<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="RSS_xslt_style.asp" version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:WebWizForums="http://syndication.webwiz.co.uk/rss_namespace/">
 <channel>
  <title>Progressive Rock Music Forum : Progressive Music as Objective Music</title>
  <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/</link>
  <description>This is an XML content feed of; Progressive Rock Music Forum : Prog Blogs : Progressive Music as Objective Music</description>
  <copyright>Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
  <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 01:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
  <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:53:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
  <generator>Web Wiz Forums 9.69</generator>
  <ttl>360</ttl>
  <WebWizForums:feedURL>www.progarchives.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=62580</WebWizForums:feedURL>
  
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by VanVanVanThis...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619988#3619988</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> April 13 2010 at 21:53<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by VanVanVan</strong></em><br /><br />This thread really interests me. I've read the Fountainhead once and Atlas Shrugged twice, and while I think that some of Ayn Rand's ideas are absolutely batsh*t insane and that the woman herself was nothing short of ridiculous to the point of hilarity, I do agree with a lot of what she said. <div></div><div>That said, I can see where the OP is coming from with calling progressive rock objective music. The obvious connection is to &#091;Atlas Shrugged character&#093; Richard Halley, who (like many prog musicians) wrote his music not for any sort of acclaim but as an expression of himself; nothing more. He did not write it for anyone else, he wrote for himself. I certainly think that prog embodies this musical better than any other philosophy, but I don't know if that means you can call it purely objective music.</div><div></div><div>Brilliant idea; though, I never would have thought of this.</div></td></tr></table> <br /><br />That is precisely the idea!  <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley32.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> <br /><br />Thanks! I actually got inspired while reading to Richard Halley's words in Atlas Shrugged  <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> <br /><br />Nonetheless I do think that Rand's philosophy is for the most part correct... but I have to admit that she was a bit (well...more than a bit)crazy...  <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> <span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by ProgressiveAttic - April 13 2010 at 22:01</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619988#3619988</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : This thread really interests me....</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619950#3619950</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=26222" rel="nofollow">VanVanVan</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> April 13 2010 at 21:35<br /><br />This thread really interests me. I've read the Fountainhead once and Atlas Shrugged twice, and while I think that some of Ayn Rand's ideas are absolutely batsh*t insane and that the woman herself was nothing short of ridiculous to the point of hilarity, I do agree with a lot of what she said.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>That said, I can see where the OP is coming from with calling progressive rock objective music. The obvious connection is to &#091;Atlas Shrugged character&#093; Richard Halley, who (like many prog musicians) wrote his music not for any sort of acclaim but as an expression of himself; nothing more. He did not write it for anyone else, he wrote for himself. I certainly think that prog embodies this musical better than any other philosophy, but I don't know if that means you can call it purely objective music.</div><div><br></div><div>Brilliant idea; though, I never would have thought of this.</div>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619950#3619950</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : In Ryand&amp;#039;s vision, authority...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619883#3619883</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=17335" rel="nofollow">progpositivity</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> April 13 2010 at 21:03<br /><br /><DIV>In Ryand's vision, authority figures tyranically squelch&nbsp;individual expression.&nbsp; The antidote is the elevation of the individual's self-interest above all else.&nbsp; One appeal of Objectivism is its&nbsp;celebration of the autonomy and value of the individual.&nbsp; </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I *do* see a connection to Progrock or Avant music in that they can be somewhat&nbsp;contrarian (even self-righteous),&nbsp;daring to stand up for what it believes in&nbsp;despite ridicule and persecution.&nbsp; No doubt, some of the Objectivism's ideas are positive and constructive.&nbsp; </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Ironically, when put into practice in the real world, the philosophy of Objectivism&nbsp;insists upon such singular devotion to&nbsp;the *self* that it&nbsp;squelches individual expression of ideas that are deemed "altruistic" or "non-objective".&nbsp; In so doing, it sadly degenerates into one of the things it so passionately seeks to prevent:&nbsp; a form of tyrrany against individuals who don't conform to its established requirements.&nbsp; So, in a most unusual and unanticipated way, within&nbsp;the social setting of the real world, time and again Objectivism&nbsp;becomes the very monster it promises its followers that it will&nbsp;defeat.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>These are not abstract and unfounded accusations.&nbsp; This is what a dispassionate&nbsp;person can witness time and again wherever the tenets of Objectivism are&nbsp;implemented within a social (group) setting.&nbsp; <DIV>The first (but not only) case study&nbsp;to observe is&nbsp;the&nbsp;Objectivism put into action by&nbsp;Ann Ryand within her own social circle.&nbsp; This is well documented.&nbsp; I don't need to go into the details here.</DIV></DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Objectivism,&nbsp;despite&nbsp;its good in promoting&nbsp;responsibility and encouraging self-reliance, neglects to dig deeply into the communal aspect of humanity.&nbsp; It fails to recognize how deeply and intricately altruism and self-interest are&nbsp;interwoven one within another in the human psyche.&nbsp; Indeed, a full&nbsp;development of&nbsp; *community* is a little neglected within&nbsp;Objectivist thought, is it not?&nbsp; Yes, we are all individuals that must not get subsumed by a greater whole.&nbsp; But are we not also, by our very nature, social beings that wither and fall if isolated from a greater whole?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We live so much of our lives in groups (families, workplaces, towns, counties, countries) - not in silos of&nbsp;self empowered isolation.&nbsp; </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Ryand called Objectivism a philosophy for living, But I suggest that we "live" more fully when both self interest and altruism coexist...&nbsp; This need not be an "either / or" proposition.&nbsp; </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>To quote a certain 'philosopher' out of context...&nbsp; I'll just say that I belive "self interest" and "altruism" can be united into a "single, perfect sphere".&nbsp; </DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3619883#3619883</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by Atavachron  Originally...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524504#3524504</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 20:19<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Atavachron</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic</strong></em><br /><br />There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...</td></tr></table>yyyeeaaahh I don't know about that, chicken & egg-- it's like saying your doctor made you sick.  Also it depends what intervention you speak of;  Before the crisis?  During?  After?  Do you mean imprudent real estate allowances and home loans?  Corporate regulation/deregulation?  