>> ^Gallowflak:

Evolution being responsible for morality really doesn't seem to be an issue... it's either as a result of evolution, or an emergent behaviour of our complex, arcane neurology. The problem is how the religious will claim that, even in the absence of religion, God installed the basic function of morality... and even atheists have a sense of morality because God made us that way. It commandeers our finest and noblest behaviour as a bulletpoint for their deity's resume. It's not an argument you can contend with and I'm not sure you should try... and as much as I opposed the idea when I was younger, I'm beginning to think that the only thing to do is either ignore or ridicule such infinitely-expanding, unfalsifiable arguments.
Sorry for the tangent.


I think that's exactly right though. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

When a religious person resorts to a "god of the gaps" line of reasoning, he has already defeated himself. In attempting to make god completely undisprovable, he's also eliminated any potential evidence for god.

Evolution being responsible for morality really doesn't seem to be an issue... it's either as a result of evolution, or an emergent behaviour of our complex, arcane neurology. The problem is how the religious will claim that, even in the absence of religion, God installed the basic function of morality... and even atheists have a sense of morality because God made us that way. It commandeers our finest and noblest behaviour as a bulletpoint for their deity's resume. It's not an argument you can contend with and I'm not sure you should try... and as much as I opposed the idea when I was younger, I'm beginning to think that the only thing to do is either ignore or ridicule such infinitely-expanding, unfalsifiable arguments.

Sorry for the tangent.

@chilaxe

You must have a source of information that is arcane to me.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Anyone else read the book, Saharasia? Goes into how the history of these genital mutilation practices came as a result of the patriarchal child rearing practices during the desertification of the fertile crescent.
I've come to believe that circumcision, like corporal punishment and infant swaddling, are archaic and arcane practices of a bygone era.


With condoms these days, and proper hygene, we probably do not need circumcision any more...

Anyone else read the book, Saharasia? Goes into how the history of these genital mutilation practices came as a result of the patriarchal child rearing practices during the desertification of the fertile crescent.

I've come to believe that circumcision, like corporal punishment and infant swaddling, are archaic and arcane practices of a bygone era.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it SHOULDN'T anger anyone. ... I commented on why I thought he was probably calm.

You said you think the guy is calm, because the era of racism is almost over.

Calm is the opposite of angry, the era of racism isn't over, and even if it was, it doesn't mean people would naturally react to a spurious incident of racism with calm.

I think it's easy to see why I would read your comment as meaning that he shouldn't have been angry. I had pretty high confidence you didn't mean it that way, but the way you kept doubling down sure did make me wonder.

As for this crap:
>> ^blankfist:

Man, you are a busybody. Is debating exactly what I say about a racist 90 year old woman a big deal to you or something? Yes, racism is bad. We all get it. You win the "I'm the most angry about it" award for white people. Now sit down, shut the fuck up and let other people speak.


If someone responds to your comment, and seems to have misunderstood what you said, the normal response would be to clarify. For example, see my exchange with Lawdeedaw.

With you, the response is often an accusation that I'm putting words in your mouth, and/or too stupid to understand.

Seriously blankfist, you do not speak in arcane, deeply wise scripture -- you say all kinds of shit that you obviously didn't think about beforehand. When someone raises a criticism of it, you do yourself a disservice when you lash out at your critic for failing to understand the obvious and incontestable truth of your every utterance.

The song's lyrics (and title) are both a tribute to Ayn Rand's novella Anthem, who deeply influenced Neil Peart - Rush's lyricist - at the time:

Know your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward, no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down

Chorus:
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought

Live for yourself -- there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more

[Chorus]

Well, i know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, i
Came to write this song

[Chorus]

From a Q&A with fan questions in 1993:

Q. It's fairly well known that you've been influenced to a great extent by the writings of Ayn Rand. Knowing that her philosophy places a great deal of emphasis on individualism and creative integrity, particularly in the realm of art, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the music of Rush is written collectively? What happens if one of you has your heart set on a particular part, but the other two are dead-set against it?

Eric Simpson
Miami Springs, FL

A. Well, I saved this one until last, and you can see why! Eric and other people often send long lists of questions, and I hope they understand that I just can't justify spending half a page on a complex answer for each arcane question (for myself or for the general reader) so I have to be selective. Since I'm giving my time to this as a service to others, I go about it in my own way -- like the selfish bum I am.

Sometimes I choose questions which a few people have asked about, but which are unlikely to appear in an interview; sometimes I choose questions I think are interesting; sometimes I head off a growing myth and debunk it for you; other times I just say "what the heck" and answer any old one. So okay...

For a start. the extent of my influence by the writings of Ayn Rand should not be overestimated -- I am no one's disciple. Yes, I believe the individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty, but in philosophy, as Aristotle said long ago, the paramount good is happiness. My self-determination as an individual is part of the pursuit of happiness, of course, but there's more to it than that.

