matteomastrom

I did not mean to write such a mean-spirited post earlier about modern music. Some modern music has good qualities--just not AS good as the music I like. The chip on my shoulder towards popular culture stems from my experiences with the rest of my age group, whom I consider for the most part to be completely depraved creatures who have a high probability of destroying the world once they become the adults in society. For example, I would sit alone and read during lunch in high school while the other students threw things at me because I was the smart kid. Everything about them, especially the godawful music they enjoyed, drove me into a fury that I have tried hard to put behind me but might not fully recover from for a long time. Classical music has been instrumental (pardon the pun) in helping me get past the rage I felt towards the world and experience more positive emotions instead. I can't help thinking that if everyone listened to what I listened to instead of this modern stuff that is a horrible, mind-crushing influence on adolescents, the world would be that much more peaceful. Imagine the consequences when an entire generation of Britney Spears clone girls and Justin Timberlake clone boys grows up to take the reigns of society. Human beings do not live by means of trendy dance moves and fashionable clothes, they live by means of intelligence. The mainstream does not encourage intelligence, it encourages conformity, and because of that it is not only bad art but a threat to human life.

My personal goal is to live in a free society, by any means I can achieve it. I plan specifically to make money by writing, composing, and perhaps other artforms and then use that money to promote my political ideal. When I speak of self-actualization, I mean simply living up to one's highest potential. I know other people use that term differently and sometimes to mean something non-sensical, but that's not how I use it. I have already achieved what I consider the most important goal: self-esteem. Anything I do in the future will be simply an expression and continuation of my self-esteem because I will gear my actions toward my survival and towards acquiring objects and friendships that remind me of how much I value my life. Working towards a free society, for example, is a great way to express your self-esteem in action because in that kind of society, you own yourself, keep what you earn, and trade using currency that is actually worth something, unlike modern American fiat dollars that are symbols of the national debt owed to the federal reserve banks. I believe that one's life is an artwork in progress, a blank canvas that you fill as you go along. I don't know everything that I will fill mine with yet, but I do know that I refuse to accept a non-capitalist society, for such a society cannot have a good future.

What I mean to say is that "yourself" is whatever you want to make it, and that you can live the life of an ideal man (or woman) if you try. You don't have to give up yourself to reach an ideal--you just have to change those parts of yourself that are counter-productive. I don't mean to copy Ayn Rand's book characters literally (that would be contrary to the principle of individualism, not to mention kind of silly); I don't want to change my name to John Galt, adopt all his mannerisms, smoke dollar-sign cigarettes, etc. I have my own idea of what the "ideal man" would be like, which is different than Ayn Rand's representation but based on the same philosophical premises. I want to put into practice a moral ideal, live as "man qua man," and work towards a free society (because no man of self-esteem consents to live in a society that considers him a slave). Individual self-sovereignty is worth fighting for, and I wish to devote myself to seeing that kind of society exist on Earth someday. John Galt was Ayn Rand's final expression of her ideal man, the man of genius who would not use his genius for the sake of those who wished to destroy him, the man without pain or fear or guilt, the man who loved his life, the man who used reason, rather than force, to bring down the evil in the world. Why can't we all be that kind of person? There's nothing stopping us but ourselves. Achieving self-actualization has become somewhat of an obsession for me, but if you're going to be obsessed with something, that's the thing to be obsessed about! Oh yeah, excuse the typo in my last post, the "I" should be an "is" in that sentence Brian just quoted.

The reality of life is that you have the free will to be anybody you want to be. Ayn Rand villains are abundant in our world because it requires less effort not to think than it does to live by the mind. People tend to follow the examples of their ancestors and peers rather than consider objective reality in their standards for themselves. I believe that if just one person became a real life John Galt, that one person would be enough to change the world, just like the book character changes the world by convincing the good men to follow him to a new society. Ayn Rand was a Romantic Realist, which means that her kind of characters are completely possible in the real world. Reason is the ultimate weapon. I have tried hard to live up to that which I know is possible for myself, and although my journey has been filled with danger and despair, I have no doubt that one day I will do what I have hoped for, which I to become a real life John Galt, or better. For people who would look for Ayn Rand's good characters in real life, I would say, "Don't look for them in someone else; set out to achieve the ideal for yourself." The only way to succeed is to ignore other people's opinions. If you want to see the bad characters, just watch C-SPAN.