What, man, <em><strong>what? </strong></em></td></tr></table> <br /><br />I don't believe in Keynes' theory that the state should play the role of "doctor" in economy because the government has power and definite functions (police, tribunals and army) and it is dangerous to give to it more power and responsibilities (believe me...I live in Venezuela which now days is the example of what happens when you take that to an extreme)... anyways, as I said before I prefer not to comment about a country that isn't my own...(if you want to discuss about it I have no problem<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> )<br />but if you insist... here is a link for you to read (it is just an opinion that I find logical):  <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015" target="_blank">http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015</a> ]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524504#3524504</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by ProgressiveAtticThere...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524496#3524496</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=10439" rel="nofollow">Atavachron</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 20:03<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic</strong></em><br /><br /><br>There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...</td></tr></table><br><br>yyyeeaaahh I don't know about that, chicken &amp; egg-- it's like saying your doctor made you sick.&nbsp; Also it depends what intervention you speak of;&nbsp; Before the crisis?&nbsp; During?&nbsp; After?&nbsp; Do you mean imprudent real estate allowances and home loans?&nbsp; Corporate regulation/deregulation?&nbsp; What, man, <i><b>what? <br><br><br></b></i>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:03:06 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524496#3524496</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by Raff  Originally...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524490#3524490</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 19:52<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Raff</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Bonnek</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><em>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.</em>--&gt; Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore. <br /></td></tr></table>You would be surprised at how many people still believe that, at least here in the US<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif" border="0" alt="Unhappy" title="Unhappy" />. It seems like the events of the past two years never happened for them.</td></tr></table><br />There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3524490#3524490</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : &amp;#034;at least here in the US&amp;#034;--&amp;gt;Phew...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523850#3523850</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=25702" rel="nofollow">Bonnek</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 07:04<br /><br /><i>"at least here in the US"<br></i>--&gt;Phew you must be an early riser. And immediately checking the forum. That's what I call prog dedication&nbsp;<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley32.gif" border="0" alt="Clap" title="Clap" /><br>It's actually quite frightening what you say. I thought hardcore capitalism was given more critical thought in US as well.<br><br> ]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523850#3523850</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by Bonnek 4.The...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523841#3523841</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3717" rel="nofollow">Raff</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 06:41<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Bonnek</strong></em><br /><br /><i><br>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.</i><br>--&gt; Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore. <br><br></td></tr></table><br><br>You would be surprised at how many people still believe that, at least here in the US<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif" border="0" alt="Unhappy" title="Unhappy" />. It seems like the events of the past two years never happened for them.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523841#3523841</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :    I have a knack for joining...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523831#3523831</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=25702" rel="nofollow">Bonnek</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 21 2010 at 06:01<br /><br />I have a knack for joining threads after all life and interest have left them. <br>Here's my 2 cents anyway.<br><br><i>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.<br></i>--&gt; What a strange thesis. <br>As if feelings, wishes, hopes or fears aren't equally real as reality. Besides, we can only see reality through our subjective senses so objective reality remains unknown to all of us.<br><br><i>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates thematerial provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceivingreality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, andhis basic means of survival.<br></i>--&gt; Dream on. I might prefer it if reason would guide our actions, but I'd say were probably even more driven by instinct and emotion.<i><br><br>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to theends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificinghimself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of hisown rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highestmoral purpose of his life.<br></i>--&gt; That's simply romantic individualistic overstatement. But it seems like Rand had at least a good feeling of where things would head with society in the 21st century (western society at least). I'd say an individual is nothing without recognition within a social group. We're social animals as much as predators. There's not much thought gone in this philosophy really...<i><br><br>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.</i><br>--&gt; Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore. <br><br>I once read one book from her. I suck at titles but it was something about an architect. I managed to survive it for 3/4 of its length. It's a great defence of artistic integrity and unbound creativity. Which is great, but I can't relate it to all 4 points of her philosophy. I guess she was relevant at her time but like many philosophers she seems not to realize that our complex reality will never be described with just one theory.<br><br>PS. When it comes to music, I'd say point 1,2 and 3 are the credo of black metal rather then prog.<br><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by Bonnek - January 21 2010 at 06:02</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3523831#3523831</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by PabloVzlaI...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3499546#3499546</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> January 02 2010 at 20:50<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by PabloVzla</strong></em><br /><br />I notice a Vytas Brenner cover album...are you venezuelan.</td></tr></table> <br /><br />Yep and a huge fan of Vytas'  <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> <span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by ProgressiveAttic - January 02 2010 at 20:51</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3499546#3499546</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I notice a Vytas Brenner cover...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3496780#3496780</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=27391" rel="nofollow">PabloVzla</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 31 2009 at 19:54<br /><br />I notice a Vytas Brenner cover album...are you venezuelan.]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3496780#3496780</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :    Originally posted by freyacatThat&amp;#039;s...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3492691#3492691</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=27039" rel="nofollow">jv_neXus</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 28 2009 at 20:12<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by freyacat</strong></em><br /><br />That's why even Rush grew up and left her behind.<br></td></tr></table><br><br>Haha, I laughed at that one.