Mensch

He must be a schizophrenic then.

The pope should share his wealth with the poor, instead he dances in his red shoes and flaunts his costumes. Amazing how foolish the world really is…

Very amusing, lots of truth in there

I think the time for the Bond movies has passed. The format has become stale. I have not seen the new one and do not intend to either

Take a look at my signature, it says it all. I would recommend to you to read some Rand before you continue to embarrass yourself even more. You can try to think on your own, but so far you have not succeeded.

It seems like you disagree with most of what Objectivism stands for. The kind of art one likes certainly reflects ones values

Wow, foolish mystics…

Thanks for pointing me to the previous thread. I will consume it and learn from it.

Thank you for this wonderful insight you have given This is also what I think, you have just expressed it in a much more eloquent way .

Yes, and so you should. If you are thinking as a rational person you would arrive at that same conclusion

My take on music: For every composer there is a different root for their music: their own sense of life, and that very sense is expressed through his music. In turn a listener agrees or does not agree with the philosophy of the composer, for that is what is truly expressed with the music he wrote. Therefore, if you like a piece of music you are in agreement with the composer. You experience through this music a kinship, a soul brother or sister. In a way the composer has spoken for you and your set of values and it makes you feel in harmony with him, you become the music, because it is you, your inner self that you experience. It is a hard thing to pull out of your own being depth of thoughts, emotions, views and translate them into art, the most abstract of the art forms being music. Most often an artist does not have to think about this process, the translation has become automatic as all emotions have, but it is still a hard birth. Descriptive music is easier, he can imagine a sound of water as an example, but to express an idea like hero or victory is much more difficult. The music is used as a symbol for what he wants to say, and to say it right, he must know what he is saying. To be a great composer, he must also be a great thinker, a deep thinker. A person who can draw out of himself the result of this process of thinking and turn it into a statement with the language of sound. Therefore, not many in this world will be great composers. But many will be able to express themselves and find much pleasure doing so in their own smaller way. To become good, he must find enlightenment about many questions and transform the results, to become great, he must also be a great and wise person. ---------- I do not care much for Bach now. I used to as a young person. But as my sense of life shifted over the years, I have come to appreciate the romantics more and more. Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Mahler, Chopin… I like the strength in these composers, the self-assurance, the heroism and sometimes the bombast. But I also love just simple little pieces that are full of joy and delight, that speak of happiness. I do not care for disharmony at all. Those pieces are the same as abstract "Art", which I also reject. I also love music of the more raw variety like Orff, some primitive music is wonderful to listen to as well. Sometimes I enjoy the jarring sounds of rock, depends on my own mood really.

I do not think that I am confusing the two. As far as I know sucking by an infant is a reflex. Flight and fight is an awareness we have that danger is upon us, but we have learned this awareness. An infant does not react like this. The young human has no way of identifying that something is threatening. You must first understand the concept of danger before you can react. This understanding then will lead to the reaction of fight and flight. Escape is a learned reaction. Capacity for language is not an instinct either, if it was, we would all have the same ability at an equal level, for that is what instinct would be. It is the choice you make to learn a language that gives you the ability to speak. For language is the means to communicate to others (and yourself) what you think, what you have identified, it makes a thing concrete. You can speak in signing with your hands, with only symbols. Languages themselves are different, different words are used for concepts, they mean the same, the concept is the same. Concepts are not built in, not hard-wired, we learn them. Sure there are differences of influence. If an infant grows up surrounded by mystic savages he most likely becomes one as well. If you would take a child out of this environment before it starts to develop any concepts, it would develop into a human of a different kind, mirroring much of what the new surrounding is, because we are all born without innate concepts, knowledge, beliefs and learn a lot of what we think by being in a certain environment. Once we start gathering more complex concepts and growing them into ever more abstract ones, we will be able to form our own thoughts based on those concepts, which will lead us to develop our values and the emotions based on them. What kind of music are we talking about? A simple little song is easy to understand by a mind that has not developed very far. A complex piece of music will only be understood by a person who has the same values (and therefore the same emotions) as the composer. If your philosophy is different from the one the composer has, you will not understand his music ever, or you will violently disagree, not like it in other words. Some children start thinking earlier than others, therefore the choices of music they like depends on how far along they are in establishing their values. Pitch has nothing to do with understanding music I like to see some evidence of this statement that we are predisposed/talented to learn better in certain areas than in others. To me it sounds like an assumption. I agree that physical traits are different of course, voice, strength, height, body type, flexibility, etc., those need only be trained to enhance them. Ability comes through knowledge. Without knowledge you can not do a thing. You learn to be able. Haha -- I do not provide services to society at all, I work for my own pleasure and to support with this pleasure my livelihood. Yes, I agree with your assessment. We do not have instincts.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Hard-wiring meaning innate or automatic, instincts in animals. Humans do not have instincts. No knowledge is inborn. Therefore we are not hard-wired, nothing we know is automatic. This is what I was relating my answer to:

