See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Ayn Rand and a Freedom4um member
Source:
Liberty Forum
URL Source: http://www.libertyforum.org/
Published: Aug 25, 2007
Author: Ellis Wyatt
Post Date: 2007-08-25 16:52:48 by HOUNDDAWG
Keywords: None
Views: 2575
Comments: 80
Re: What's Wrong with Ayn Rand? [ To: Polichinello | Post 295708967, reply to 295700567 ] (Score: 2) This, by virtue of its redundancy, may very well become my last lengthy reply on LF. It was, once, a site of libertarianism and free speech. Now it feels a lot more like ATS or FR. I remember lively debates, but see few lately. That is unfortunate, but it is clearly not in my power to change the trend. First, a disclaimer, via discussing what I am NOT. I am NOT a "randian". I could accurately be called a "post-randian objectivist". I practice MY epistemology by the Law of Volition. Because of the nature of objectivist epistemology, errors in identification, by any individual no matter what they call themselves, are to be noted and corrected, and the correction integrated into the "concept hierarchy" that is the average man's consciousness. So, I'm an Ellis_Wyatt-ian objectivist. She was in no way perfect, and I may well refute some of her errors to prevent others from having to do so. Peikoff's diatribes? Nor do I practice Peikoff-ian objectivism. However, he wrote a brilliant refutation of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy that is a must read for anyone one the fence. More on that later. Peikoff is wrong about a lot of things. He also had a quite a crush on her, I opine, and is prone to hero-worship, unlike me. I've nailed runway models - Rand qua female is no particular prize. Cute-ish and smart, but probably didn't fuck like a porn star. Peikoff looks like the consummate virgin -- I was the drummer of a grunge band, and plowed the fields accordingly. I cite Heinlein. Or, it is useless to throw the ARI at me as evidence of what "objectivists" think, because I may have already refuted them. Or, I've been ~10 miles away from the ARI for 7 years, and I have never once had any desire to go. Objectivists tell me I need to read AS to get Rand. Not THIS objectivist. Funny, I'm going from memory because my copy of IOE is loaned out to a friend. And here's the thing, Rand came up months ago, I recommended IOE because he was "smart enough to go straight to the nonfiction". He, high school teacher, went w/ Fountainhead instead, against my advice that if it had to be fiction, at least it should be AS. And then he came back and I had to spend an hour unraveling the knots that book leaves in people, it is so poorly concieved. Roark BARELY practices objectivism. So, for the obviously literate, I recommend IOE every time. It is NON-fiction. It is a FORMAL proof. Fuck fiction. The answer is nothing beyond caricaturing them. In that book. Aquinas stands thoroughly refuted elsewhere. nominalism (or conceptualism, if you prefer) I most assuredly do prefer. Nominalism != conceptualism, and that is the analytic/synthetic FALSE dichotomy again. It's like cartesean dualism, and easy to refute: cognition is a function of the organism; there is no mind/body split. Just so, there is no concept/referent's nature split inherent in cognition, we introduce it with sloppy concept formation and integration. Rand properly identified that the fundamental unit of man's consciousness is a concept, which I use interchangeably with meme. Note, nominalists, that which word I use has NO POWER to change that FACT that the fundamental unit of cognition is what it is. the platonic realists Concepts, thus, are derived from first principles, and must never fail to conform to the objective world as directly perceived via the senses (there is no mind/body split), as they are integrated into the larger body of knowledge of the individual. There are no platonic "essences" separate from the objects, nor the concept nor the user. One can rationally deduce that concepts are specific, utile, and the coin of the mental realm, so to speak. And it does not matter what word or symbol I use, the REFERENTS, and all preceding logical hierarchies, persist and MUST persist for the concept to hold its objectivity. When I use the word "table", I know exactly what I'm referring to, how the concept is subsumed under "furniture", what its distinguishing characteristics are, all the way back to the ostensive proof that, because I can rest my drink on it, existence exists, and I exist as a function of reality. tautologies... are of no use whatever. Not true. "Existence exists" is an aphorism, a way of summing up something that takes a bit more words to say in pure form. Thus it is useful as a verbal shortcut, as well as being memorable. However the word "tautology" is often used negatively in supposed refutations of objectivism, because you can't prove one, and her "whole philosophy rests on one". No it doesn't. It rests on the ostensive fact freely obvious to any human that you're a real person living in a real world with real rules. At the end of the day, my explanation of "how I know" it exists rests, not on a faith, but on the simple fact that I have ZERO evidence to believe that existence does NOT exist. Sleep, dreams, acid trips... nothing changes, it's still my cognition in reality. Burn me and it hurts, and I form an automatic memory (read: concept) of the experience and the source. A concept is a mental equivalent of the object it represents, and the nature of the concept must exactly match the nature of the object, in essential details. Fire burns, which can be held to be an objectively true statement, and NOT a tautology, when the proper definitions are used. See "guns kill". Tautology? But we can all agree that "Existence exists" is a tautology, but not meaningless when considered as a soundbite, and that the statement is not used in her logical chain. You also have the Kantian dichotomy of noumena/phenomena, Berkeleyian/Humean skepticism and Hegelian dialectic. All of these schools of