anonrobt
-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by anonrobt
-
-
A crooked house can have nice windows. I've always had this signature.
Ahh - but being crooked, they probably leak...
-
Form follows function, in other words. I would not, for instance, be wearing a business suit while riding my Harley.
why not - Forbes did...
-
Am glad the hat is remarked - am always getting compliments on mine, and asked where others can get one like it...
-
Tales of the Mall Masters ?
-
www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com offers works from an Objectivist inspired standpoint...
-
I thought that it was clear that I was referring to music. Music does not present objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings, yet Rand categorized it as a legitimate art form. She accepted it as art despite admitting that there are no objective criteria by which to judge it and that our musical tastes must be treated as a "subjective matter."
J
Then because you seem unable to identify aural percepts - indeed, seem to claim percepts must be visual in order to be objective - you wish to claim what properly is termed decorative arts [those non-objective smears of colors and blobs of amorphous shapes ] as fine art because they 'please you', in effect accepting Bell's criteria for what is 'fine art' and yourself as one of 'those with aesthetic sensibilities'... and claim that as exception making...
-
Size communicates a symbolic meaning.
Yes - it could indicate bloat, or vaingloriousness for instance...
Size should be considered in context, especially when larger than life-sized...
-
You can apply philosophy to science in order achieve a non-contradictory identification of matter and energy. You can apply philosophy to economics to achieve a non-contradictory identification of material values, including a theory of differences between how things are and how things should be valued.
You can apply philosophy to art to achieve — what? What is the non-philosophical purpose of art?
One could consider aesthetics as the branch sibling of politics, namely that each embody applying the ethics - aesthetics to the personal or the individual [as Rand put it, the 'technology of the soul'], and politics, properly, as to the aggregate of individuals...
-
Hello,
I find this aspect of her thinking and writing intriguing.
I think the chain represents the link and bond between woman and man, mind and body. I think it is a calling card from Dagny asking for a release from her load.
I do think she’s on to something when she says the desire to look up to a man, hero-worship, is at the root of femininity. I get that.
I am what many have described as a “strong” woman, even a “masculine” woman in my behaviour and delivery. My father, a very large and intelligent man, was/is a very powerful influence on me and my mother was a very accomplished professional. I was raised being told that I could do anything a man could do, except perhaps a front-line combat soldier (that never came up.)
I, myself, am successful in a high-stress, male-dominated field. Yet, I always had a “man in my head” whom I admired, even as a little girl. If I didn’t know one, I made one up, and even when I did have a person in mind, I always built on the framework with my own mind. When Rand (a very strong woman with a huge brain) included that same concept or admission in her book, it really floored me because I had never put it into words and realised it. I know that if I weren’t married to a man to whom I looked up to and admired, I would not be happy.
I think this is something intrinsic to the sexes…. I wonder what the male equivalent is. To be needed? To be accepted? To sacrifice? Any men want to share thoughts on that?
So, while I agree with gender equality, respect and compassion between the sexes, I totally disagree with gender neutrality or androgyny, or “blank slate” theory.
This view of the sexes obviously informs her view of the act of sex. She upholds the yearning of women to be “taken” by a worthy man in that sense… yet, it’s still consenting.
I totally agree with what Francisco says to Rearden about the act of sex and one’s self-valuation attached to it.
On the sex scenes (Sorry for the thread drift)
When I first read them, they seemed odd, I didn't get them, but they didn't bother me the way other "forceful" scenes I had read in other books.
I had to finish the book and really think about it, and then read it again, and then I REALLY understood and I now think they are powerful, insightful and compelling.
I don't really dig the Dominique and Roark scenes, I guess because I don't like the book as much, but they are similar in spirit I suppose.
But, I DO get the Dagny/Francisco, Dagny/Reardon scenes in Atlas Shrugged.
