- This topic has 86 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:yeah we better ignore that Ayn rand stuff. […] The lyrics to "Anthem" are just wrong.
Sure you can make it simple for you to just "ignore that Ayn rand stuff". But you should not generally condemn a concept, an opinion as "wrong" only because it doesn't match with your own personal preferences.
Which comes as no surprise though. People on the opposite spectrum of Rand's thinking naturally consider themselves as superior in every way.
@ Norman_Gold:
Quote:Which comes as no surprise though. People on the opposite spectrum of Rand's thinking naturally consider themselves as superior in every way.This is very interesting. I was just today reviewing a talk about how people in positions of power manipulate discourse to make it appear as if they are the victims. Currently in the USA, Trump is doing this by making men look as if they are victims of women and citizens the victims of immigrants. It's an insidious technique that is used by the powerful whether they are politically of the right or the left. In particular it is used by those who hold or support an extreme or authoritarian position when they feel threatened.
What strikes me here is that you have taken offence at supernaut's criticism of Ayn Rand's thinking and have used this to put forward a classic argument that the person making the criticism somehow thinks they are superior, whereas all supernaut has done is voice an opinion. Your use of the expressions "no surprise" and "naturally" adds weight to the idea that Ayn Rand supporters are always being treated like this, and that they are victims. Assuming you are a believer or follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, I would suggest you push that bottom lip in, wipe the tears away, and get over yourself – your lot are doing quite well at the moment.
PS. I will add that my understanding of supernaut's usage of the word "wrong" was idiomatic – i.e. it coincides with the way it is defined in the urban dictionary: "What one says to oneself or to a companion upon seeing something perpetrated by another that is disturbing, distressing, or just plain nasty." This does not imply that Ayn Rand's ideas are incorrect. In this context, I understood supernaut to voice an opinion of something s/he doesn't like. I don't see anything bad about doing that. No doubt supernaut will correct me if I'm wrong (by which I mean -if my interpretation of her/his usage of "wrong" is incorrect).
PPS:
Pray your leaders are the wisest of men
Pray they're not so easily riled
Pray they seek concord and never go looking for fights
Pray their aim is to reconcile
It doesn't take much too feel superior intellectually compared to many Ayn Rand supporters. Don't see why this should be wrong in any way, as long as one doesn't get corrupted by the feeling of one's own superiority. This would be indeed an Ayn Rand trap for Ayn Rand opponents
basically what Johnny & Punj wrote
I'm aware of Ayn's backstory and origins and how they might have let her to her conclusions and views and those are opinions I don't share. I'd critize not so much her but the neoliberalists her "philosophy" (which to my understanding pretty much promotes the idea of superiority of the individual) spawned and their take on the world. And they ARE wrong and that is not my opinion but a fact. Period. Scientifically proven by the dark time we live in thanks to them.
Do I feel superior? Well I consider myself having evolved further than neoliberalists. By putting down my one statement above as nothing but a typical rambling of a member of some brainwashed homogenous group who naturally thinks so and such, aren't you putting yourself a little bit above others?
Anyways, I'd rather have this topic go back to its original intention…
TAF
Quote:4:24 onwards is pure KC to my ears, particularly the breakdowns at 4:49, 5:17 and 6:10, and would fit really nicely as a "Lark's Tongues in Aspic, part V"Absolutely!
I listened to DDU this afternoon (the whole thing of course; I'm not one for cherry picking tracks very often), and finally made it through to the synth solo at 5.19 of Into the Mystic. I agree completely – it sounds totally like Topographic Oceans era Yes/Wakeman. Well spotted!
As soon as the drums set in, Barleycorn feels Yesish but the low acoustic parts feel early Genesisish as in their pastoral Trespass/Nursery Cryme era.
Since all you symphonicprogrockers are having a field day here, I feel it's high time to mention another power trio that was highly influenced (…not) by MP; Emerson Lake & even Palmer ! :lol:
Gimme Tarkus over the Unicorn, everytime I'm dishwashing !