&nbsp; I was the same way though.&nbsp; At one time I was a huge fan of Ayn Rand, reading Anthem, Fountainhead (which I still think is a very good book at least for the individualism in art aspect), and Atlas Shrugged.&nbsp; I "grew up" though and moved onto bigger and better things philosophically. <br><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by jv_neXus - December 28 2009 at 20:14</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3492691#3492691</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I hate it when I&amp;#039;m almost...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3490163#3490163</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=25306" rel="nofollow">fmotp</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 26 2009 at 09:46<br /><br />I hate it when I'm almost done with what I've written, and then I inadvertently erase it by hitting a button by mistake.&nbsp; In light of this, here is a much shorter response to this thread.&nbsp; The writer assumes that lovers of prog music are by definition more intelligent or rational than lovers of "pop" music.&nbsp; This is simply unprovable.&nbsp; He also assumes that rationality in music is necessarily a good thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; The root appeal of&nbsp;music is emotional. I&nbsp;love King&nbsp;Crimson's music.&nbsp; I also&nbsp;like Rihanna's and Billy&nbsp;Joel's music, examples of so-called "pop" music.&nbsp; &nbsp;]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3490163#3490163</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : This thread makes me want to start...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3483805#3483805</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 19 2009 at 04:20<br /><br />This thread makes me want to start one about how Frank Zappa was the Friedrich Nietzsche of rock music. Hell, it's not just the entire sarcastic iconoclast thing, as well as structuring their works in a chaotic manner, they also both had huge moustaches and are often accused of misogyny... and Nietzsche <a href="http://nietzschemusicproject.org/" target="_blank">did</a> compose a bit of music for that matter.<br><br>(that said, there's other planned prog blogs of mine that I'm much more interested in)<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3483805#3483805</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Did anyone ever see the Simpsons&amp;#039;...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3483403#3483403</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=107" rel="nofollow">freyacat</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 18 2009 at 16:15<br /><br />Did anyone ever see the Simpsons' take on the "Ayn Rand Day Care Center"?&nbsp; Little Maggie and the rest of the babies were left to fend for themselves.<br><br>Progressive Rock has too much love to be involved with Ayn Rand.&nbsp; That's why even Rush grew up and left her behind.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3483403#3483403</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :                 Can&amp;#039;t...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469929#3469929</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=27039" rel="nofollow">jv_neXus</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 06 2009 at 09:33<br /><br /><table ="tableBorder" style="table-layout: fixed;" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><t><tr ="msgableRow" style="height: 200px; min-height: 200px;"><tr ="msgableRow" style="height: 200px; min-height: 200px;"><td ="msgLineDevider" valign="top">   <!-- Start Member Post -->   <!-- google_ad_secti&#111;n_start -->   <div ="msg">   Can't progressive music be constructivist music?   </div></td></tr></tr></t></table>Sorry Time Signature, I didn't see your post before I posted mine.&nbsp; Looks like I wasn't the first person to make that observation.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469929#3469929</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I have read a small fraction of...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469912#3469912</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=27039" rel="nofollow">jv_neXus</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 06 2009 at 08:55<br /><br />I have read a small fraction of the posts on this topic but I have to say that I was immediately struck by the initial argument.&nbsp; I have read three of Rand's fiction books on objectivism (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem) and I have to say that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy.&nbsp; Good enough to understand where the philosophy starts to contradict human nature as much as Collectivism does (that is a later topic for another day).&nbsp; But my point is this, Progressive Rock, at least to me, has absolutely no representation of Objectivism (even though I see where all of you are coming from with the individualist aspect) because of one of the main points you originally asserted contradicts the nature of Progressive Rock.<br><br>Even though Objectivism is largely an individualist philosophy, it still asserts the idea that there is NO subjective reality.&nbsp; meaning:&nbsp; reality is completely concrete, unchangedable, and finite.&nbsp; 1. If you ask any quantum physics professor if they believed this they would probably start laughing, and 2. That in no way represents progressive rock.&nbsp; Progressive Rock (even though its highly individualist) represents a constructed form of expression by whoever is playing or composing it.&nbsp; It has no finite properties, it is probably the most infinite form of music.&nbsp; Trying to call it objectivist is quite appalling coming from a writer and musician who composes a lot of progressive pieces.&nbsp; If you wish to nail down Progressive Rock into a specific philosophy (which would also contradict its nature, because you are trying to shove it into another genre) then check out constructivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology<br><br>The basic idea is that the true nature of external reality is completely separate from human cognition.&nbsp; Meaning, what we see is an illusion of what is really there because of what our limited senses "construct" for us to see.&nbsp; Any one could really see the world in anyway they like depending upon how they program their brain to perceive the world.&nbsp; This is becoming a very large topic in the scientific community as they are becoming more and more aware of how limited human sensory perception is, and how infinite the universe is.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469912#3469912</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Can&amp;#039;t progressive music be...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469069#3469069</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=15021" rel="nofollow">Time Signature</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> December 05 2009 at 10:24<br /><br />Can't progressive music be constructivist music?]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3469069#3469069</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Excerpts form Rand&amp;#039;s...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459223#3459223</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=23371" rel="nofollow">sealchan</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 25 2009 at 17:16<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><DIV>Excerpts form Rand's "ROMANTIC MANIFESTO": <BR><BR><strong>"Philosophically, Romanticism is a crusade to glorify man’s existence; psychologically, it is experienced simply as the desire to make life interesting."</strong> <BR><BR>"What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values, an element that had been missing in the stale, arid, third- and fourth-hand (and rate) repetitions of the Classicists’ formula-copying. Values (and value-judgments) are the source of emotions; a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life. This emotional element was the most easily perceivable characteristic of the new movement and it was taken as its defining characteristic, without deeper inquiry. <BR><BR>Such issues as the fact that the primacy of values in human life is not an irreducible primary, that it rests on man’s faculty of volition, and, therefore, that the Romanticists, philosophically, were the champions of volition (which is the root of values) and not of emotions (which are merely the consequences)—were issues to be defined by philosophers, who defaulted in regard to esthetics as they did in regard to every other crucial aspect of the nineteenth century. <BR><BR>The still deeper issue, the fact that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, was not known at the time, and the various theories of free will were for the most part of an anti-rational character, thus reinforcing the association of volition with mysticism." </DIV><DIV></td></tr></table></DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>...it's fun to philosophize just before the weekend...