When you are strong, when you are proud, when you work so hard and you stay so taught and you "hold up the world," psychologically, it feels so good to LET GO, and to let yourself go into the hands of a worthy and skilled person. To be "taken" by a man you admire and respect and exalt because he mirrors what you admire in yourself and what you value in the world, and you know you deserve him. Dagny always "wanted it" from the men of her choice, she just didn't want to "be asked" because that put the responsibility and onus and decision making and burden back on her again.... and in the bedroom, with the man of her choice, she wanted to freedom to be "owned" and to simply receive his passion and skill.
I know that at first glance that seems like a contradiction, but with the two specific people considered, (no guilt or inferiority complexes, or games or abuse) with two worthy, intense people who want each other I think it is really….. Something, I don’t know how to describe it that well, but I totally “get it” and I think it’s intense and understandable.
D.R.
I would say perhaps to be accepted, not in the 'social metaphysician' stance, but in the psychological visibility stance... I certainly would not consider sacrifice as valid, even as it is the usually given [because of the otherism code of supposed values], nor the needed aspect, since that would properly be a consequence of the psychological visibility and in the stance of the trader mindset... note that Dagny's relationships in each are as equals, with the respective contexts of personal growths [and when Francisco becomes more enlightened, that relationship ends - just as does with Reardon when she meets Galt]...
-
No. But I'm not talking about Rearden/Dagny - just about Roark/Dominique.
It was Roark who was controlling the relationship, and basically "bringing Dominique down" (like you would train an animal). It was she who went to him "against her will", it was he who made her wait, and held back the things she wanted from him (until she addmitted wanting them, or just for fun).
And while he needed her just as much as she did, the relationship was definitely about Roark controlling Dominique, and controlling the progression of their relationship.
I think this element of control is very obvious in the book.
Yes, because she needed to learn a few things, and until she did, it would not do for them to have the intimacy - it was not, as presumed, a 'bringing down' but its opposite - a 'bringing up' - because unlike a mere animal, she had to understand, something humans do, a form as it were, of self training... in that respect, it was not control as a superior over an inferior, but an objectivity of 'knowing thyself' that if she was to intimate with him, certain understandings, certain relationships of life, needed to be understood, and put into proper context...
-
This topic came up in another thread, but it has always lingered at the back of my mind: Do most people on this planet think and behave rationally? That is, do they base their decisions and actions primarily upon reality; do they think about the assertions of others before making up their own minds? Or, rather, do they go through life like zombies, following the actions and decisions of others?
I'm not talking about an Ayn Rand level of focus. I'm not asking if they are rational all the time, at all points in their lives, with every decision and every action. Just whether, on average, for a predominate amount of time, are they rational?
If they are, why do so many still cling to mystical ideas, why do so many gravitate toward socialism?
If they are not, then wouldn't the rational course of action be to "get mine while the gettin's to be got?" If the mob is a bunch of mystics, trying to take the unearned, and my rational highest value is my own life and my own happiness, wouldn't the rational course of action be to not stand apart from those mystics, lest they see me as a heretic and kill me. Woudn't it be rational to take as much as I can, regardless of who earned it? Wouldn't it be rational to create nothing - to not work myself so hard just to have it taken?
As I write those questions, I see the irrationality of them. Yet, I can't see how a rational person would exist surrounded by irrational people in an irrational world. Surrounded by irrational people, in an irrational world, it seems to me the proper philosophy is an irrational philosophy - there's no way for a rational person to thrive.
I believe most peope are rational - what would probably be best termed as "common sense." I believe they evaluate the assertions of others, and use the knowledge they possess to the best of their abilities within the framework of their current knowledge. I believe they accept reality as a given, and can identify contradictions and "bullshit." They still cling to mystical ideas, and gravitate toward socialism, because their current knowledge is lacking. That is where organizations like ARI come in - to present ideas which, once heard, "make sense," and serve as an alternative to the ideas which most recognize, on some level, do not "make sense."
Politically, socially, and philosophically we are in a time much like the Scientific Revolution of the 1700s. As scientists of that era presented alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of the Church, most accepted these explanations for what they were - objective facts. Now, we need philosophers, like Ms. Rand, Mr. Peikoff, and Mr. Brook to present alternatives to the non-sensical explanations of Kant, Marx, and Obama.
If most people are rational, then these alternatives will be accepted for what they are - objective facts. If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life.