But seriously, I've never regretted the loss of any of my old Genesis, Rush and Yes albums after my 16th birthday, and although I think a musical quote or wink to their music by MP is fine, MP transcends all that and at the same time respects them and kicks their asses as well! YES they give me a RUSH and ARE, in our time, in fact the only real Crimson King, who, as Robert Fripp so mystically explained, is nothing but a musical powersource that can be tapped into by dedicated musicians (even a group without a Fripp in it I suppose!…)
About Rush: Saw them first time live in 1983. Not knowing their music at all, I was into Hardrock and NWoBHM then. It was one of those concerts where you go with your peer group, just by going out together. Not knowing their songs, it was over the top for me. The voice irritated me the most.
Then again in 1991 or 1992, not prepared much better, only with a few songs on one side of a TDK 90 a friend gave me days before the concert.
Didn't see too much similarities of Rush and MP as of yet.
Will be back soon.
@ JERO
I've been thinking about how to respond to your post – but I still can't imagine how to do it without getting into another long post. lol.
Palmer was always my favourite of the three – I never really got on that well with ELP. A few tracks are great, but mostly … meh. I saw Palmer with his current trio (guitar, bass, drums) four or five years ago and they played the best version of Tarkus I've ever heard – really vital and vibrant.
I always used to say to my Beatles-loving friends, they were great, groundbreaking and all that, but Yes took it all to a much higher level. Like MP respecting Yes et al. Jon Anderson and especially Chris Squire really respected The Beatles. But the bands that follow always have the opportunity to take what their forebears did and run with it. It's only a few special ones who actually do.
These days I find it a little pointless to compare the bands I love and consider real greats. There are three bands in my life that really have my heart like no other – Yes, Solstice (little-known British folk-prog est. 1980s) and MP. Who knows why we love the bands we do, or why we think they're head and shoulders above others as far as our personal feelings are concerned (though I could make a good case in all three instances). I'm just thankful I found MP while I'm still able to appreciate them and I plan on appreciating the shit out of them as much as I can.
Quote:Assuming you are a believer or follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, I would suggest you push that bottom lip in, wipe the tears away, and get over yourself – your lot are doing quite well at the moment.Punj, I’m not a firm Rand afficionada, much more into classic european liberalism instead. With your semi-insult, you show who you are. Oh, you only wrote "I would suggest", right? I’m deeply grateful on your kind and surely well-meant would-suggestion
Johnny proves my point best with his first sentence where he implies that most Rand supporters are stupid, while certainly his intelligence is above theirs. Classic. It's what I observed for a lifetime: The majority of people on the left side of the political spectrum consider themselves as generally superior against individuals with contrary opinions. But these leftists are not better educated overall, nor do they have more experience, slyness, awareness, deeper/broader interest, knowledge whatsoever. Their patronizing way of self-assurance is because they are naturally convinced to stand on the "good", the "correct" side. They’ve been told so by the mainstream media, celebrities, artists and the majority of the so called intellectuals and experts.
I’m a strong Trump supporter. About 90% of what he achieved so far is congruent with my values. I'm excited about Brexit, AfD, Salvini, Bannon, Orban too. So supernaut, I very much enjoy the way history leads us now! I'm delighted that this shift of gravity already proved that it serves well for the majority of the average working common people. I'm one of those, btw.
Certainly I would prefer the opposite a) if I would (selfishly manage to) directly cash in from the benefits of social democratic politic or the effects of globalisation – which both went out of control in parts of the western world, and/or b) getting information only from the likes of Spiegel, Süddeutsche, taz, CNN, Guardian, NYT. They hail themselves mutually as high validity, thruthful quality media outlets. But if you really don’t realize their sheer left-ideological siding, their utter bias, paired with their brazeness to conceal specific facts while totally exaggerate others, then I would suggest… No. Nothing I would suggest then.
Also here: They condemn the ones on the other side as being uneducated, homophobes, xenophobes, islamophobes, sexists, angry white men, frustated haters, racists, fascists, and a whole lot of funny things more
This is the most ugly, arrogant side of their conviction of superiority. They go that low because of their lack of arguments and persuasive power: Neither they can't counter the opponent with facts in a calm manner anymore, nor they're not willing to handle dissent.It’s everyone’s own choice to ignore the opposite, to stay in your bubble. In my opinon, it’s a bit simple. It definitely doesn’t help to broaden one’s intellectual horizon.
Not only to denote an opinion as "wrong", but also to weight this rating as a fact (as by supernaut in his latest post) however goes in line with the methods of radical hard-left protesters who intend to prohibit a discussion, aggressively fighting to totally shut down any debate they don’t like. Because everyone has to think, talk and behave in (their) one specified, correct, – "right" way.
