ChristopherSchlegel
-
Posts
246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ChristopherSchlegel
-
-
Humans don't have the potential to play instruments periodically, and humans don't have the potential to design acoustic instruments that sound periodically.
Andrew, what do humans have the potential to do with instruments? Do you have a defintion of music that you could offer in alternative to what you disagree with concerning Ayn Rand's statement? Most specifically, if real-world instruments are "aperiodic", do you think there is a defining or essential characteristic to aperiodic sounds that makes it possible to separate them into two categories: musical and non-musical?
My position is that any "auditory object" can be used to create music as long as it can be heard by a human ear and understandable to a human mind as pitch specific. So, you can create sounds from a violin, synth, or drums that are pitch specific enough to be musical in nature.
Also, I listened to your MP3s on your myspace page linked in your signature. Are all the sounds in those MP3s representative of what you regard as musical sounds? Can you provide an example of a sound that is not potentially musical in nature?
Periodicity is fundamental to the concept of a musical scale, which is derived from ratios of the pure tones.In my estimation this is right on the money.
Your 'pure tone-real sound' dichotomy is just a form of the theory-practice dichotomy. It is wrong and explicitly rejected in Objectivism, and is the real issue that must be overcome before any progress can be made in this thread. Musical scales are not just mathematically justified, they sound right. The mathematics of musical scales is an explanation, a story told in hindsight, not a cause of what is musical.Wow. Well stated. Grames, I've sincerely enjoyed your replies in this thread.
-
Oh, yeah! And I earned an amp endorsement with Reason Amps this past fall.
The idea with these vids is to demonstrate the basic settings & parameters of the amp with different guitars.
1. Epiphone jazz box into normal channel.
2. Epiphone jazz box into bright channel.
3. Epiphone jazz box into stack channel.
4. Fender Strat into normal channel.
5. Fender Strat into bright channel.
6. Fender Strat into stack channel.
(Check out my shirt in the vid.
)Happy listening!
-
Been a while since I posted here.
Thought I'd drop in and put up a couple more recent links.Here's one aimed at beginners trying to learn lead. It's a primer on combining fills with simple chords in a blues.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ead-Rhythm-111/
Here's another Blues Orchestration idea:
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ation-In-A-112/
Enjoy!
-
I think your problem is in this assumption.
So there must be a psychological basis for it.I think it's more accurate to say there is a philosophical basis for it. As in the nature of human cognition & consciouness. There is a fundamental difference between philosophical & psychological.
I think the reason it was widely developed was due to a lack of conceptual understanding of the metaphysical versus the man-made. It was used as an "explanation" of nature by some; a tool of manipulation by others. Ayn Rand's essay at the the beginning of For The New Intellectual contains a wonderful discussion & summation of these issues.
-
Gibson has been gradually adding more of my lessons. My latest is pretty neat, a concise, but still complete intro to Chord Melody Style from the ground up. All still free on Gibson.com!
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Chord-Style-621
Here are some of my other recent lessons for Gibson:
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Style-Blues-512
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...fter-Youve-Gone
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...Louis-Blues-320
Happy viewing!
-
Thank you for this post, ChristopherSchlengel. It was very helpful to me.
You are welcome. Glad you found value in it.
-
Since I feel like people are debating this point ...
There is no need for a debate or a poll. We have a lexicon.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html
You are free to agree or disagree. Your life and the degree to which you enjoy it will be the result.
-
I'm not arguing the concept. I'm arguing the description of the concept.
Fair enough. But in my personal estimation, you seem unnecessarily concerned with upsetting people that are wrong in their understanding. You don't have to convince or conquer them. Just explain that you are rationally selfish and go about your business. You don't have to argue with every fool that comes along. If your actions are integrated with your professed principles, you will be happy, and anyone that is worth dealing with will notice it.
It's just that most people don't think like Objectivists.That's my point. I must live in a reality, which is largely populated by non Objectivists. I need to explain my behavior, one way or another, at times in order to function in cooperation with non Objectivists. I can't just reject reject reject indefinitely anyone not Objectivist as I go down the road of life.
Ayn Rand wrote about this issue in The Virtue Of Selfishness in an essay entitled, "How Does One Live A Rational Life In An Irrational Society?". Her theme in that essay addressing that valid question is:
"One must never fail to pronouce moral judgment."