While it is true humans require rationality to live, it is not an automatic - it has to be learned... further, its value has to be learned, and if its value is not taught as such as being more than a 'necessary evil' or similar, then its usability conforms more to the notion of 'common sense' or haphazardly applied rationality - with all the ensuing contradictions and irrationalities you have noticed, just as you have noticed that 'their current knowledge is lacking'... but it is more than just pointing out this - there is a need of persuasion that the total rational is indeed the needed, and that it not involve the conflicting and/or repression of emotions, as is oft given... you have to realize that there is an inertial problems of strong habituation involved as well, which for many makes changing their views and acceptances more difficult, even if they intellectually agree with the rational view...
-
This is second-handedness at its worst, without the great achievement of the composers of the past, these people would have no vehicle for their point of view (it would be far too generous to call it a philosophy.)
This reminds me of when the French Impressionists didn't want to have any frames on their canvases, for the fear they would take away from the work itself. When they where forced to comply or not be able to show their work, they used simple wood frames and extended the picture on the canvas to include the frame itself, so the work of art would have only been one person's vision.
The frame these people are putting on these operas so distracts from heart of the work of art, that one wishes that the Impressionist's insight could have possibly been extended to opera.
Reminds me of the scene from AS when the fella [Mort?] lays claims to the 'new' tune coming from the radio - a vulgarized version of something Halley wrote...
-
Modesty is not a virtue - it is self-abnegation...
-
Nothing wrong with playing a little rough, eh?
She looks more like she's anticipating a kiss though.
and his expression doesn't look particularly romantic...
-
All human accomplishments throughout the centuries began with a single thought.
“Power of Thought” was inspired by the drive that has led men and women through the ages to expand the human experience. The sculpture is an acknowledgment and a celebration of this extraordinary experience and the related achievements. Through twenty one detailed features, the sculpture tells some of the stories of this human journey. A wheel turns into a steam engine, which become the bullet train hurdling up a track that is being pulled by the athletic figure, and is transformed into the unraveling of a DNA sequence. The figure’s left arm is lifted up releasing the Wright flier, followed by the most beautiful aircraft ever built, the Super Sonic Transport with its sleek body and its elegantly swept wings.
Below the figure are representations of architectural, engineering, scientific and artistic achievements. Included are: Jordan’s Petra, the Roman Coliseum, The Hoover Dam, Sydney’s Opera House, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, Taj Mahal, Toronto’s CN Tower, The Great Wall of China, The Pyramids, Michelangelo’s Creation, Rodin’s the Thinker and finally Neil Armstrong Footprint on the surface of the moon.
The sculpture is currently 1/3 life-size. Plans are to introduce the work in a larger scale in the next 6 months. This 32" version is a limited edition of 30 copies only.
Details of the base:
Why is there a wanting of a larger sculpture - to what end? what is 'wrong' with this as is, sizewise?
-
Yes, I'm quite familiar with concept formation and genus/differentia definition. Why does the genus have to be "animal"? Why not "living things"? That is the point you are not addressing.
EDIT: For clarification - your argument, in essence, could be used to demand that we refer to the "rational biped", or the "rational biocular" or any of the other irrelevant characteristics of man - since man is the only rational being.
Being alive is essential, being rational is essential. The rest is fluff.
EDIT2: ZSorenson, all the particulars you list are application. You may value certain things because of your biology. Rational beings value something, rational beings must act (in some way) to attain values, rational beings must act in specific ways towards other rational beings - those things do not depend on physiology.
Rational animal would be the correct term because one must remember we are integrated beings, which means the animal in us is pertinent to our being, however rational we be... another rational being, per se, may not be animal, and its integratedness would, therefore, be different from ours, despite the commonality of being rational...
-
Depending on what it is, I often have found many specific works that may not be particularly rosy that I still had a positive reaction to.
I haven’t yet read much of the non-fiction stuff on art yet, so once I do I may find out why this can’t be so, but I’ve often wondered if art can’t serve more than one purpose, or perhaps instead, if not everything which uses the forms art can be done in does count as art.