I think anyone who listens to modern mainstream music is a second-hander. Modern culture is completely anti-mind, especially that icon of conformity that I love to hate, MTV. You just can't give your approbation to that kind of stuff and call yourself an ideal man or woman. Even if you do find a modern piece of music whose lyrics are not entirely evil, I guarantee you that you will never achieve the same level of personal enlightenment that you would gain from the kind of music I advocate. What is my reason? Modern music is designed specifically to get stuck in your head--the record companies do it on purpose to sell records, and even the good-intentioned musicians are too much influenced by modern standards to write anything truly individualistic. The time you spend re-playing song lyrics in your head, whether they be rock, rap, pop, country, etc., is time you do not spend thinking about how to be a better human being. To achieve self-actualization you have to get rid of the mental clutter and bad premises that modern society is continuously injecting into your subconscious. That is why I do not listen to today's music or watch television anymore. That is not to say that all classical music is good, for the vast majority of classical music is not much better than today's stuff. The only composer I have found to be consistently good is Rachmaninoff, for he has a higher percentage of "masterpieces" among his works than anybody. Some of his works totally changed my beliefs about music. Symphony No. 2 in E-minor, Op. 27 - every movement is outstanding Isle of the Dead, Op. 29 - the middle section is one of the best things ever written The Bells, Op. 35 - first movement in particular Vespers All-Night Vigil, Op. 37 - first few songs especially Prince Rostislav - early symphonic poem that is hard to find but rewarding Piano Concerto Nos. 2 and 3 - his best-known major pieces After listening to this music, other music disappoints me. In fact, the only pieces I listen to regularly that are not written by Rachmaninoff are Beethoven's "Emperor" Concerto and 32nd Piano Sonata, Chopin's E-minor Piano Concerto, and various other classical pieces of good quality. Sometimes I will listen to electronica because I like the sound of synthesized music, but most of the artists are quite repetitive, unmelodic, and derivative in their composing. What ticks me off so much about modern musicians? It is that modern synthesizer technology enables so much that was not possible in the time of Mozart and the rest of them, yet they decline to take advantage of it because they are scared that they will be viewed as "not trendy" if they do something original. It just all sounds the same to me, and I cannot tolerate a lack of individuality in music--like so many other young people, these musical "artists" are just copies of one another. I think the only reason my generation listens to modern music is that they are afraid their peers will think they are "uncool" for listening to anything else. For example, if I were in the mall and a pretty girl came up to me and asked me what I was listening to on my headphones, she would probably make an excuse to run away and flirt with some jock the moment I answered her. But that's okay with me because I do not care about the opinions of conformists and do not respect anyone who does because they are cowards.

I was researching a Russian poet named Lermontov last night. I was interested because Rachmaninoff used two lines of his poem "Utes" ("The Cliff") to top the score of his orchestral fantasy The Rock, Op. 7. I will post a couple of his poems here. The Cliff By Mikhail Yurevich Lermontov, translated from Russian by Eugene M. Kayden A golden cloud at evening came To sleep upon the mountain's breast. And, gay, at dawn she left the crest To wander in the sky, aflame. A trace of dew, of night's caress Remained upon his ancient face of stone He looms as in a dream, alone, And softly weeps within the wilderness. (1841) The Sail. Lermontov. Translated by Irina Zheleznova A lone white sail shows for an instant Where gleams the sea, an azure streak. What left it in its homeland distant? In alien parts what does it seek? The billow play, the mast bends creaking, The wind, impatient, moans and sighs... It is not joy that it is seeking, Nor is it happiness it flies. The blue wave dance, they dance and tremble, The sun's bright ray caress the seas. And yet for storm it begs, the rebel, As if in storm lurked calm and peace!.. My favorite poem, however, is probably this one: We are the music-makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams, Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams; World-losers and world-forsakers, On whom the pale moon gleams: Yet we are the movers and shakers Of the world for ever, it seems. With wonderful deathless ditties We build up the world's great cities, And out of a fabulous story We fashion an empire's glory: One man with a dream, at pleasure, Shall go forth and conquer a crown; And three with a new song's measure Can trample an empire down. We, in the ages lying In the buried past of the earth, Built Nineveh with our sighing, And Babel itself with our mirth; And o'erthrew them with prophesying To the old of the new world's worth; For each age is a dream that is dying, Or one that is coming to birth. I had read something that gave credit to W.B. Yeats for it, but I just found out that it was written by Arthur O'Shaughnessy instead (it's certainly Irish at any rate).