-Ayn Rand VOS
And this goes to the central issue involved here in this thread. You might be surprised how quickly the rats scurry back to their little holes when they hear a confident, perceptually successful, happy individual say with sincere conviction, "Yes, I am selfish. I am rationally self-interested. I have no intention of sacrificing my self-interest."
You don't have to be mean or combative about it. Just be sincere. Do not be meek or unconvincing or humble. If nothing else, just do not agree with or acquiesce to the evaluation that self is in anyway bad. If you expect to have a chance to live and enjoy your life, if you ever expect to have a society that is ever more rational, we must never surrender the word self in any way shape form or connotation.
In fact, some people do find me of interest and would like to know more about my code of ethics, at times. Do I tell them, flatly, that I'm selfish?Hell, yes.
If they are of value to you, then be prepared to rationally, honestly, but not combatively, explain.
Language is all about 2 or more people communicating and it isn't individualistic.This is wrong. And I wonder if it is not what is causing you trouble with this issue.
Language is primarily about identification. Only after that first crucial task can it be used secondarily, as a consequence, as a tool of communication.
So, yes it is individualistic. Like all thinking is.
Best of success standing up for your self.
-
If the body of laws are created by immoral people, how do we get from where we are now to a moral body of laws?
Ayn Rand covered that quite well in Philosophy: Who Needs It. In particular, read the essays "Don't Let It Go" and "What Can One Do?". Also, support ARI - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...te_arc_activism
I still think that the people who create immoral laws are not stupid, they are evil.Some are evil. Most are either stupid or mistaken. Rationality is not automatic. Otherwise it wouldn't be a virtue.
They realize that what they're doing is immoral, but they do it anyway because they are only interested in wealth and power.Am I wrong?
Yes, you are quite wrong here. I suggest re-reading Atlas Shrugged here if you truly think that is the case.
If they were truly interested in wealth, they would work to create it, or work to protect it's source. Instead, their efforts are aimed at seizing what they did not create in order to destroy the wealth and it's creators. They are interested in the destruction of values, not the creation of values.
-
It's clear to me that the popular accepted definition of selfish is an irrational selfishness.
I disagree. It is more accurate to say the popular package deal is that anything that is pro-self is immoral.
I don't think most people understand that irrationality and not self is the root of immorality. Further, in the popular understanding of selfishness and selflessness there is no room for the trader principle. There is no room for the man that is neither master or slave.
For example, it is perfectly moral for me to get a job, mind my own business and have a good life. Then, a local Christian busybody asks me to donate money to her altruist cause. I say, "No." She accuses me of being selfish because I don't want to give away my wealth to a cause in which I have no value.
She is right about about this much: I am being selfish. And I would instantly agree with her, "You're damn right I am." But the point on which we disagree is in our moral evaluation of my selfishness. Conversely, by what standard would she call me irrational? She doesn't care about rationality vs. irrationality. She only wants me to give up my values because I value them.
The solution is to reject the word selfish and replace the word with an equivalent phrase. I'd like to use the phrase rational self interest as a replacement for the term selfishness, but I will also debate the appropriate replacement phrase, if I must.I respectfully disagree. An Objectivist (or any human that retains a shred of dignity) should never surrender the word self.
Selfishness is the root of all good. No compromise. Ever.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
A lot of Objectivists say one of the biggest problems with the world is that people embrace the concept of selflessness...This is not accurate.
The problem is that people evaluate altruism (via selflessness) as moral. To the degree that, as you say, any people already practice rational self-interest, this is of course how they stay alive (achieve values). The problem is that they regard this part of their lives as amoral at best and as a necessary evil at worst.
This is how the average man morally evaluates:
To work, earn a living, pay for a house without a handout, to enjoy a few leisure hours. The average man wants to do them and does do them. But he regards them as amoral or immoral.
To give away all your money, to wash leper sores, to give up your leisure hours. The average man does not want to do them and does not do them. But he regards them as moral.
What is the one thing that can help them to understand they have everything exactly upside-down?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self.html
I don't think Objectivists convincing other people that selflessness is immoral will accomplish anything.Not by itself. But as part of an integrated philosophy that contains the concept of self as good, it will.
But of course, you are right that no one is actually selfless. It's impossible to achieve in perfection; it would mean death. This does not stop most people from evaluating altruism as good, and any action taken in self-interest as evil.
Politicians talk about selflessness, but they are not actually selfless, they are the most greedy people in the world, but they are looters, they are interested in stealing money and controlling other people.And the people who vote for these politicians are also not selfless, they just want free stuff, they are moochers.