</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I wonder if Rand uses mysticism in a primarily negative context...it is an interesting trait, if so, since intuition (the 'N' in NT) is the primary cognitive function supporting mystic thought and I suspect a strenght in her personality.&nbsp; Sensation, which tends to eschew, or be enraptured by, mysticism was probably in Rand's shadow...if she undervalued it.&nbsp; But if she had done some significant shadow (as in the Jungian meaning of shadow) work, her philosophy might be an effort to champion her own weakness...a good way to creatively produce a multi-modal perspective.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I've been tempted to pick up one of her philosophical works.</DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:16:27 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459223#3459223</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Oh and anyone who wants to use...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459214#3459214</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=23371" rel="nofollow">sealchan</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 25 2009 at 17:08<br /><br />Oh and anyone who wants to use the phrase "brain-colored glasses" I encourage you to do so.&nbsp; I just Googled the phrase and saw that there were no results for this.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is my chance to be famous!&nbsp; <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" height="17" width="17" border="0" alt="LOL" title="LOL" />]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459214#3459214</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I&amp;#039;ve read all of Ayn Rand&amp;#039;s...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459212#3459212</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=23371" rel="nofollow">sealchan</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 25 2009 at 17:05<br /><br />I've read all of Ayn Rand's major works of fiction and will read them again...highly recommended and entertaining...sort of like reading old school science fiction with its explicit&nbsp;philosophical content (go Asimov!).<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I think this is an interesting topic and one that I would have to consider deeply to answer fully but I have the following thoughts to throw into the ring...</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>1.&nbsp; I like Ayn Rand's philosophy and it appeals to me directly</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>2.&nbsp; I approach philosophy through Jung's Psychological Typology and in my personal view, philosophy is dead without a theory of personality and the kinds of epistemological biases a person's personality creates.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>3.&nbsp; A person cannot escape their personality.&nbsp; They must develop a self-consciousness of it and, in so doing, better contextualize their philosophy as a result.&nbsp; Contextualization of a philosophy is necessary as no rational system of knowledge is adequate without a self-recognition of its limitations.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>4.&nbsp; Putting personality as a basis out of which a philosophy arises results in a system of epistemologies that is multi-modal rather than mono-modal...that is, the truth arises out of a finite set of "truth-systems" (aka ways of knowing) that have differing strengths and are self-dependent (independent).&nbsp; Combining two such "truth-systems" requires an extra effort of the personality to contain conflict and stress&nbsp;a sense of individual&nbsp;integrity.&nbsp; Such combinations tend to offend the mono-modal perspectives.&nbsp; The best analogy from the sciences is how Einstein showed that the laws of physics depend on your inertial frame of reference...so they are both subjective (depend on personal truths)&nbsp;and objective (can be made to correlate if personal truths are taken into context).</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>5.&nbsp; Ayn Rand and I&nbsp;have the same basic personality, type NT according to the Kersey Temperament Sorter (derived from the Jungian model of personality types) and while I can appreciate&nbsp;Rand's views and see them as elegant and true, I realize there are some major gaps and that you would&nbsp;have to force such views on a majority of personality types in a way that goes beyond any argument of "ignorance".&nbsp; In fact, NTs are relative rare.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>There are some aspects of progressive rock that probably appeal more to NT types but I would not say that categorically...although I have been thinking it.&nbsp; I think that progressive rock might do better at expressing ideas than human emotion (and feeling is a rational type just as thinking is).</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>I also&nbsp;disagree with Rand that knowledge is based on the Rational since the Rational is also based on the Irrational, that is, perception and axiomatic beliefs which even mathematics cannot escape.&nbsp; Furthermore the world of sensual phenomena is coequal to the inner forms that the instincts/brain/mind seem to bring into our knowledge (aka archetypes&nbsp;of the collective unconscious/Platonic ideas).&nbsp; I personally have coined the phrase "we humans look at the world through brain-colored glasses".&nbsp; </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Rand has a definite rational agenda.&nbsp; Art, at its best,&nbsp;has an&nbsp;irrational agenda.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not that the two can't be made to work together but then you are "crossing the streams", that is, you are entering a&nbsp;multi-modal, irrational, mystical&nbsp;kind of truth&nbsp;in that context which is inevitably more subjective (= context sensitive).&nbsp; When I read Rand again I will expect&nbsp; find that some of her Rationality is based on Irrational premises that she has not made self-conscious.&nbsp; Some of those Irrational premises allow her to "transcend" certain Rational dilemnas.&nbsp; A creative application of Rationality goes in to hide these aspects... </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Philosophers still are stuck in the idea of producing perfect systems of truth without significant boundaries or limitations...and we students of philosophy are forced to accept or reject&nbsp;philosophical systems unless we are in an environment that encourages open discussion and consideration of those systems.&nbsp; I think philosophy is interesting but people who are stuck in arguing in absolute terms about philosophy (and we can easily throw religion in here) come off as a bit silly.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3459212#3459212</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Interesting. I&amp;#039;m reading...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3458417#3458417</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=2894" rel="nofollow">aprusso</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 25 2009 at 00:52<br /><br />Interesting. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I'm not a liberal (rather a socialist) but I agree with most of Rand's philosophy. I'll come back to this topic when I finish the book, but I'm glad that somebody brought it up.]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:52:20 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3458417#3458417</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by SlartibartfastI...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457534#3457534</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=16519" rel="nofollow">ExittheLemming</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 24 2009 at 07:30<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Slartibartfast</strong></em><br /><br />I just rad an artcle recently in the New Yorker.&nbsp; Anyone know that Rand used Benzedrine to write her novels?