I am somewhat surprised to hear that Leonard Peikoff will vote for John Kerry but can understand his thinking in the matter to an extent. The religious right does pose a threat to America; religion has the cultural effect of deteriorating people's belief in reason and has been a hindrance to human progress for a long time. But I'll be damned before I'll cast my vote for the left! I think that the only positive result of Kerry being elected would be that it would thwart Hillary Clinton's likelyhood of nomination in 2008, which would be good because she is even more a militant socialist than Kerry. Although I do not defend Bush, especially since he has demonstrated himself to be such a big spender, the Republican party generally pushes for big government less than the Democrats do. It will be Mike Badnarik for me, mates. I know that the Objectivist establishment does not really condone the Libertarian party, but I think it is important that a third party have a strong showing if we are ever to have progress in America. The duel between the Democrats and the Republicans is in my judgment a red herring manufactured by the media to keep people arguing about derivative issues so that they will be distracted from the fundamental issue of our liberty, which is what really matters. Both parties have the same ultimate agenda, which is MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, LESS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. So whether Bush or Kerry wins does not matter--America still loses. The media likes to cover the election as if there were only two candidates; don't fall for it. I don't know how Peikoff can feel comfortable casting his vote for one of the most liberal politicians out there. This will be my first presidential election (I turned 18 in 2002), and I have a hard time convincing myself to vote at all. They're all a bunch of bastards in my opinion. Maybe I should just stay out of it, let America commit suicide, and hope I have the resources to keep myself alive when the world comes crashing down.

I think what I was trying to say earlier is that consciousness is not the actor but the audience. When you raise your arm, for instance, it is obvious to you that you did it by means of your free will and were conscious of having done so, but that does not mean that your consciousness was what did the willing. My view is that some other part of your being is what executes free will and that your state of consciousness follows from the choices you make, rather than the choices you make following from your state of consciousness. This is just my amateur speculation because I am not well educated in science and do not know what this would mean in terms of neuroscience. I should not have said that Ayn Rand "cleverly avoided" the issue because that is indeed a poor word choice. I was just criticizing her for not having the answers I wanted because although the answers might be outside the scope of philosophy by her definition of the subject, that does not mean she shouldn't have tried to find them. John Galt, for example, does not seem the type who would let any mystery of existence go unsolved while he still lived. But perhaps I should put my money where my mouth is because Ayn Rand certainly accomplished a lot, and it is hypocritical of me to criticize her unless I go in for a degree in neuroscience and do it myself. I do not think we are just a congregation of particles floating around according to deterministic laws. I intend to keep at the question until I reach logical conclusions that are verifiable in terms of axioms that anyone can see to be true, at which point I will publish the answers to the mysteries of the universe and get rich.

Brian, First let me recommend that for any type of schizoid symptoms it is important to have some kind of support from another person who can keep you in line should you have a bad episode. I have indeed experienced delusions, paranoia, depression, mania, etc. and know that things can quickly get out of control, but once you have the experience to recognize the negative thoughts when they occur, you can learn to manage them. Experience is the key because you will be able to tell what thoughts are hurting you and what thoughts are helping you. The first thing is a commitment to self-constructiveness and driving it into your head that you value your life and will not under any circumstances do anything self-destructive. It is excellent that you have gotten over your depression--that was also the first thing that I learned to conquer, and it shows that you are smart enough to work through things with yourself. Ayn Rand is a great person to read for anyone who is experiencing mental problems because she has such a firm dedication to rationality. You will quite possibly be able to manage your problems without medication or other extensive doctor treatment, although you should certainly seek a professional opinion in the matter. Just do not subordinate your judgment to that of a doctor who may or may not hold rational premises. The study of ethics will lead you to happiness because you will learn how your emotions are a response to your values and that since you have control over your values, you have control over your emotions. Overcoming paranoia is simply a matter of acquiring good judgment about reality. As for delusions or anxiety, I think you will find that most types of delusional thought are ridiculous once you analyze them. For example, if you feel like you are being watched, just say who cares even if they are watching? If you have anxiety about impending death, just think whether or not anything is truly threatening you at the moment, and if it is, get away from it! I've been close to death many times; you learn that you should just do what you can do and forget about the rest. Believe in yourself and believe in free will.