In other words you have just evaluated stealing, mooching and looting as selfish by saying they aren't being selfless.
It would be more appropriate to say they are being irrational by desiring and seizing that which they did not create and does not belong to them. Where is their self? It "exists" in the every person that did create the wealth they desire to steal.
If everyone in the world agreed that selflessness was evil and selfishness was moral, would it make a difference?Looters and moochers would still exist.
But there would not be a body of laws that enshire and enforce altruism as the good.
Yes, since humans have free will, there will always be irrational people, parasites. The point is that the laws should restrain them from stealing that which does not rightfully belong to them. The laws would protect the property of those of us that are rational and selfish enough to create values to survive and enjoy life while we have it.
Besides, Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness explains the issue quite well, so I don't think we need to be concerned with what others think about it. The altruists don't care if you call it selfishness or rational self-interest, they still think it is immoral and it won't make a difference at all.Well said.
-
I recently extracted some of footage from the larger context of a series of lessons on chord melody playing style. In it I play a little bit of W.C. Handy's "St. Louis Blues" by way of demonstration. The Gibson website picked up on it and embedded it on their lesson pages. It has been in rotation as a featured Lesson Of The Day.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...ouis-Blues-320/
Gibson originally gave me the guitar to do a series of video lessons on an "Introduction To Jazz Style Guitar". For example:
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...z%20Style%20(2)
Enjoy!
-
Depends upon my mood.
A quiet, pleasant mood leads to Irving Berlin's Isn't This A Lovely Day; "Let the rain pitter patter, but it really doesn't matter ..." Charming.
Or Richard Rodgers' & Larry Hart's My Romance; "Wide awake I can make my most fantastic dreams come true ..." Beautiful.
A loud, boisterious mood leads to Van Halen's So This Is Love?; Diamond Dave: "Big double take, but ya keep on walkin'!" Good stuff.
-
Here is some recent footage of me using my Emperor at a local arts festival.
First up is Duke’s luscious “Satin Doll”:
Next is Irving Berlin’s lovely “Blue Skies”:
A friend captured most of my performance so I have decent footage from 16 tunes that I will edit, render and upload to my YouTube page over time:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChristopherSchlegel
Happy viewing and listening!
-
They tried to be creative, and by golly they came up with a cartoon version of An Inconvenient Truth.
Is this a remotely serious statement? Is this sarcasm or hyperbole? An Inconvenient Truth was a journalistic documentary-type propaganda film with no plot. It was presented (falsely) as non-fiction; as a "factual" report on real events. Wall-E is a fictional cartoon centered on the love story of two anthropomorphized robots.
Did you miss the vast majority of the focus of the movie in which Wall-E follows Eve to the ends of the universe to win her love? At one point by jumping and clinging on to the outside of a launching spaceship?! Did you notice that everything Wall-E does is solely in order to win her love so he can hold (mechanical
) hands with Eve? In fact, even when Wall-E is "helping" the humans in the movie, it is largely in the way of a "comedy of errors". From Wall-E's perspective he is just trying to do whatever it takes to get Eve to hold hands with him like he saw in the old movie. That he helps the humans is practically incidental to him. Would he be chasing the plant around the ship if it was solely for the humans? Or to help "save the Earth"? No! It's all because he knows that it is what Eve wants (her "directive"). And like any good guy trying to win the love of the good gal he does everything he can. Did you even notice the love story? If you did, are you saying that the love story in the movie is a smokescreen set up by Pixar so they can push an environmentalist agenda?
-
We (kid, wife, & me) just saw Wall-E, which we loved! So I thought I'd make a couple of observations that haven't been fully fleshed out.
Not to pick on you, Unknown Idealist,
but I wanted to use your post as a jumping off point.Just one example of this mindset:There’s the theme of Wall-E right there.
As Jennifer properly noted, this is a background feature of the movie and not the theme. Of course, it bothered me to see it in the movie at all. But I think it is important to note that the makers of movies are not generally philosophers or intellectual giants. I think what you get in Wall-E is fairly typical in it's blind acceptance of certain false premises: Marxism, environmentalism, etc. It's the background "static" uncritically accepted as true by "most average people" in modern day society.
I think it is fairly amazing that even though Pixar has those stale bromides in their mindset, they are still able to make a charming, beautiful, moving movie about the passionate, uncompromising pursuit of values! And make no mistake, that is the theme of this movie. The entire story revolves around a very straightforward love story between Wall-E and Eve.