</td></tr></table><br><br>Tis a pity a bottle of same was not included with each of her books for the reader<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457534#3457534</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by ProgressiveAtticEven...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457305#3457305</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3125" rel="nofollow">Teaflax</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 24 2009 at 01:09<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic</strong></em><br /><br /><br>Even though the Classicists had no answer to why their rules were to be accepted as valid (except the usual appeal to tradition, to scholarship and to the prestige of antiquity), this school was regarded as the representative of reason.(!)"<br></td></tr></table><br><br>Kettle? Pot on line one. Something about your fuliginousness, apparently.<br><br>Project much, Ayn baby?<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457305#3457305</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  That initial post may be one...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457303#3457303</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3125" rel="nofollow">Teaflax</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 24 2009 at 01:06<br /><br />That initial post may be one of the most stupid things I've read all year. Congratulations. Sixteenth Chapel is an <b>absolute </b>classic, though.<br><br>Rand's books are to philosophy as the Harry Potter books are to magic; you might as well write about how Prog relates to Quidditch.<br><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by Teaflax - November 25 2009 at 04:31</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:06:29 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3457303#3457303</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by CPicardSince...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456958#3456958</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=15937" rel="nofollow">keiser willhelm</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 23 2009 at 17:33<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by CPicard</strong></em><br /><br />Since I'm French and have spent many years at school, high school and college, I'm nearly shocked by the definition of 'Classicism' given by Ayn Rand! <br><b>Her definition makes me think that she has a poor knowledge and </b><i><b>understanding </b></i><b>of what Classicism was</b>: she seems not to know that Classicism was not a "school", but a name given to the generation of artists before the Romantics by the same Romantics...<br>Plus, the Classicism was above all a rather loose theory created in reaction to the so-called excesses of the Baroque age. <br>Once again, it seems to me that Ayn Rand could talk about any subject, but with the same thematic: the exaltation of the Individual in any field of the human activities, would it be politics, philosophy, arts... No matter the subject, it's always the same goal: to glorify the individual action against the rules of the common social life. <br></td></tr></table><div><br><div>Rand never seems to give clear examples of what shes talking about  and gives few examples aside from her own work to back up her position (Howard Roark's speech... howard roark says... ) and in general has a rather naive view of the topics she opposes. It sounds as if she heard about classicism and decided to write about it but never fully understood what it was, the context of the movement, or the true nature of what the composers were trying to do. its not only with classicism that she does this. Shes quite good at taking a critique or opposing position to her own, repeating her rhetoric without much added argument (wheres the beef?) and then stating "Boom, roasted. So much for that problem. next?"  It'd be much easier to take her position seriously if she gave credible, relevant examples or actually argued something rather than restate her position. </div><div><br></div><div>i googled up a quick critique of her philosophy as laid out in "the Virtue of Selfishness." and hold many of the same issues with the work as does the author (Huemer, PHL Prof. @ Colorado University)</div><div>if you like rand's work i suggest reading it and while you may not agree with the argument, at least try to come up with a better response than Rand did. something to think about. the philosophy is attractive but maybe it needs to be repackaged? </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm#Detailed%20comments." target="_blank">LINK.</a></div><div><br></div></div>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456958#3456958</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I just rad an artcle recently...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456782#3456782</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=8161" rel="nofollow">Slartibartfast</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 23 2009 at 15:44<br /><br />I just rad an artcle recently in the New Yorker.&nbsp; Anyone know that Rand used Benzedrine to write her novels?]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456782#3456782</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Depends on where you look, in...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456702#3456702</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 23 2009 at 14:23<br /><br />Depends on where you look, in the end both of them are dumbed-down versions of perspectives that in their original and undiluted form were (and might still be) quite valid. <i>So it goes...</i><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by Toaster Mantis - November 23 2009 at 14:28</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:23:47 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456702#3456702</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Excellent point, Toaster M, I...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456152#3456152</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=7221" rel="nofollow">fuxi</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 23 2009 at 05:15<br /><br />Excellent point, Toaster M, I wonder which is now more common: naive sentimentalism or "cool" cynicism?]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3456152#3456152</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by fuxiOn...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455254#3455254</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 22 2009 at 11:30<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by fuxi</strong></em><br /><br />On the other hand, Romanticism is responsible for a lot of misery in people's lives, by telling them, for example, that their life isn't worth living if they haven't found a love which totally consumes them. Even in the 21st century, you may find it difficult to live without being bothered by romantic clichés! (All of which cannot deny that I greatly enjoy lots of romantic art, e.g. WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the paintings of J.M.W. Turner, the symphonies of Berlioz and yes - even TALES OF TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS.) <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0" align="middle" /></td></tr></table><br><br>Eh, that pretty much pales in comparison to how Modernism is responsible for the entire "cynicism is automatically sophisticated" mentality which permeates most of Western culture, sure it was genuinely challenging back in the early days of capital-m Modern art but after it hit the mainstream in I think it was the 1980s or so it's just been generalizedly watered down into a cheap post-adolescent "everything sucks" nihilism that right now is pretty much everywhere.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455254#3455254</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Since I&amp;#039;m French and have...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455251#3455251</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=21404" rel="nofollow">CPicard</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 22 2009 at 11:28<br /><br />Since I'm French and have spent many years at school, high school and college, I'm nearly shocked by the definition of 'Classicism' given by Ayn Rand! <br>Her definition makes me think that she has a poor knowledge and <i>understanding </i>of what Classicism was: she seems not to know that Classicism was not a "school", but a name given to the generation of artists before the Romantics by the same Romantics...