I will But I was not talking about metabolism, hearing, etc., but hard-wiring of the brain. In my understanding animals are hard-wired and that is what is known as instinct, that is why they only need a little reminder by the parents to know how to do things and react, knowing is innate.

Juxtys -- I became a loner at a young age because I did not agree with my peers. It was not fun really, I liked to be with people. But eventually I returned from my self imposed absence. I had changed a lot, they had not, but I did socialize and avoided talking about the issues that were creating friction, like religion and general world views. I had not discovered Rand yet as you have, but I headed toward it. To be with these peers was still fun because I discovered a very valuable tool: looking at people in aspects. There is nothing wrong with socializing to learn skills to deal with other people, a very important part later in the business world. What that means is identifying what values you have in common and then interact only in those areas. If discussions should arise in the areas of disagreement tread gently. Now and then it is possible to win a person over to your views, but if there is a fundamental difference, like being an atheist or a devout believer in a supernatural being, there is very little hope. Enjoy being with those people within this context of aspects, overlapping fields where you agree. You can even become friends with a person on a limited basis such as this. I had my share of being with people and again have withdrawn now. I have too little to gain from relationships of limited agreement. I still use the aspect thing to find a way to enjoy a party or a gathering, although there is no deep involvement with any of them. But I have lived for quite a while now and my social skills are established. I found that I do not care too much being with people other than my husband. PS. My father was born in Klaipeda, back then known as Memel

I can understand that there might be a difference in the brains of male and female. I can not comment on the research you are referring to. I am always a bit skeptical about nameless studies and research, since so many researchers have agendas they like to support. I am not saying that this is the case here and I could also not dispute it if I were to read the papers. I have too little knowledge in that field. I let it stand at that. Now let us say that it is true that pre-wiring exists, would you not call that instinct then?

I do also think that we all have different capacities for learning. In many cases children discover early in life what gives them pleasure and so they develop skills that are picked up almost effortlessly to have this sensation of pleasure. The skills develop over a long time and seem to have come naturally. And that is what people then consider as an innate ability because the process was almost invisible. It always requires dedication and effort to become good at what you do I agree with you that it is not economical to try to work in a field where the effort takes too much time, and most people would not attempt to do so. I do not quite get this point. To my knowledge Objectivism does not claim to be egalitarian, only at the point of birth when the slate is empty.

Yes, I can understand that in the area where you need to use your body, as in sports, in dance, even dexterity of the hands to play a musical instrument, a voice to be a great singer. Eye hand coordination is often important for certain occupations, but the mind is not prewired as far as I know (and I do not know much about it).

Here is what Rand has to say: Understand this one, it is important.