No one yet has mentioned the utterly brilliant use of old footage from Hello, Dolly! It was on a VHS tape
in the movie that was obviously Wall-E's most cherished possession. It was really touching how he loved watching it, and tried to imitate it. It was how he learned about romantic love! Remember how Eve grabbed it and spooled out the tape trying to figure out what it was?! That whole scene was genius. That was such a pivotal scene in the movie.Also interesting was the play on words in names. Buy 'N Large was obviously "buying large". But it could also be "by and large". As in "people are by and large good (or capable of good)", or "people will do the right thing by and large (eventually)". The ship was named Axiom. As if it is "axiomatic" that humans will survive. While this is not axiomatic, considering the mixed premises in the background of the story, this is actually quite a benevolent attitude. Much more than other sci-fi movies that project a human future that is much darker than this one.
I think someone else mentioned the whole first act was done largely without dialogue due to the nature of Wall-E being a robot and mostly alone. I think this was extremely well done. Bravo, to Pixar for another job well done.
-
You sound great, man! Wonderful, thank you for the links!
You are welcome. Thanks for listening and replying.
Hey man, I play too...Have any vids of you playing?
-
I recently purchased a new digital vidcam. This is my first test vid using it. I used my La Patrie concert cutaway because I have not yet used it in any of my vids. I've had it for close to a year now. It's the main guitar I use for performing now. I really love it. The piece is my arrangement of a Beethoven piano sonata movement.
Enjoy!
-
As I recall, one of Roark's options for putting food in his mouth was to design the kind of buildings that were in demand at the time. Now no one faults him for not holding on to his ideals and principals.
No one in the book? Or any given reader? To whom does this "no one" refer?
I personally would "fault him". It would have made a terrible development in the book (and his characterization).
But where was he more likely to meet men whom he could interest in his designs? In a rock quarry or an architectural firm?But where did he meet Dominique?
Remember that Roger Enright had trouble locating Roark because he had left architecture entirely.So that Rand could send him to the quarry! To have him hit "rock bottom" and still be what he was, not bitter, not a failure, still just Roark ("I am only myself."
). And of course so that he could meet Dominique. What genius story plotting by Rand. Had Roark stayed in New York and worked as a draftsman for other architects, his talents and ideas would been seen by those who could offer him the kind of work he really wanted to do.And made for a terrible story!
And regarding compromise, if Roark can help the government with its immoral collectivist housing project, why not help a private business with its Beaux Arts office building?Because he made the right decision in turning down the commission. And that allows Rand to put him in the quarry. Great plot development! In contrast, helping Keating was a mistake that Roark made and which he then had to bear the consequences of. Another genius plot development.
I think you might be forgetting Roark is a stylized character in a carefully structured story. As opposed to your friend, Leonard, who is (was?) an actual human being.
-
Arthur C. Clarke died yesterday at age 90.
Just saw that.
Clarke was one of my personal heroes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C_Clarke
While not ideal or without intellectual flaws, he was indeed a brilliant man with a wonderful sense of life.
In case you've never read them, his "Odyssey" series (2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001) contains by far the most intelligent, far reaching, thought provoking sci-fi ever written. 3001 in particular has the added benefit of rationally, properly actively attacking religion and mysticism explicitly. Regarding the more well-known film 2001, Kubrick made a very visually interesting movie. The images are beautiful and stylized to the max. But he utterly DESTROYED the content of the idea.
It would be tradegy to dismiss the book because of the movie. The book is a very quick, precise, CLEAR read. The total, polar opposite of the movie in it's presentation of the ideas. For whatever reason, Kubrick (apparently with Clarke's sanction?) did his best to obscure the ideas in the film. Reading the book is really amazing, especially after seeing the movie and thinking, "What the ...?" Because Clarke at all times makes it perfectly clear is happening.
My favorite Clarke quote, from the "Odyessey" series, in which he is describing an advanced alien intelligence:
"And because, in all the galaxy, they had found nothing more precious than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere."
I gained much irreplacable value from Mr. Clarke. I will miss him. Salute!
-
My work at several online lesson sites earned me a Gibson-Epiphone endorsement. They sent me a wonderful machine, an Emperor II Joe Pass model in exchange for some simple, intro to jazz guitar video lessons. Gibson recently published the lessons on their site (free to view):
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Less...amp;search=true
Over the last decade I've been more and more interested in solo jazz guitar. And that interest of course led me to the magnificient work of Joe Pass. As such, doing those lessons on that site with a Joe Pass model guitar is a sincerely cherished achievement for me.