@Johnny: Do you know Rand’s thinking, concept, theory beyond Wikipedia? Do you know about its historical, economical, cultural background and context? How many "Rand supporters" do you know to come to your judgement against them? And while talking down their intelligence: How about to set the grammar in your first sentence right?
@supernaut: The term Neoliberalism is as equally irrelevant and hollow, commonly used only as a bugbear in a populistic way for oversimplification. Its current meaning has little to nothing to do with the mindset of the new leaders mentioned above that horrify you so much.
One of the best books I have ever read is the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. As far as possible, it has made me understand the state of the world as it currently is, based on recent history and including the development of modern day geopolitics.
@ Norman – Fantastic post! Thanks for taking the time and effort. There's so much here to work with. However, I've been down that road so many times it's like banging your head against a very dense brick wall because regarding "lack of arguments and persuasive power", whenever I try that with people who match your self-description, by putting forward intelligent arguments drawing on the academic literature that I read day in and day out and avoiding reference to the press and TV news, both of which are over-rated and too narrowly focused to see the big picture, their response is that I'm acting like I think I'm better and more intelligent. It's a no-win situation. By what you've expressed in your post you're quite clearly all the things you claim to see in the people you describe on the left.
As for you feeling insulted by my suggestion that you get over yourself: seriously, quit whining, get over it.
One of the things I fail to understand is how continued (economic) growth in the long run could ever be consistent with the fact that our planet does not increase in size.
Unless from evolutionary perspective we accept that sooner or later our species will collapse.
What's striking to me is that there does not seem to be a single country that substantially explores this problem, let alone substantially transitions into the new balance that would be required. Yes, plenty of great initiatives on climate adaptation, plastic soup, eating animals, poverty reduction, sustainable entrepreneurship, etc., but in the end most likely futile as long as economic growth is perceived an axiom we cannot do without.
I'd be interested in Norman & Punj's views on this. Is any of us here familiar with the concept of doughnut economics?
Meanwhile, lets's not forget why we are here, so please do continue the much more interesting discussion on how Rush is inspired by Motorpsycho
@ Valderrama
I agree with you. The current direction is unsustainable. But reaching this point was somewhat inevitable. While humans have the facility to be caring, friendly, sharing, helpful and all the other so-called positive traits, we're also greedy and selfish. Unfortunately it is nearly always the case that the greedy and selfish win out because the friendly, caring people don't want to rock the boat while the greedy and selfish don't care. So we've been heading in this direction since the beginning. The current state of affairs (as described by the Doughnut Economics video) of neoliberal economics, as ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan – and coninued by Blair, Clinton and all those around the world that either jumped on board or were cajoled, bribed or blackmailed to join in – is a kind of heightenend version of that and is epitomised by consumerism and the idea of continued growth that you point to. And indeed, there does not seem to be any large enough group of people in a position of power willing to challenge it.
In my opinion we face and will inevitably experience the breakdown of society as it currently exits and see billions of people die over the next hundred years – through climate change, lack of resources, lack of food and water, and the concomitant wars that will follow. Am I being overly dramatic. I guess my grandson will find out.
I'm not familiar with doughnut economics but I watched the set of videos to which the article pointed and it seems to me it's heavily based in socialism – but I guess updated for the current climate. It makes sense to me, but the videos didn't seem to offer practical solutions only a theory. However, I'm a big believer that theories are a good place to start. The videos talk about sustinability (though without using that word), distribution and resdistribution of wealth, sensible use of the commons to everyone's advantage and engaging in personal economic common sense (i.e. living within your means and dialling way back on the consumerism).
Personally I live like that to a fair degree and would like to move further in that direction. I think a really big change could be made if we start by changing the emphasis in education – but that has to go hand in hand with a sincere adoption of new lifestyles by those who have already left education. I would see people
– learning to grow their own food, and raise their own livestock (if meat is what you're in to – though a surge towards vegetarianism is really what's required at the moment)
– walking, cycling and using public transport rather than having personal motorised vehicles, whether fossil or electric
– working and trading within smaller communities
– valuing work more equitably
– community ownership of the commons
– more cooperatives
– and so on.
However, even though much of this will be forced on us, there will still be selfish, greedy individuals who won't play and they will most likely be the ones with the guns. So, well we all know what that means.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.