absence of reminding me of anything else that I use the term "meaningless". It is important to me, so in that sense music is meaningful... what else can I say? It is like nothing else!

Thanks, I'll check that out.

What is YOUR opinion? Please provide reasons.

Have you read my entire post? It's all in there. Your 1) is a bald assertion which is incorrect ... see my post. Its explains the proper child respecting level of "control" regarding property of the child.

Music: The Greatest Art form and the least proper form of Art according to Objectivism To me, personally, music is the greatest form of art. By music I mean melody, tempo, notes, harmonies, loudness etc. independent of story, lyrics, dancers, movies, liner notes etc. just pure music. To my mind the greatest composer that ever was, was Johann Sebastian Bach. I have many other favorite composers but some of Bach's pieces particularly his Organ works are absolutely magnificent in pattern, progression, harmony, complexity.. etc. It took a little while to shed the religious associations with the instrument but God is not in the machine... and God did not write that music, a man did. So what typifies the pinnacle of pure music? It is pure abstraction, pattern, possibly even mathematics and/or its own language. Music is sounds but music does not, and is not meant to sound like ANYTHING, it does not sound like birds or dogs, or crashing waves or wind or any thing in reality. These are synthesized from various instruments, artificial contraptions with strings and blocks and pipes and reeds or drums crafted since the dawn of man. Music is ineffable, and meaningless (in the literal sense). There are no concepts in music, No characters, no plot, no story no message. There is no "motherhood" in the note of a trumpet or "introspective salesman pondering his father" in the beat of the kettle drum. There are NO messages in the progression of notes that lift higher and higher... only the sensational feel of being taken higher and higher... in the pureness of the notes, the melody, the patterns... Music then IS purely abstract... it is as abstract as art can get. It has forms, it has well known schools and practices and well known instruments, chords, structures etc. but the very essence of music is AREPRESENTATIONAL, it as a whole and in any subpart represents nothing. It simply IS, and it affects me deeply and wonderfully. Aesthetics Art according to Objectivism is something which at its core is related to a sense of life and something which serves a need in man to see in a moment or relatively short span of time a sum of all his knowledge and values and philosophy of life (correct me if this is not EXACTLY the need of man) and this only art can do... and presumably what does it must be art. So we see that various forms of literature and paintings and sculpture ought to bring to the fore in the mind of the beholder of the art a sense of life. If I understand correctly these must have content which is representational of that sense of life. It must somehow be more than an abstraction which provides mere sensations or emotions, it must include something which interacts with the cognitive faculty in a specific way. Abstract paintings which have color, form, pattern (perhaps fractals even), symmetry, composition etc. but which depict nothing that LOOKS like something in reality, no birds, dogs, waves or even 3-dimensional shapes... which perhaps can convey a mood or inspire a mental state, but does not show a mother or a salesman or anything remotely recognizable ... is invalid as art according to Objectivism. "Mere smears" Similarly, a work of literature, where words are not used to represent anything but instead are USED by the artist to evoke a feeling or state in a person, where no bird or dog is described, no mother hood or salesperson, no plot, no theme, no story whatever, this arepresentational form is NOT valid art according to Objectivism even if the author intended the use of words not to convey meaning but to invoke a feeling or state of mind... and even if somehow, this were successful. I will not go on about sculpture. I must assume that Art is art. and that there are no rational "exceptions" to the application of Objectivism's standard. It would be arbitrary to make room for Bach simply because his work is brilliant or because it causes a wellspring of emotion and pattern... or because it is well accepted in society or very much loved by me. Objectivism does not admit of an arbitrary double standard. Pure music itself does not communicate a sense of life... it is meaningless, and purely abstract. I conclude: Music IS the greatest art form... and the least proper form of art according to Objectivism.

This is very good advice. Thank you. "Taking the bait" is tough to avoid as you will know since rationalists and objectivists can actually talk PAST one another. Being genuinely interested in persuading the rationalist I am tempted to "speak their language" to help the process along... and this is of course disastrous... I end up arguing over floating abstractions and definitions ... and well it ends up a waste of time. "Fox hole" is a good visualisation to keep in mind. Once again thank you!