thought think different things when you say "A is A." So? Lotsa idiots think lots of things. However, Rand derived her three axioms of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness from reality. They are defined very specifically, and thus can be said to truly represent the three fundamental processes of your existence. Without any one, none are. All others processes of life are derived. Everyone you cited falls under the simple error so common of the latter half of last millennia, of attempting to refute knowledge with knowledge. The hysterical part of Kant's Critique is that he is exceedingly well reasoned lol, using that which he says is meaningless as his vehicle of meaning. Those who would refute the 3 axioms MUST (and always do) use them as primaries in their attempts. This is akin to knocking your knuckles on a tree as a means to "prove" to me the non-existence of the tree. So, you know, Hume can go screw. I like some of his writing and values, but a true "skeptic" is a man who denies the nature of his own mind in reality. grad school To me, a college degree is points OFF the clarity of one's mind, because I have met MANY college grads. However, one of the more perfidious canards is that objectivism is little discussed by college philosophy professors, and thus is not to be taken seriously. This is because Rand killed the epistemology question for "philosophy". She won. Like Newton and calculus, eventually the schools will come around, but not yet. Tesla's radiant energy is scoffed at by all but the seriously brilliant academians, but it is true and verifiable to even armchair electricians. Michaelson-Morley is wholly flawed and at a grad school level and up everyone knows this, but if you are not an astrophysicist or QM, etc, your textbook tells you there is no aether. Einstein said GR REQUIRED an "ether" (I have the audio), but that is not taught either. So, forgive me if I am undersurprised that kantian leftists trying to bed coeds don't like Rand. She's the most significant philosopher in 3,000-odd years. They don't teach the real physics in college, and they don't teach the real epistemology either. In the exact same way a bureaucrat wants only to preserve his job, Rand is persona non grata in the college classroom. We note, however, that she does JUST FINE in high schools and below. I think I read Anthem in 6th grade, IIRC. However, said canard was indeed rolled out for the umpteenth time in TFA. It speaks more to the deep subjectivity of said professors that she is wholly ignored, as opposed to given a fair shake as a notable 20th century American philosopher. They probably give L. Ron Hubbard a more serious treatment, and one does not need too think to hard to see why. Kant/Hegel/Russell - all are very easy to refute. Nominalism is false. Existentialism (as an epistemology) is false. Yet they are what is taught, and they are the philosophies of powerlessness, and they are the prophets of socialism and communisms, as well as Illuminism, that have set back the progress of eastern Europe for centuries. To close, all refutations of objectivism, if they are to be valid, must refute its formal delimitation. Refuting fiction is the consummate modernist philosophy gag -- "but what if, in all possible universes..." -- FUCK other universes I don't live in and there is no evidence of. And I'm a guy who has a fair grasp of string theory, I have no problem imagining other universes. But to say my knowledge in THIS universe is "incomplete" because you can imagine a universe in which you can construct arbitrary rules which invalidate the proof I'm trying to establish in THIS universe is to fail Occam's Razor. You are injecting the inapplicable and unlikely into the argument for, I claim, nefarious purposes, whether you know it or not. Or, the question is: what's RIGHT with Ayn Rand? Answer: the entire top architecture. She makes some blunders later (romantic aesthetics, statism, rights, interventionism, and various and sundry humanities), but it is in fact true that, tautology or otherwise, existence exists. This is why she is not taught. This is the cause of TFA. This is the cause of this post. I believe the field of epistemology is largely answered, for now, minus still integrating new evidence that comes along. I doubt that said new evidence will refute the underlying proofs in any non-integratable way. I exist, I perceive, I conceive, I act.... I ascribe to a "fractal holographic" view of the universe. The whole and its parts have the same informational topography. Cognition is a function of entropy. These are advanced concepts, but exceedingly well reasoned. Entropy, per se, is largely misunderstood by Newton. Ergo, don't fucking quote dead Germans at me. Those are old ideas, long since refuted, but as yet still promulgated by those who seek the nihil that nihilism advocates as the norm. The method I use to acquire this knowledge is objectivist epistemology. I apologize for nothing, and the burden is on the negative to refute my assertion(s). Be well. Poster Comment: Not only is Ellis Wyatt a gentle soul and a gifted musician and producer, but he is one of the smartest katz I know. Check out the big brain on Ellis! His writing style reminds me of Winston Churchill who also had a quaint yet interesting slant on his quill. For instance, instead of asking if his driver was ready to leave, Ol' Winnie asked, "Is the coachman up on his box?" a reference to the horse drawn conveyance of a big gone era. I relate to people like that. Although I try to to write for the masses (of which I'm a proud, card carrying member) that's as much a result of my limitations as my preferences. At least one member has commented on Ellis' "quirky" style so I understand that some may disagree with my praise. Either way Ellis writing is noteworthy, and I believe interesting enough to warrant a thread to spotlight it and him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: HOUNDDAWG (#1)
I guess I'm not a kewl peep. :(
I think your cool.