<br>Plus, the Classicism was above all a rather loose theory created in reaction to the so-called excesses of the Baroque age. <br>Once again, it seems to me that Ayn Rand could talk about any subject, but with the same thematic: the exaltation of the Individual in any field of the human activities, would it be politics, philosophy, arts... No matter the subject, it's always the same goal: to glorify the individual action against the rules of the common social life. <br><br><br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455251#3455251</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by Toaster...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455155#3455155</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=7221" rel="nofollow">fuxi</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 22 2009 at 10:00<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Toaster Mantis</strong></em><br /><br /><br />I Ms. Ayn Rand is referring to what's today called <a href="http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c17th-mid19th/academism.htm" target="_blank">Academic Art</a>, which was basically visual arts before Romanticism which to my knowledge was the first self-conscious artistic movement and displaced the academics to the extent that they've almost been forgotten with a few exceptions. So today when people think of the art from the early 19th century they inevitably think of the Romantics. Does she come with any specific examples, i. e. naming particular artists and works?The funny thing is that Romanticism quickly became the next establishment and had by the mid-19th century stagnated with the exception of the more "out-there" fringes, which provoked a movement away from idealized representation and towards extremely realistic painting led by <a href="http://cgfa.acropolisinc.com/courbet/index.html" target="_blank">Gustave Courbet</a>. Ironically, Courbet was a huge source of inspiration for the Impressionists who got the entire Modern Art ball rolling...</td></tr></table> <br /><br />This is exactly what I was going to say as well.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with classicism as such. Racine (France), Alexander Pope (England) and Joseph Haydn (Austria) were all classicists, but that doesn't mean their work is sterile. On the contrary, it tells you quite a lot about the "human condition".<br /><br />On the other hand, Romanticism is responsible for a lot of misery in people's lives, by telling them, for example, that their life isn't worth living if they haven't found a love which totally consumes them. Even in the 21st century, you may find it difficult to live without being bothered by romantic clichés! (All of which cannot deny that I greatly enjoy lots of romantic art, e.g. WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the paintings of J.M.W. Turner, the symphonies of Berlioz and yes - even TALES OF TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS.) <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0" align="middle" />]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3455155#3455155</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   I think Ms. Ayn Rand is referring...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454983#3454983</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 22 2009 at 02:32<br /><br />I think Ms. Ayn Rand is referring to what's today called <a href="http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c17th-mid19th/academism.htm" target="_blank">Academic Art</a>, which was basically visual arts before Romanticism which to my knowledge was the first self-conscious artistic movement and displaced the academics to the extent that they've almost been forgotten with a few exceptions. So today when people think of the art from the early 19th century they inevitably think of the Romantics. Does she come with any specific examples, i. e. naming particular artists and works?<br><br>The funny thing is that Romanticism quickly became the next establishment and had by the mid-19th century stagnated with the exception of the more "out-there" fringes, which provoked a movement away from idealized representation and towards extremely realistic painting led by <a href="http://cgfa.acropolisinc.com/courbet/index.html" target="_blank">Gustave Courbet</a>. Ironically, Courbet was a huge source of inspiration for the Impressionists who got the entire Modern Art ball rolling...<br><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by Toaster Mantis - November 22 2009 at 10:49</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454983#3454983</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by fuxiWho,...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454575#3454575</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 21 2009 at 17:05<br /><br /> <table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by fuxi</strong></em><br /><br />Who, exactly, would you call "classicists"? And what makes you think they neglected so-called "values"?<br /><br />Mind you, I adore mystics (Blake, Hafiz, St. John of the Cross) just as much as the next person, but I don't trust mere LABELS.<br /><br />And no, I haven't talked to the Winds of Time either. <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley5.gif" border="0" align="middle" /></td></tr></table> <br /><br />Rand's definition of classicism:<br /><br />". . . was a school that had devised a set of arbitrary, concretely detailed rules purporting to represent the final and absolute criteria of esthetic value...and can serve as an example of what happens when concrete-bound mentalities, seeking to by-pass the responsibility of thought, attempt to transform abstract principles into concrete prescriptions and to replace creation with imitation. (For an example of Classicism that survived well into the twentieth century, I refer you to the architectural dogmas represented by Howard Roark’s antagonists in The Fountainhead.)<br /><br />Even though the Classicists had no answer to why their rules were to be accepted as valid (except the usual appeal to tradition, to scholarship and to the prestige of antiquity), this school was regarded as the representative of reason.(!)"<br /><br />]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454575#3454575</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Who, exactly, would you call &amp;#034;classicists&amp;#034;?...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454028#3454028</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=7221" rel="nofollow">fuxi</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 21 2009 at 06:36<br /><br />Who, exactly, would you call "classicists"? And what makes you think they neglected so-called "values"?<br /><br />Mind you, I adore mystics (Blake, Hafiz, St. John of the Cross) just as much as the next person, but I don't trust mere LABELS.<br /><br />And no, I haven't talked to the Winds of Time either. <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley5.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> ]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3454028#3454028</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Excerpts form Rand&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;ROMANTIC...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3453166#3453166</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19117" rel="nofollow">ProgressiveAttic</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 20 2009 at 09:30<br /><br />Excerpts form Rand's "ROMANTIC MANIFESTO":<br /><br /><strong>"Philosophically, Romanticism is a crusade to glorify man’s existence; psychologically, it is experienced simply as the desire to make life interesting."</strong><br /><br />"What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values, an element that had been missing in the stale, arid, third- and fourth-hand (and rate) repetitions of the Classicists’ formula-copying. Values (and value-judgments) are the source of emotions; a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life. This emotional element was the most easily perceivable characteristic of the new movement and it was taken as its defining characteristic, without deeper inquiry.<br /><br />Such issues as the fact that the primacy of values in human life is not an irreducible primary, that it rests on man’s faculty of volition, and, therefore, that the Romanticists, philosophically, were the champions of volition (which is the root of values) and not of emotions (which are merely the consequences)—were issues to be defined by philosophers, who defaulted in regard to esthetics as they did in regard to every other crucial aspect of the nineteenth century.