In this particular example, working together with Alex and Geddy is a more important part of my pursuit of happiness than is my attachment to any line of lyric or phrase of music. Thus the conflict you describe would not arise -- if we disagree on such a detail, we work on it until it satisfies everybody, and if (very) occasionally one of us has to sacrifice a petty preference, they hey -- it's no big deal. Especially when you compare such an issue against the satisfaction we get from the big picture, the sum of our work together, it would be foolish to sacrifice long-term happiness for a small difference in taste.

I've said before that in regard to my own work, the lyrics, I am more often excited by the input from the other two than I am disappointed by it, and I certainly never feel compromised by it.

And there you can see how complicated it is to identify and pursue happiness, and how complicated it can be just to answer one question (out of twenty submitted by the curious Mr. Simpson, though others often rival him.)

You see what I'm up against...

Bye for now,

N. Peart

November 4, '93, Toronto

I had never used nor seen the expression, only heard it. I'm glad I know the etymology..."brass tax" just seems like a tax on brass...not very descriptive.

another one I just found out about is "up and adam" is really "up and at 'em" WHO WOULDA THOUGHT?!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Now you made me go look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks

I don't think I've actually ever used the "getting down to brass tacks" line in print before I did just then, but I'd always assumed it meant physical brass pins, not some arcane tax.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@NetRunner
I always thought it was the "brass tax"...hmmm

Now you made me go look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks

I don't think I've actually ever used the "getting down to brass tacks" line in print before I did just then, but I'd always assumed it meant physical brass pins, not some arcane tax.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@NetRunner
I always thought it was the "brass tax"...hmmm

Over 20 years ago Chomsky recognized the ruse of the facetious delineation of the terms "first world" "third world" etc countries. The world under the dying paradigm is being equalized in the economic, social, political, spiritual, dumbing-down of all of her inhabitants.
The US according to the arcane terminology is now effectively a 3rd world country. People's heads here are so full of trivial tidbits and snippets of information that intelligence is measured in one's command of useless factoids of information sans experiential or practical aptitude. Wage-slavery keeps people unable to effectively operate at a max holistic, developmental potential. That's right-people are becoming stupid, more superficial and self-absorbed, and this by insidious design. I know a chick in her 3rd year of college who thinks Australia was a peace-loving non-participant in world war 2. Airhead.
Good to see you on the grid again Persephone!

>> ^Norsuelefantti:
blocked


You have BMG and Vevo and their deal per contract to thank for that blockage.. Insects that call themselves lawyers....I will adjust accordingly to grant access to this wonderful song, that by the way, ya contract-law rights motherfuckers out there, who want yer artist to make more money from ancillary sales 20 years later???..should adjust for with reckless disregard to copyright accordingly!!!....Ya fuckin' buncha, Kobe-beef-eatin', too-much-car-for-your-pathetic-ass, next-gig-based-on-arcane-principles, DUMBASSES!!!!

>> ^blankfist:
I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside trying to catch her arms before they hit me.
I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.
Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.


I was raised the same way, but whenever something like that happened to me, I found the best possible way to resolve the situation (And I actually mean this in all seriousness)

Was a hug.

After a few seconds of taking a hit or two, I'd grab an arm, spin them so their back was to me and hold their arms in a "Hug" type of stance.

It was almost an instant de-escalator. They're either forced to talk about why they were taking swings at me in the first place, or too embarrassed to keep going because they got beat by a hug.

In this situation mind you, I don't think the hug would go so well.

I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside of trying to catch her arms before they hit me.

I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.

Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.

^perhaps it's the mark of specie(s) leaving the place, this dimension. What facts Jinx? One's that can be explained in a linear fashion?? If it suits me then of course, it must be factual or plausible?? Whack.

Facts are, there are no reasonable explanations for these formations until they reveal or we figure one out. Jury is still out for most, especially the insects of the scientific realm, who tend to wax fondly of old models and suppositions, arcane techniques and conclusions. Not knocking the methods, but the monkeys.

The world is in flux, with key moments in linear time which take the species in grand strides, further down the bunny hole. You are in one, we all are, enjoy the ride and kick the assholes, inbreeds, and the earthbound to the side.

"irrational nuclear fears" I got em.... kinna shell-shocked from our progress to date with arcane applications-Solar is getting easier to mass produce, but not half as fast as the barons, sheiks, coveters and inbreds that have been more concerned with empire than having us all taken care of.....mother nature is on a righteous path though, she may trump all the pitiful efforts of humans-This guy Analog in a digital world does not empress..not half as much as the cat on the TED talk soberly proposing scenarios that will make us all the bitches of robotics and nanotech.

No fusion is not "IS" energy's future...it MAY be