Thanks. You're kewl too. Ain't had but a few minutes to check in lately. will be gone all next week too. I'll try to pop in at your place when I get back.
God, ain't that the truth. Most self-absorbed and repetitive writer EVER.
Ellis_Wyatt, christine, Zipporah, lodwick, Jethro Tull, Peetie Wheatstraw, rowdee, robin, Diana, farmfriend
Enemies of the Republic
#36. To: Critter (#35)
I guess I'm not a kewl peep.
#37. To: farmfriend (#36)
Enemies of the Republic
#38. To: Dakmar (#22)
Ayn Rand always pissed me off because she seemed to think that any idea, no matter how trivial, bore repeating for at least thirty pages.
 | Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#39. To: Critter (#35)
I guess I'm not a kewl peep. :( Me neither. *sigh*
Ellis_Wyatt, christine, Zipporah, lodwick, Jethro Tull, Peetie Wheatstraw, rowdee, robin, Diana, farmfriend
| Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#40. To: tom007, jethro tull (#28)
Rand's books are those one would read to learn what NOT to believe in. Personally, I despise Atlas Shrugged and its very premise and philosophy. But then, I usually go against the grain. ;)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#41. To: IndieTX (#40)
Join the crowd. Loopy Libertarians are usually good for 0.0001% of any national vote.
But then, I usually go against the grain. ;)
#42. To: Elliott Jackalope, Critter (#39)
No slight intended. I don't have a ping list, and that's why I said SOME kewl peeps. The list was by no means compete. Working from memory is bound to disappoint me. I blame the 60's. Again I apologize to you two and many other kewl peeps.
#43. To: Brian S (#27)
I type it that way as a sign of respect, and I am FAR, FAR from 'jewish'.
Are you jewish? Only folks on the forums I visit that type God as "G_D" are jewish?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#44. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
Thanks for posting this HOUNDDAWG. gentle soul and a gifted musician and producer, I'm going to kick your ass in a most unmusical fashion if you keep that up. Ellis' "quirky" style Ellis writes what he wants, and it is NEVER not targeted to a smaller, more intimate, circle of readers with whom I am personally familiar. And to those who did not see the original, this is a response to an article titled "What's Wrong With Ayn Rand", posted by one of the biggest idiots at LF, and agreed with by otherwise semi-informed people. So herein it is a bit out of context, and the formatting was lost so it is tough to tell when I'm quoting LF old dawg Polinichello. So - grain of salt and all that. Here's the original, with some continued debate below, and I owe a rebuttal to P's last long reply.
#45. To: farmfriend (#5)
Hehe, aw c'mon! It's not like there was some obvious and/or obtuse Appearance of Impropriety, or anything.
There is a reason for that but I won't go into it here
#46. To: lodwick (#6)
Fun while it lasted. Her ya-yas went va-voom, I'll add. Cute kid, sweet as pie and pretty sharp, but eventually I got my feet kicked out from under me by a petite punk chick with a razorwire wit. So it goes.
Anyone who nails runway models is fine with me.
#47. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#44)
I hope you'll stop by here when you feel inspired to write.
Republicans like em stiff!
#48. To: Tauzero (#21)
... in the general population. I will of course claim that my transmissions are predominantly not biased (if that means "erroneous" and not "targeted"). You, considering, will probably like my coming rebuttal wherein I will dig into neurology, and conceptual cognition as a predictable derivation of biochem. I'll post my larger replies in this thread.
...meaning that biased transmission is the predominate component of human cognition.