I know the explanation given for what art is and why it is so important is as a means of giving us a sort of more tangible summed up sense of what life can be like, what it is we’re striving for, to cheer us up and inspire us to keep on fighting the good fight. I agree this is very important and having experienced it, I know how powerful it can be. However, in the cases of the less rosy works of art that I’ve come across and enjoyed, what I enjoyed about them was not some kind of focus on a malevolent view of life and trying to portray life as hopelessly awful. When a work does seem to be just pushing something like that relentlessly, then I do not enjoy it. What I do enjoy are things like some horror movies where there are very interestingly intricate plots and lots of exciting surprises and it is those things which attract me to the work. Or maybe paintings with unusual styles and content for their being rather novel and perhaps in some cases, rather dream-like. Or maybe sometimes some music I’d like because it resonates with a feeling I may have and serves almost to help give it some more of a form and expression when I get to times where I don’t think there’s much else I can do about it.
I think an important distinction too is that when I may enjoy these less rosy works, it seems like that darker element to them is treated as a means to some other end primarily, not as the goal of the work itself. Like the movie has lots of people put in painful or dangerous situations as a means to creating a high-stakes and exciting story, not that they are just torturing people to try to bring the audience down (for example, the good horror movies I like are generally either hurting people who suck anyway and so you don’t feel too bad for them, or else if they are good people, then they come out victorious in the end as opposed to just relentlessly destroying good people and it being gotten away with.) However, that there is so much of it in its tone which is just there as a means to another end rather than being the goal of the work itself is why I wonder if these things count as art so much still since the tone of the work is largely what art is about and aimed at in the earlier definition of art.
This sounds like excuses to 'justify' your desired inclination to indulge in gross irrationality... as pathological examples, they serve a valid purpose, but in terms of declaring a pro-human aesthetic, no... [now, there is a distinction between horror and suspense - Halloween [the original], for instance, is suspense, with the heroine displaying resolve in the end, rationally acting to preserve herself, a pro-human action... the sequels are something else...
-
Well, there's actual empirical evidence out there for the Big Bang.
Is there? Eric Lerner would disagree - http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
-
I'm just waiting for him to bring up Hari Seldon and psycho-history!
Thank you - took the words right out of my mind that Hari Seldon is waiting in the background...
-
QUOTE (RationalBiker @ Oct 10 2009, 07:50 PM) *
Vanessa Mae - A violinist who performs compositions of classical music to a modern dance beat.
The Best of Vanessa Mae.
....................................
Definitely!! been a fan of hers since she was a child prodigy... and her stage performances are truly astounding, rivaling Madonna...
-
As a sidereal, I have notes on Barbara Branden's Efficient Thinking lectures, if anyone is interested...
[these are from the 60's]
-
Ever consider the world within your mind?
the latest - in progress...
"My Bigger Back Yard"
32"x40" colored inks
-
One needs realize that in pre-Christian times, there was known the 'art of cooking' - as the Greeks defined art' as 'skill of mind in making'... but taste, as with smell, is an 'earthly' enjoyment, and this was taboo to the afterlife wants of Christianity... only in the Renaissance era, when earthly delights again made their prominence, was the possibility of 'art of cooking' again raised... as to its permanence, the same with music - comes and goes, but remains possible thru the sheets of notations, just as recipes used for the cooking do for that...
-
Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question.
But evolution, properly considered, is much more than just about life - it is the concept of concerted change, which would involve all aspects of the universe itself, and which could be said to be cyclic, so that there is no real 'beginning' or 'end'...
Reading a story because it has Objectivist values...
in Literature
Posted
There aren't many that fit in this 'sub-genre' anyway - Kay Nolte Smith, Erika Holzer, Edward Cline, Shelley Reuben, and Gen LaGreca come first to mind, tho there are several others who are inspired by her writings, to one extent or another [David Gulbraa, Alexandra York, L.Neil Smith, F. Paul Wilson, Dennis Hardin, and James Hogan for examples]... seeing how they write would best clue to what may be considered 'Objectivist values' and how to go about writing them in fiction...