In the last few years I have been a mentor on the boards of a major web development forum. I am a graphic guru there, give advice frequently when design questions are asked and help out to make people aware what good design is in general and specifically as it relates to the visual aspects of web design. I try to teach how to acquire the knowledge, tell the students how to go about learning the skills that one needs in designing, both mentally (ideas) and physically (tools). I would like to see more web sites that are tastefully done so that when I browse the web it will be a visual pleasure for me, that is why I have volunteered my time and knowledge. In the area of web design that has to do with coding, all agree that one must learn, must learn hard and be consistent in the effort in order to understand and progress. People experience how long it takes to get good at this task. Of course the same effort must be applied in learning the visual aspects, the branding, the imagery, colors. As a student of Objectivism I know that all humans are born without any knowledge, tabula rasa, that all things we know we have chosen to learn. That is the case also with artistic knowledge of course. And here is where I get into the debates with people. I would say that 95% of the people I try to teach will in the end claim that they will never get good at this because they were not born with an innate ability. The claim is that I must have been born with artistic ability, only for me to discover and train a little bit to enhance later on. They have erected a wall around the process of learning because of this belief in inborn talent. I would also say that a large part of these people took this idea because it is so commonly accepted as truth and such a convenient excuse not to go through the long years of learning. Talent is their favorite term for this perceived inborn ability. I detest this term because it has become to mean (to me) inborn. Is that an irrational reaction on my part? I have almost given up trying to convince them that they can achieve a solid level of ability in this field of visual design if they only put the same effort into the learning as they have done with all other things they know well. I have no way of braking down the wall because of the belief they have. I was able to convince some and the result is visible in their work now, but that does not convince the believers in the innate, they assume instantly that the ones that have improved their skills now were also born with this ability, but that it had been dormant. "You are so gifted" is a widely used phrase, often meant as a compliment, but underlying this is total ignorance how one becomes this "gifted" person. This mouthing (not thinking) is most often applied to abilities of the artistic kind: writing, painting, sculpture, dance, music, etc. I have not seen this in other areas of knowledge as much. It would be interesting for me to find out from the members on this forum if this assumption of innate ability is made to this extent in other fields of expertise as well. I thought this could turn into an interesting discussion.

Nobody said that you can not help a person. Most of us would probably do so, to a point, even if we did not have a chance to evaluate who this person is at the outset. Volunteers are always welcome. But the biggest help you can give is to instill rational thinking into the people who suffer. (You changed the subject from emergency room to suffering in general). I would like to know if you would give compassion to a person who has lived having at his core-belief mysticism to guide him, that very mysticism having caused his dire need. Mysticism being either a theist or secular one. In other words: a self inflicted suffering through irrational belief.

hahaha -- how depraved some customs are

When Rush started some years back I used to listen to him on the car radio while on long trips. But he really got on my nerves with his religion. I admire his consistency and his boldness, I like that he likes himself, but I have not listened to him in years. Sometimes he had Walter Williams as a substitute host, it was wonderful to listen to him.

How I look at it: Bonsai plants in nature are to be admired because of the struggle to survive, to live under the harshest conditions. A symbol of tenacity and heroism. They are not necessarily very handsome to look at. Many centuries ago oriental royalty and Buddhist monks started to intentionally cripple trees to have miniature gardens and trees. They can have forms that are very graphic, they can even evoke emotions within us as art does. But they are a recreation of suffering. The sense of life is one full of pain, not joy in existence, a reflection of the belief that life on earth is only to be endured, for in the distance, once the earthly body has been shed awaits the wonderful and real life. It is amazing how you can twist living things into dwarfism. It very much reminds me of the past Chinese custom where the feet of the female were bound and crippled.

Easy for the government to say now. First they put a straight jacket of regulations around the corporations and than tell them that they can take care of the mess the government has created. Failure is inevitable of course. Now the government (the big we) can pile more of the regulations on top and point the finger at the horrible free market and with that soon own the now defunct corporation or just let them go out of business bemoaning all along how the regulations were not stringent enough. They will choke us all no matter if they stay out or get involved more, because the destruction is already well on its way.