#49. To: Mekons4 (#24)
Throwing a lot of big words around does not mean grasp of what they mean. Indeed. Do you suspect that either Poli or I do not know the classical (or common, or objective) definitions of these "big" words? You may not know me as well as you think you do. has no grasp of what either said. I'm pretty sure that my bookshelf shows I know quite a bit about both. And I would love to hear him explain Hegel. Start a thread defending him - I'll happily wipe the floor with ya. Hegel, lol. What's next, Wittgenstein on the non-objectivity of definitions? The Sun is whatever society deems it to be by convention? Go ahead bro - take the affirmative and see what happens. their conclusions are simplistic and generally laughable. You seem to be immature and myopic. Ad Hominems do not a refutation make. One notes that your posts contain nothing but Ad Hominems. Do you always use fallacies as proofs? I mean, you're a Kant fan, so I figure that you'd be unaware that you were using reason to refute Reason, so I'm not surprised. But do you have anything to say that will actually show to me the error of my ways that is not just name calling? Fallacy Ad Populum will fail just as roundly, I assure you. anti-intellectual. That was Rand in one sentence. One of THE stupidest things I have ever read, when written by someone who claims to have an educated opinion. No banana for you - try again.
#50. To: Mekons4 (#31)
Rand, IMO, was a ditzRand, IMO, was a ditz Where's YOUR formal epistemology, buddy boy? FAIL. Stranger in a Strange Land. EPIC fail. You do not understand the premise. I'd appreciate reaction to that article. Where's the link, ditz? Did you forget to do the obvious, if indeed you'd "appreciate reaction"? Reaction to WHAT, exactly? Your CLAIM of a post that there is no objective evidence of? Why don't you just tell me it's brilliant and we can agree on how well you thought it all out b4 hitting submit? Rational self interest what now? Fail.
#51. To: Elliott Jackalope (#38)
Actually, having just re-read Illuminatus! last Sunday, I have to question your assessment. "Kallisti", and all.
Most self-absorbed and repetitive writer EVER.
#52. To: HOUNDDAWG (#47)
I have a non-binding informal agreement with Astoria that I'd give my new (novella length) essays a 24hr exclusive on the boondocks' soapbox. Just to push traffic. Circumstances may certainly merit otherwise. It appears, then, that I'll repost here and at LF (where ratcat/skywalker/many others still frequent) after said 24 hrs. Why? Shit, I dunno, lol. Just cause posting 3 places in a row is a hassle? Did I ever give you the impression that I was not a lazy SOB? If so, my bad! And to wit - Poli has a long reply coming, and one of the major ones in the pipeline is "Autarchism" (note: no "manifesto", right?), detailing that particular politic. The latter has to be nigh perfect, so it may be a while. The former (et al) I will repost in this thread for the record. In the meantime I'm sure current events will piss me off enough to put out a page or two here and there. If history is any judge, that is. Sent your take of "In My Life" to Rodd, huge beatles fan. He loves it, wants to cover same himself. Is there a later mix, or should I master the take I have? Or: careful what you let me get my ears and knobs on! ^^ I have a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW), and I'm not afraid to use it, bub. Roasting here in Cali - gonna take a cold shower and call it a night. Cya later, stud.
I hope you'll stop by here when you feel inspired to write.
#53. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#45)
You are welcome to hear about it in private.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#54. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#52)
Funny that you mention "Autarchism" because in one of my first rancorous chats at LF a young fellow rejected my ideas in favor of "autarky". I GOOGLED and found no explanation, and was I ever humbled by the experience. Later a kindly soul intervened with the correct spelling and I got it. (I know it's hard to believe that a man could reach my seniority and not have ever heard the word or concept mentioned. Oh well.) Regarding your essays, we have more than a few gifted folks here and I'd enjoy seeing them and you posting original work. Perhaps you can serve as a catalyst and get the ball rolling. Regarding my recording of IN MY LIFE, were you able to capture that slithering snake that got loose when I was recording the vocal track? If I record myself, a bass player and drummer live then I can improvise and that my friend is what I really want to do. None of my friends or even my "new DNA daughter" or her kids have ever heard Gramps ripping on guitar. It's nice to receive polite compliments on the old ballads, but it isn't really what I do or who I am. I want to record my improv solo rock/blues style for posterity and the ballads are mere prep as I work toward that goal.
Republicans like em stiff!
#55. To: farmfriend (#53)
Well, if there's anything particularly juicy, we can talk about it via email (ellis_wyatt@mail.com). I'm sure I'm missing some of the back story.
in private.
#56. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#55)
Is that address correct?