I was diagnosed with mental illnesses myself, but now I think that it's the shrinks who are crazy! Perhaps if I had not learned about Objectivism, I would have become insane. Having found out about Ayn Rand at fifteen, I saved myself from the dangerous path of irrationality that would most likely have led to my death. Ever since, I have maintained a pretty good grip on reality. Anyone who can understand the Objectivist epistemology can be sane. There are some people with valid neurological disorders that truly prevent them from grasping reality--but those are extreme cases where the brain is severely abnormal. Despite the ridiculous attitudes of the mental health establishment, most people's so-called "mental illnesses" are just the result of not having a rational philosophy. Don't buy into it--they're just trying to con you into spending your money on pharmaceuticals and doctor visits. If you have the capacity to reason, you can work through your problems. (But if your attempts at logical trains of thought are regularly interrupted by hallucinations, delusions, etc. that you find yourself unable to control, then you should seek treatment.) Logic anchors us to reality. I was not only able to use philosophy to counter my mental illness--I turned it into something positive. My mind might work a little differently than normal people's minds do, but I consider it a great gift. I have much more creativity and originality and a wider variety of thoughts and emotions than what I suspect others of having. My whole life has changed since I learned to come to terms with myself, and I would not give up who I am for anything. (For reference, probably the most accurate diagnosis for what I've had is schizo-affective bipolar type.)

There does not have to be a conflict. I go with my family to church quite often and have become convinced that the praise songs they sing are all about me. I admit that I did not create the universe (for nothing can in fact be created or destroyed). But I do have the power to choose my own future, and that is the only power any being can ever have. So next time your parents ask you whether you believe in God, say, "Aye, I believe in myself and worship me, too!"

As an aspiring composer who has listened to the excerpts from the piece, I think that this "Concerto of Deliverance" is pleasant at best but hardly a Richard Halley masterpiece. For one, it does not demonstrate much artistic integrity: the composer tries to blend too many different styles of music into one work (reminds me of the second-hander architects from The Fountainhead). Stick with Rachmaninoff. Some of his works (and not just from the piano concertos--you have to delve into his orchestral and choral works to appreciate Rachmaninoff fully) are exactly what I imagine when I read Ayn Rand's descriptions. I agree that it was improper to hijack the title of the piece from Atlas Shrugged. Just write music to the best of your ability and let listeners judge for themselves whether it agrees with their notions of the sound of deliverance.

Congratulations! You have asked the big question, for our understanding of the universe will not be complete until we have scientific answers regarding the issues of consciousness and free will. I asked the same question when I read Peikoff's book and spent over three years coming to terms with it. Ayn Rand cleverly avoided having to answer the question by noting that her task as a philosopher was to identify that free will exists and that it is the task of scientists to identify how it works. But that does not get us anywhere because scientists haven't done so. I think part of what you are getting at here is the question of the NCC or Neural Correlate of Consciousness. (I don't know who came up with that term, but I am familiar with it from reading some interesting articles about consciousness by David Chalmers on Ray Kurzweil's website, kurzweilAI.net.) What is the exact relationship between consciousness and the brain? Any honest neuroscientist will tell you that we simply do not know yet; neuroscience is a relatively new field of study that has a long way to go (which is disappointing because of how relevant it is to all of us). It is obvious (just ask any drug user) that changes in the brain correspond to changes in consciousness. The fact that consciousness corresponds to brain activity, however, does not necessarily mean that it is a result of such activity. Many scientists tend to believe that consciousness is some kind of by-product of material events and that free will is just an illusion. Such a viewpoint is of course unfitting to Objectivism. I believe that free will is a real phenomenon because 1) I am directly aware of having free will and 2) it would rather take the fun out of things if I didn't (not to mention that it would invalidate the normative branches of philosophy). One of the conclusions I reached is that we are conscious of being beings who have free will. That is, free will is not an aspect of our consciousness but rather something that we are conscious of, an attribute of our being. By separating consciousness and will by saying that consciousness corresponds to will instead of exerting it, I can avoid the problem and leave it up to scientists to discover how exactly consciousness correlates to that of which it is conscious. I have extensive ideas on this subject, but they require a lengthy explanation to be understood because I redefine a lot of terms such as "physical." I think that ultimately physicists will have to incorporate free will into their model of the universe if they ever hope to find a final theory of everything. Personally, I've reached as many conclusions as I deem necessary to write a book about the subject, so I'll get to work on that directly "I think it has something to do with free will." ~ Time Bandits