<br /><br />The still deeper issue, the fact that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, was not known at the time, and the various theories of free will were for the most part of an anti-rational character, thus reinforcing the association of volition with mysticism."]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3453166#3453166</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by freyacatI...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452949#3452949</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 20 2009 at 03:00<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by freyacat</strong></em><br /><br />I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.</td></tr></table><br><br>I agree, you could even draw parallels between progressive rock falling out of favour in the more cynical late 1970s and how Romanticism withered away in the mid-19th century because increased industrialization made its themes look irrelevant to a now-urban audience... both movements also had resurgences later.<br><br>Hell, there's even parallels between how the stagnation of progressive rock was followed by the rise in popularity of punk and metal, and the rise of Modernism after Romanticism died out. Don't think it's a coincidence that one post-punk band called itself Bauhaus. <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" border="0" alt="LOL" title="LOL" /> In both cases, it's less that one artistic movement displaced the other than times just changing and the overall cultural climate that supported a specific movement no longer existing.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452949#3452949</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by PrometheusObjectivism...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452944#3452944</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=19211" rel="nofollow">Toaster Mantis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 20 2009 at 02:47<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Prometheus</strong></em><br /><br /><br>Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)<br></td></tr></table><br><br>Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Ayn Rand basically set out to push the reset button on Western philosophy post-Kant: She thought that the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was the logical practical conclusion of German Idealism (e. g. Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) so it would be weird then if her ethics are of mostly Kantian origin. I'd have thought she'd borrow more from Locke but then again I've only read short excerpts of Rand.<br><br>In a way Ayn Rand was like a right-wing version of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/#2" target="_blank">Theodor Adorno</a>, who considered totalitarianism the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452944#3452944</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I think of progressive music as...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452562#3452562</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=107" rel="nofollow">freyacat</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 19 2009 at 18:02<br /><br />I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.<br><br>I actually don't think of Ayn Rand as a very musical philosopher.&nbsp; But I think that the musical expressions which would fit her worldview best are forms which don't depend on collective composition or improvisation.&nbsp; Singer-Songwriters or solo instrumentalists.&nbsp; Anything that aggrandizes the individual.<br><br>By the way, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and it gives me a twinge of irony when I hear Christian conservatives espousing her ideas.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3452562#3452562</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : if the tenets of Objectivism have...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3450040#3450040</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=10995" rel="nofollow">Prometheus</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 17 2009 at 23:06<br /><br /><br>if the tenets of Objectivism have anything to do with Prog music, or music in general, it can only be inasmuch as we like to think that it is the creative product of an individual purely for the sake of that individual's desire to create. This is an absolute ideal, and so likely a stretch, but beyond that what is it about prog that makes us say this? nothing. it can be said about any genre from classical to country. i mean this in the nicest way possible, but stop using your pop-philosophy to uphold your personal aesthetics.<br>Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)<br>ultimately the only thing that makes music meaningful is your own subjective perception of it, and ultimately the only thing that differentiates it from mere noise or the jumble of the senses is your own subjective mind. objectivity, in any case, has no place in a discussion of aesthetics, and only a limiting role in epistemology or metaphysics, i'd say.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3450040#3450040</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by Silverbeard...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3448663#3448663</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=16741" rel="nofollow">Bitterblogger</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 16 2009 at 22:37<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Silverbeard McStarr</strong></em><br /><br />To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.</td></tr></table> <DIV></DIV>If you'd "love" for people to become objectivists, then you can't be one, since that's subjective.<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" height="17" width="17" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3448663#3448663</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : To be a real objectivist I&amp;#039;d...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3446513#3446513</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=26176" rel="nofollow">Silverbeard McStarr</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 14 2009 at 10:55<br /><br />To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3446513#3446513</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : If any self-styled philosopher&amp;#039;s...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3446307#3446307</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=7221" rel="nofollow">fuxi</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 14 2009 at 03:26<br /><br />If any self-styled philosopher's ideas are posted here, in the spirit of "take 'm or leave 'm", and if they are associated in a rather haphazard manner with what we call "Progressive Music" (an extremely broad church!) surely it is acceptable to criticise them.<br /><br />But I don't want to sound nasty - I really adore ProgressiveAttic's icon.<br /><br />By the way, does anyone study literature here? If you do, you will know that, throughout the centuries, all authors you can think of have been subjected to criticism of a Christian, post-Christian, humanist, rationalist, sentimentalist, romantic, idealist, Marxist, feminist, anti-communist, modernist, postmodernist, post-colonialist, neo-historicist &#091;etc. etc.&#093; nature. You could easily do the same to "Progressive Music". To ALL its different strands. You could make your career that way - bonne chance!]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3446307#3446307</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :  Originally posted by EpignosisAyn...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444911#3444911</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=9476" rel="nofollow">Alberto Muñoz</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 12 2009 at 18:48<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Epignosis</strong></em><br /><br /><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.<BR><BR>Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.<BR><BR>And I'm a Christian.<BR><BR>How do you like that?&nbsp; <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley14.gif" border="0" alt="Approve" title="Approve" /><BR></FONT></FONT></td></tr></table> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley32.gif" height="17" width="18" border="0" alt="Clap" title="Clap" /></DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444911#3444911</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.Otherwise,...