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#57. To: HOUNDDAWG (#54)
Well, it used to mean "absolute rule by a monarch", but I stole it back from the tyrants for the common man, to mean the sovereign "Rule of Self by Self". My reply to Poli will be posted herein shortly. Will flag. Lol - I haven't tried yet. I'll give it a whirl, and see if noise reduction will affect just the vox, or close enough for government work. Another possible solution is to dump just the vocal to mp3, and then I can apply NR to just that, which WILL work pretty effectively, but may be difficult for you to sync up again. I'll try method #1 first. Well, I can't do much to help that from here, other than faking the back up band. If you want me to throw together a barn-burner, I'm going over to my friends to do another session in a week or two, and I can improv some fretless over drums. I guess the question would be: 12bar blues in E, or what? How about something like the solo section of Floyd's "Money" - little break down in the middle, etc?
Autarchism
Regarding your essays,
were you able to capture that slithering snake
I want to record my improv solo rock/blues style
#58. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#57) (Edited)
Yes! Floyd's MONEY! I'd love to improv over that! That would be fun! And a 12 bar blues in E would also be fine and I'd I love that too! This could be a fun project! (If you don't mind dewin most of the work! heh heh) EDIT: I got excited and forgot to tell you that I'm looking forward to your reply to Polichinello, too.
"Is our children learning?"__G. Bush
#59. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine, farmfriend (#57)
These things are not the same, ergo there must be distinction. Again, my clarity lacked. We were talking about "concepts". What is a concept? Is it a symbol, or a word, or a tool of cognition? At root, it is an electrochemical state retained automatically by the nervous system of the organism. Neuropsychology is pretty well established in this area. So, regardless of later terminology, we are talking about matter in reality, wherein physical law shall not be denied. Is the electorchemical state the concept stores the object itself? Of course not. I have said concepts can be objective, not that they ARE the object itself. If one wishes to say that the mind perceives it as a "symbol", one can, as long as one retains the chemical principles upon which that euphemistic term rests. Reality IS objective. It does not matter who believes it, who denies it, or who ignores it. It exists absent perception. Perception is NOT reality. Perception is the act of sensing reality. The organism does this automatically, as observably do almost all life forms, and hypothetically ALL life forms, to some degree. But that does NOT mean such perceptions are subjective. The perceptions themselves, by the nature of chemistry, are objective by definition. To "feel pain" is to engage in a physical process that is entirely within the realm of basic chemistry. Such is INHERENTLY objective - it is nothing but the macroscopic view of a myriad microscopic chemical processes. As such, sense data is, by definition, objective. One might argue that, when you falsely thought you felt someone tap you on the shoulder, just because there was no tap, the sense data was "subjective" or "illusory". But this is false. The chemical nature of cognition shows that the thought itself is an objective chemical process, whether caused by a real tap, or some glitch of the brain. Arguments that attempt to say organisms are inherently subjective in their concept formation are omiting the physical nature of said concepts. "Subjective" denotes the distinction between the observer and the observed. Nothing more. However, it can be shown that, with a proper model of concepts, that this distinction does not make concepts inherently inaccurate, or make objective knowledge impossible. Objective knowledge is concepts that conform 100% to the essential nature of the object itself. The essential nature is NOT "every possible atomic datum the object manifests". I do not need omniscience to gain objective knowledge. All I need is a definition that isolates the features of the class of objects subsumed under the concept that differentiate it from OTHER concepts. Thus, I do not need to know the color of every table ever created in history, because color is not an essential characteristic of tables. Tables can be ANY color, and thus color is OMITTED from the definition as non-essential. When a concept, thus removed of non-essentials, tests 100% consitent for all objects subsumed under that concept, that concept can be called objectively true, barring new evidence that exposes a misidentification of essentials. A table may have 3 legs or 4, and to cite a flaw in Rand's exposition of this, not all tables have legs, tho she claimed "all tables have legs" as one of her essentials, IIRC. Thus, THIS objectivist identified that misdefinition, and removed that non-essential. She said something like "a table is a flat, level surface, on which one places other objects". I'm not sure that's perfect, but it is pretty effective at distinguishing tables from flat surfaces that are not level, such as a wall. Whatever the essentials, by identifying all of them and only them, one has gained a conceptual definition that DOES describe every table, and does NOT describe anthying else in its entirety. This is the purpose of adjectives. A "blue table" and a "red table" are both tables under all essentials, with non-essentials varying. Thus, what is subjective knowledge? It is a concept (or heirarchy thereof) that does NOT correctly identify the essential and non-essential characteristics. Now, this is all too common, so you'll never hear me