Enjoy the vids!
-
But Dominque spent hardly any time with Roark before she let him conquer her.
Start reading at Part Two of "The Fountainhead" again. Read the first two chapters. It was enough.
There are so many things that happen in that span that is amazing writing. Their meeting, their short, pointed conversations, her pursing him while trying to "not give in to it", her breaking the marble of the fireplace and asking him to fix it. Then, him really breaking it for her (foreshadowing deluxe!), then the talk about "fine marbles" and "Pressure that leads to consequences that can't be controlled after a certain point" (not verbatim, just from memory). Then, Roark sending Pasquale instead of going himself to replace it.
Man, those two chapters are filled with sexual metaphors and tension. Most importantly, Dominique was not yet a "happy, integrated" person. That is the primary reason for her actions on their first sexual encounter. To a degree, both of them were operating on "unstated, unnamed premises", but premises they possessed nevertheless already; their "sense of life".
If I recall correctly, she tried to brain him with a lamp or something like that...I think the lamp thing was going way to far.She reached for a lamp. Roark knocked it out of her hands and it crashed on the floor. I think it was crystal; another good metaphor. Think of the statue Dominique destroyed. Like she will try to spend much of the rest of the novel destroying Roark, but isn't able to as she did the statue. Nice touch of symmetry there!
Personally, I don't see why a woman should have to struggle the first time for it to be a proper romantic-sexual encounter.Any particular woman does not have to physically stuggle like Dominique. But, consider if a woman did not "stuggle" at all, in any way, even if only to wait until a man has proven to her he is worthy of her affections. Just passive, sex with any random stranger that passes her on the street and says, "Wanna have sex?" And then she uncritically replies, "Whatever." And then has sex with him.
So, the "struggle" doesn't necessarily have to be physical, it could also or solely be mental (conceptual, emotional).
-
I recently added a couple more vids to my YouTube page. Just me practicing at home preparing for performances.
There are a couple of others you can see from my user page.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ChristopherSchlegel
Enjoy!
-
I did not mean to sound like a policeman there, I just thought you might want to be made aware of the situation. It would seem so far that th mods might see enough merit in the thread to keep it around.
Fair enough. In that case, thanks for the "heads up".
Some participants in the forum add value, some do not. Mr. Schlegel is in the former group, and I am personally not at all inclined to say anything more that "best of luck with your project".Thanks for your sentiments.
I've never played any instrument, but viewing a few of the piano beginner lessons, has made me curious to check out more as a means of understanding some of what is happening when people play, even if not to play myself.This is one way people have used it. I hope you learn something of interest.
I hope the project goes well.Me, too. Thanks.
I'm curious about something else though: when learning music, isn't it important to have an instructor who can see what one is doing and correct one's mistakes?Of course. Sites like this should be a suppliment to an "in-person" instructor for anyone truly serious about learning the piano. But with enough discipline this site can be a great value. And for those without the benefit of a local instructor it can be an invaluable resource. In many ways the site is a big experiment.
For me personally, a great deal of the value is in the fact that many people ask me for lessons but I don't have the desire to teach privately anymore. Or the time even if I wanted to. So this project takes care of several objectives in one fell swoop.
Thanks for your interest. -
As for whether this is a proper thread, the Forum Rules contain this ...
So, it would seem to me, this thread might come dangerously close to breaching this...
I apologize if this is inappropriate. Obviously the mods or admin can completely move/delete the whole thread if they deem it so. I thought it was a fun thing to share because so far the site is completely free of charge. So it's not as if I am advertising for a product. The site might potentially in the future get to that stage. But it is not there now.
And for now I was only sharing a bit of what I do (that is free!) with fellow Objectivists. I have posted quite a bit on Music Theory & such. As a consequence I have had forum members mail me about various musical related issues. This site is one way in which I hoped to address some of those questions while sharing some of the results of my productivity.
Again, to mods or admin, please delete this whole thing if inapproariate. I had/have no intention of spamming the site or it's members.
What the Heck IS Obama?
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Damn right. The fundamental alternative to point out regarding politics is Individualism (i.e. individual rights) vs. Collectivism (i.e. violation of individual rights).
Calling him a statist is also accurate, but doesn't help much in political discussions with many people. His various premises & policies are all over the map with various "-isms" (all, except laissez-faire capitalism, of course). They are all accurate to various degrees.
I think it is best to call him a collectivist. A spineless, collectivist parasite.