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444910#3444910</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=17614" rel="nofollow">Epignosis</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 12 2009 at 18:46<br /><br /><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.<br><br>Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.<br><br>And I'm a Christian.<br><br>How do you like that?&nbsp; <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley14.gif" border="0" alt="Approve" title="Approve" /><br></font></font>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444910#3444910</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by keiser...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444853#3444853</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=17787" rel="nofollow">MovingPictures07</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 12 2009 at 18:00<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by keiser willhelm</strong></em><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by MovingPictures07</strong></em><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by keiser willhelm</strong></em><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by MovingPictures07</strong></em><br /><br />People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.<br><br>You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.<br></td></tr></table><div><br></div><div>have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed.&nbsp;<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></div></td></tr></table><br><br>I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings. <br><br>Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.<br></td></tr></table><br><br>4 or 5 times each! <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley3.gif" border="0" alt="Shocked" title="Shocked" /> <br>That must have taken years. <br><br>Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)<br><br>&nbsp;i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass. <br><br><br></td></tr></table><br><br>Not <i>everyone</i> on this forum; it's simply extremely annoying when people completely disregard Ayn Rand's books when then thereafter they illustrate hardly any understanding of her philosophy. At times it seems like pretty much everyone is that way, but I do know that's not true.<br><br>If you think her arguments don't make logical sense, then there's nothing I can do.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444853#3444853</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by MovingPictures07  Originally...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444458#3444458</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=15937" rel="nofollow">keiser willhelm</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 12 2009 at 15:18<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by MovingPictures07</strong></em><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by keiser willhelm</strong></em><br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by MovingPictures07</strong></em><br /><br />People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.<br><br>You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.<br></td></tr></table><div><br></div><div>have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed.&nbsp;<img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></div></td></tr></table><br><br>I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings. <br><br>Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.<br></td></tr></table><br><br>4 or 5 times each! <img src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley3.gif" border="0" alt="Shocked" title="Shocked" /> <br>That must have taken years. <br><br>Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)<br><br>&nbsp;i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass. <br><br><br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3444458#3444458</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :   Originally posted by ProletariatAlso...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3443452#3443452</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=26176" rel="nofollow">Silverbeard McStarr</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 11 2009 at 15:38<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Proletariat</strong></em><br /><br />Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world<div></div></td></tr></table><div><br></div><div>Not really. In a capitalist world there would be markets. They would be of different in size, but that's natural seeing as more people are involved in certain markets than other. Sure, pop would have the biggest market. but there would be a market for prog as well. As long as there is a demand there is an output.</div>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3443452#3443452</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music : I Agree with Everything said in...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3442805#3442805</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=22524" rel="nofollow">tamijo</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 11 2009 at 08:09<br /><br />I Agree with Everything said in this tread. <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Subjetively that is !</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>But im a Zen Buddist you know, i have to love everything. </DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Subjectively that is !</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>Objectively i know its all just Bullshizt, and would be so&nbsp;absurd if&nbsp;we were all starving african's.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3442805#3442805</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Progressive Music as Objective Music :     Originally posted by Slartibartfast I...</title>
   <link>http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3442587#3442587</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=17732" rel="nofollow">RoyFairbank</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 62580<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> November 10 2009 at 21:33<br /><br /><table width="99%"><tr><td class="BBquote"><strong><em>Originally posted by Slartibartfast</strong></em><br /><br />I don't buy into Ayn Rand's political philosophy or those who admire it politically and economically speaking.&nbsp; Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?&nbsp; I'd recommend you check out their writings too if you haven't.<br><br>I don't have a problem with reality though.&nbsp; The selfishness aspect is where it falls apart as a functioning philosophy for how to run things in human societies.&nbsp; Laissez-faire capitalism is all about having masters and slaves.&nbsp; Those with money and power are the masters, the rest of us are their slaves.&nbsp; Another way to look at it is leeches and hosts.&nbsp; All of these are of course over simplistic...</td></tr></table><br><br>Here here. <br><br>I've only read this far in this thread but there you go, that just about says it.<br><br>I would add too what others have said: Prog emerged from the 60s causally modernist counter-culture. Prog was/is a broadly modernist art form in a period of decline for social modernism and the period of ascent of post-modernist art forms, which really came into their own with Punk coinciding with the final gutting of what was underlying Prog socially in the 1970s. <br><br>Consider "Back in NYC" from Lamb Lies Down: Animals, The Final Cut, "you must believe in the human race" from Tarkus... this is spontaneously modernist, materialist music, Neil Peart aside. The ideologues of Capitalism, like Pierce, began with a Pragmatism (or Pragmati<i>cism</i> with Pierce) that was still much like materialism, but starting with William James and developing rapidly until you get Rorty you have Pragmatism turning into a post-modernistic ideology. <br><br>Interestingly, one of those who inspired Orwell to write 1984, James Burnham, was a New York intellectual who went from being a Trotskyist to being one of the founding fathers of Neo-Liberalism, a cold war hawk and the winner of a medal from Reagen. Orwell was on the same path. The rejection of modernist principles of society, social contradictions and historical development leads into the dead-ends of post-modernism, skepticism, positivism, solipsism and always the crassest individualism and worshiping of the accomplished fact (namely, capitalism and society as it is today). <br><br><span style="font-size:10px"><br /><br />Edited by RoyFairbank - November 10 2009 at 21:39</span>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580&amp;PID=3442587#3442587</guid>
  </item> 
 </channel>
</rss>