say that "only objective knowledge is possible", because none but objectivists and hard scientists care very much about essentials. "Love is a many splendored thing" is a subjective concept (or proposition in logic), because it fails to define the objective essentials. "Love is the highest possible evaluation of an item by a volition," IS objectively true, because it defines the proper essentials: volitions choose values. Even the concepts that "everyone agrees" are impossible to define are QUITE definable. Conventional wisdom be damned. But they can also take on non-verbal symbols as well. Which are, as above, real world electrochemical states no matter how one tries to put them in a place "separate" from reality. The relation between milk and hunger would exist, regardless of whether the child is there to perceive it. This is not true, if you mean "if NOONE was there to perceive it", because "hunger" requires an organism to perceive it. Or, there is no Platonic "form" of hunger, or anything else. And when you speak of semiotic relationships existing "outside the mind", what is "hunger" if not the electrochemical process of perceiving sense data? Further, it is minds that create "relationships", because such are the result of conceptual identification of common characteristics between two different objects. If you take away the faculty that does the relating, one cannot say the "relationship" still exists. Where would it exist? In the objects themselves? In characteristics noone identifies or is present to perceive? Or, I discard the notion that there are Platonic "relationships" that exist outside the mind, because an essential characteristic of "relative" is "as compared by a conciousness". It is YOU who relates this rock to that one. That's why it's important to account for error, I do account for it, by defining what it is NOT. An "error" does not exist absent a "correct" answer. It is a zero, an anti-success. Thus it defines a negative, and I am right to first define the positive that makes the existence of errors possible. I'm not sure how you mediate the gap between object and "mental representation." The gap between the two is non-essential to the concept of objective knowledge. It is INHERENT. That is why we are discussing "knowledge" (a mental faculty) and not the object itself. The "split" (that is alleged to invalidate the objectivity of a given concept) is a red herring, because no-one said "a concept and the object it represents are the same thing". Else I could go spend the $100 bill I'm imagining right now. The mediation comes above, wherein one identifies the facts of the object that are then integrated into the conceptual representation of it. If the facts are non-contradictorally integrated, the "gap" between the two still exists, but such is not a barrier to the objective validity of the concept. It simply means the concept "rock" is not a rock. "C'est ci n'est pas une pipe," for example. when you use words like "believe" to describe something, I find it hard not to call it "faith." To me, one should only "believe" objective knowledge. Belief is the act of choosing what is true, correctly or otherwise. Many people use faith as a substitute for rational deduction in establishing their beliefs, but that doesn't mean all beliefs are based on faith. I believe what I know. I do not entirely believe that which I do not entirely know. I believe I'm a male, cuz there's my dick. Is that faith? I hardly think so, no pun intended. ;) -- Poli, in short, I've heard a great many people tell me that knowledge is not possible, and objective knowledge doubly so. I've often asked "but how do you know it?", and it used to surprise me that philosophy students and professors would then get a smug grin and exclaim "I don't!". That is the stupidest bullshit I've ever heard, and I had never quite understood how someone could say "I believe my beliefs are unbelievable", until I discovered the psychological suicide that is the denial of the efficacy of one's own mind, which is all the more retarded in the context of a college "education". I have never once heard a refutation of objectivism that does not, at its root, rest on the premise that "what is, is not", or "this true statement is false". Sometimes it takes some digging thru layers of verbiage to isolate the core fallacy, but it is ALWAYS there. There is NO WAY to "prove" the inability of "pure reason" to "prove" anything without using IMpure reasoning. And if one looks at Kant's LIFE, and not his writings, it is not too hard to see that he was a miserable son of a bitch, defending his own immorality via a convoluted sophism designed to "prove" no morality is possible, so that he might have a free pass to continue boning coeds. And because he did such a wonderful job of bullshitting away objective moralty, he is the darling child of all those philosophy professors (and everyone else) who ALSO wanted to continue boing coeds without having to ask themselves "am I right?". But like objective reality and objective knowledge, there are objective definitions for concepts such as morality, ethics, justice, reason, and the like. Some would like to pretend otherwise, and one only need to study the reality of the behaviour of the subjectivists themselves to discover whether such epistemologies cause good or evil in the world. Or, what should properly be called nihilism (e.g.: any philosophy that establishes a negative as its primary) was born out of the same areas of Europe that then commited mass suicide in war after war after war. Shall I take the oh-so-loving behavior of historical Germans as my standard of "a life fitting a man on earth"? I think not. It is what it is, and I see it clearly, as is my burden if I expect my plans to succeed... in reality.
My latest rebuttal.
#60. To: HOUNDDAWG (#58)
Yeah, that's one I can actually play on guitbox, lol. It's in B, so how about we drop it to A (or any key) to cover our tracks? ;) Okay, ya feel like running it in straight time instead of swing, just to have one of each? Sort of more Zep's "Rock and Roll", but maybe a few bpm slower? Or not, lol? Seriously bro, I can give you practically anything you want, but we should hammer it out in advance so we don't have to keep shipping files back and forth. Bah - it's not that much work. I'm pretty quick by now. If I try to make the drums absurdly realistic (see: GIPCo), well, yeah - that takes some fiddling. But I figure I'll just one-off the bass more or less, cuz I'm pretty competent at walking around a blues. Always, mate. Always. Posted and flagged!
Floyd's MONEY!
And a 12 bar blues in E
most of the work
This could be a fun project!
your reply to Polichinello,
#61. To: farmfriend (#56)
I'm logged in now, so it's either correct or magical. ;)
Is that address correct?
#62. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#52)
Oh forget it. I won't say a thing to you now.
I have a non-binding informal agreement with Astoria that I'd give my new (novella length) essays a 24hr exclusive on the boondocks' soapbox. Just to push traffic.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#63. To: farmfriend (#62)
Hoisting me on her petard, eh? That seems fair. :P You may consider that, just because I happen to be friends with a variety of people there, including her, who has been nothing but nice to me, it doesn't mean I cannot keep my mouth shut, or don't know a great deal about the LF behind the scenes anyway, nor about the morality of Guilt By Association. But hey, if that's how you roll, keep rolling. I hope you will have the lack of vanity to not ignore me completely @4um, just because I visit sites you're, I assume, not welcome at. It's funny, tho. Today, most of my favorite former LF posters and I were in a very detailed debate about the constitutional and practical implications of the wording of the 14th amendment, vis a vis a Ron Paul presidency. It is a very interesting conversation that you are missing, for what I'm sure are excellent reasons. Me? I'm simply glad I was there to read some very astute political analysis, to which I contributed. I guess that this egoist is humble enough to not hold on to perceived slights to my own detriment. Hmmm.... other than me, do I see any herein? I'm sure that the many posts in this thread by whom I presume are regulars are in no way indicative of the kind of superlative insight I can expect to find here. Feel free to refute objectivist epistemology, if you care about being on topic in a thread. Maybe it's just an out of fashion convention, so do what you will. If you can. Best.
Oh forget it. I won't say a thing to you now.
#64. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#63)
If I wasn't directly pinged to it, yeah I probably missed it. Sounds interesting though. Perhaps but I have been given ample reason not to trust anyone associated with that group so you will have to forgive my misgivings. Normally I am a very trusting individual but get stabbed in the back enough times you start looking to see who is behind you.
most of my favorite former LF posters and I were in a very detailed debate about the constitutional and practical implications of the wording of the 14th amendment, vis a vis a Ron Paul presidency.
You may consider that, just because I happen to be friends with a variety of people there, including her, who has been nothing but nice to me, it doesn't mean I cannot keep my mouth shut,
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#65. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#63)
Oh I was welcome. I left volutarily and asked that my membership be removed. I respect Earth, Shadow and Legion. I still post at Liberty Forum though not often and Jack Barbara signed up for my forum early on to wish me luck. I won't ignore you and will actually try to be friends. That's my style. You are even welcome at my forum.
I hope you will have the lack of vanity to not ignore me completely @4um, just because I visit sites you're, I assume, not welcome at.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
Oh, Jeeeee-sus. (I'm not nuts over Rand either, though)
Peikoff is wrong about a lot of things. He also had a quite a crush on her, I opine, and is prone to hero-worship, unlike me. I've nailed runway models - Rand qua female is no particular prize. Cute-ish and smart, but probably didn't fuck like a porn star. Peikoff looks like the consummate virgin -- I was the drummer of a grunge band, and plowed the fields accordingly.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... 
#67. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#59)
Funny! I can hardly wait for the reply! Sometimes the truth can be absolutely vicious, and that's the objective truth! Your post reminds me of an amusing anecdote about Noah Webster, of the dictionary by the same name. It seems that one of his students ran up to him excitedly and said, "Professor, did you know that "sugar" is the only word in the English where s-u is pronounced "shu"? "Are you sure?" Webster replied.... As luck would have it, there are two words..... The next reply from Polichinello should just about wrap this one up, wouldn't you say? :)
"Is our children learning?"__G. Bush
#68. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#60) (Edited)
Yes, A is a great key for me because I have to whole neck for improv (without playing any Chinese music or playing diminished runs i.e. flat 3rds and fifths, which to my ear doesn't lend to this type of music) I've been playing some of Forrest Lee Jr.'s music (he took the website down with the free downloads of my faves) and as a Nashville kat he uses open strings in E and A to display his amazing solo prowess, so, hopefully I'll be happy with my contributions in those keys. Although I'm quite comfy playing on the black keys (I committed heresy here in DE when I put The Tennessee Waltz in Eb for the singer. She was struggling to hit the pitches in C because her other guitarist, a more typical country kat with limited musical knowledge, i.e. couldn't transpose on the spot if his life depended on it was more concerned about his ability to solo comfortably than her ability to sing it.) My background as a commercial show band musician involved a bit more sophistication than required of the average rocker. (Can you imagine ME singing tunes from THE SOUND OF MUSIC? "The hills are alive....with the Viet Cong....." ) But, for the past few years I've been woodshedding with Nashville players' stuff, and that means a lot of lix built on open string runs. I used to pride myself on the ability to transpose to any key to accommodate vocalists and that's fine when the song is I WILL SURVIVE or SUMMERTIME. The minor blues riffs easily adapt to any key for those tunes. But now I'm actually playing tunes that require open strings or a capo, and I've never used a capo on stage in my life. (Okay I'm a snob) But, since I play for myself now I can study the C&W players' techniques, and I'm enjoying it. And as you know, melodic country solos seldom use the standard minor blues riffs and they stick out like a sore thumb at hayseed fests. Fortunately I have a nice country solo style and a bag of trix for those occasions. Here's Forrest Lee Jr playing TELETHON. I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that The Fender Telecaster is more than an icon, it's a cult in country music. And Forrest Lee, Jr. and Vince Gill are high priests of this "religion." I sold both of my Teles 20 years ago. Oh well. Strats are acceptable in country, but if I ever dew "The Opry" I'll definitely buy, borrow or rent an American Tele and a sequined jacket for the occasion! ;)
"Is our children learning?"__G. Bush
#69. To: HOUNDDAWG (#68)
Real quick like, because I want to keep programming: The working title for take one is "Lucre". :) Maybe the other will be "Rock And A Hard Place"? Oh yes - I crack myself up.
#70. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#69)
"Lucre"? Why that's just plain filthy! And Rock And A Hard Place. Check.
She spent all my money, wrecked my new car....and now she's with one of my good time buddies and they're drinkin' in some crosstown bar..."__Allman Bros
#71. To: HOUNDDAWG (#68)
Dammit, now you've done it. First, Mr. Lee is ripping that one up, I do declayuh. And, how about I make take 2 that kind of barn burner - ie: screw Zep - let's see if you've picked up der kwik lix. Is that so-called "chicken pickin'"? Don't remember if said is a finger pick style or not. Ha! You ARE serious, lol. It was on the tube last night, and I sang along the whole way thru! Does that make me gay? Probably. Oh jesus, lol. Which really does separate the men from the boys, eh? On guit or bass I can do it in real time, even modal transposition, but would have a helluva time on piano. I guess I never understood how someone would find it difficult, but I suppose that knowing numerical chord relations (I/IV/V) is the whole trick, and it just automatically processes thru my "fretboard vision". Haven't thought too much about it, because it works, lol. Anyhoo, there's a sample of the "Lucre" up at your email, is that tempo okay for ya (considering that the other is going to be blazing)? Little faster, mebe? Entirely up to you.
an American Tele and a sequined jacket
singing tunes from THE SOUND OF MUSIC?
"The hills are alive....with the Viet Cong....."
i.e. couldn't transpose
#72. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#71)
Outlook Express removed the attachment and flagged it as "unsafe". (prolly 'cause it'z from California and you guyz are promiscuous and stuff-heh heh) Will you send it 2 my other e mail addy please? Thanks. And that ripping tempo is fine if you wanna dew it.
She spent all my money, wrecked my new car....and now she's with one of my good time buddies and they're drinkin' in some crosstown bar..."__Allman Bros
#73. To: Ellis_Wyatt (#71) (Edited)
Edit: I'll send you the story though it is kinda long and encompasses several forums.
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
#74. To: farmfriend (#73)
Go for it, and take your time.
#75. To: HOUNDDAWG (#72)
Joke's on me, because I'm not making good use of all the amazing tail around me.
you guyz are promiscuous
.
.
.
Comments (76 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest