About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: Of course Mozart didn't choose from birth to use his skills for music. Obviously he couldn't have (which is part of the reason why I say his capacity for creation must transcended music). What a ridiculous idea to attribute to me.

In any case, a being that can write symphonies definitely has the capacity to choose -- in spades.

You ask why I think that innate intellectual capacity is more general than particular. I have observed many cases of competence and intelligence, and in no case have I seen it limited to some particular skill or field, except ones where a person's psychology is also very important (like writing fiction). There are many examples of geniuses who devoted themselves to a broad range of interests rather than specializing (e.g., Leonardo Da Vinci), demonstrating my point.


Post 21

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the article, Kelly. And good luck refining your desires.

The motivation to practice a skill is fundamental. There's no way to fake that just as there is no way to fake romantic love. Like romantic love, the motivation itself can appear to be rather arbitrary. What has driven me toward music and philosophy? They were needs. They helped me escape from someplace I didn't want to be. But what prompted the needs? I don't have an answer for that one.

If you don't love what you do then something is fundamentally wrong. It might take re-evaluating the entire edifice to discover the trouble. It's a bummer when that happens.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne, from post 20:
Of course Mozart didn't choose from birth to use his skills for music. (...) What a ridiculous idea to attribute to me.
ahem... you wrote in Post 14:
Aptitude is very general. Mozart, I am sure, was not merely talented toward music, but had an innate capacity for creation that transcended music. It's just that he chose to apply it to music, in part because his father encouraged it.
(My emphasis in both quotes.)

As Mozart had been writing music since his toddler years, and attributing you with the idea you stated yourself is so very "ridiculous," when do you suppose he made his choice then? After he made it and had grown up a little?

Hmmmm...

Sounds like nitpicking, but it isn't.

Specific innate mental capacities are real. They are being studied all over the world by qualified scientists at this very moment. You can ignore it if you wish. But happily these scientists are merrily going on with their work. Some extremely exciting finds are pointing to what the actual physical differences in the brains of geniuses are (which logically could not be otherwise, seeing that all thinking and learning goes on in there).

I use glasses. Of my five senses, which is where my brain gets its information to form concepts, I presume that seeing is my weakest sense. If one sense can be weaker or stronger, it follows that the brain's processing capacity can also be weaker and stronger in specific areas - except now we get into the gestalts of perception which vastly multiplies the organization of this data (and presto! musical/tonal structure can be discerned from sound, for example, in addition to speech and other things). Hell, you should already know about the sense-percept-concept chain from ITOE anyway.

Why on earth you want to hold on to the idea (like a dog that won't let go of a bone) that innate mental capacities cannot be specific and must be general is way beyond me.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the dilemmas for any talented person is exactly how to use that talent (assuming they want to).  If I am inclined towards the humanities, exactly how should I use that?  Should I study languages and become an interpretor or translator? Should I specialize in philosophy? Or literature?  Be a writer?   If so, fiction or non-fiction?  One only has a limited amount of time/energy to devote to any activity. 

So, in the sense that a talent or inclination does not necessarily tell you how you should apply that (assuming you want to), innate mental capacities are general.  In the sense that a creative person probably has a more likely inclination to one specific type of creative endeavor, innate mental capacities are specific. 

The fact that some geniuses have multiple talents, and focus on all of them, does not negate the fact that some have specific talents.  It is reasonable that those "poly-talented" folks would have those talents centered around a broad category (such as "creativity") because that broad category may be associated with development of a certain region of the brain or production of a certain hormone/chemical.  But the fact that a person can be creative in one area (say, as an artist, painting) and have no particular talent for creativity in another area (say, as a lawyer, thinking up ingenious legal strategies for clients) supports the theory that talent is more specific than general. 

Jason


Post 24

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why on earth you want to hold on to the idea (like a dog that won't let go of a bone) that innate mental capacities cannot be specific and must be general is way beyond me.
Evidently.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Shayne???????

Enlighten me with your pearls of wisdom.

I'm all ears (and eyes - which need glasses).

LOL

Michael


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Kelly,

If I were like Linz in the off days of his period and without an ounce of good will to anyone concerned, I would have said “what a load of crap this article is! I am shocked that it is appeared on an Sense of Life Objectivist forum, when the spirit of the article is completely opposite to what I understand as Sense of Life!”

 

You quote me:

 

“Michael is talking about an artist’s own pursuit that is true to his talent and passion.”

 

Stress added by me and I meant every word of it. In your discussion you conveniently castrated my sentence in order to suite your own agenda, and that is self-serving and dishonest…

 

(I could go on…)

 

(Turn off Linz mode. Please take note how that makes you feel, and makes everyone in this thread feel...)

 

 

Instead, I will now comment on your article with as much kindness and good will that I can muster at the moment.

 

 

Kelly,

I appreciate very much that your take my post to heart and that it inspired you to write this article. I could have said exactly the same thing when I was your age. Actually I did have said exactly the same thing years ago to my baby brother whom I had taken under my wings against our parents, who were not unlike yours.

 

However, now that fifteen years later, half of my most productive years in life have passed, I start to see things in a different light.

 

Kelly, you said that you are very talented academically in literature, poetry, etc, but you just “don’t like that stuff that much”. Exactly what part in an academic career that you don’t like? You said that academic pursuits don’t give you the kind of fulfillment necessary for a career. What have you chosen as your career then?

 

You have taught kids, apprenticed as midwife, did gardening and farming, though you still are quite young. Yes, you said you enjoyed getting your finger dirty. Would you consider it the dream of your life?

 

You are wrong about Mozart. He was forced by his father to practice many hours everyday and late into the night, he definitely worked much much harder than any of today’s kids. And Beethoven too. He was spanked by his father for being lazy when he was little. How do I know about all these? My 8 year old son told me! He loves classical music, plays piano beautifully, reads everything about composer – but hates practice!

 

Adam mentions that some kids may lack the inner strength to fulfill their talent and inspiration in life. The inner strength is also not entirely inborn. As parents we have to do our best to teach and nurture them.

 

Well, that’s all the time I have for now.


Regards,

 
Hong

P.S. To whoever sanctioned my posts yesterday - I understand and I appreciate. Thank you. - H.




(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/20, 12:49pm)


Post 27

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's this bit about career - as in singular.... why not, especially in today's world, careers ?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 10:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're back!

If I were a dog, I would be wagging my tail to see you here again.

Que gracinha!

Michael



PS - I am very happy to see you, even if I can see a storm brewing on the horizon about Mozart with another poster from what you said...


Post 29

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What storm - she is right, about Mozart, Beethoven, and all the others implied - while there is in a few a great propensity - there must still be developmenting of it

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert M,

I wasn't talking about you. What the hell are you doing out of the kitchen anyway?

//;-)

But - to mention something on topic - musical geniuses have different physical characteristics in their brains than the rest of us. A fast-track between the left and right sides of the neocortex.

You can't ignore this. It is important. (I presume that you are with me in valuing scientific attempts to figure out the human animal.)

Of course capacity has to be developed to become talent. But many people call capacity "talent." And talent "capacity." Colloquial usage of the English language. The difference in concept, though, besides being real obvious, was even stated clearly in Kelly's fine article and very early in this thread.

HAIRSPLITTERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

WE NEED YOUR TALENT... ER... CAPACITY... UH... ahem...

... whatever...


(... and leave the innate stuff at the door with your guns when you come in this saloon...)


Michael


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[MSK] "Hong!!!!!! ...If I were a dog, I would be wagging my tail to see you here again."

Down boy. Get off the leg.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I am absolutely stunned by your post. It seems to me that you are angry about Linz's behavior on one thread and have chosen to take it out on me in another. I cannot see how I have deserved such a spiteful message. All I have done is to disagree with what you said. I even did it in a polite way. If you thought I had misunderstood the context of your quote (or even been dishonest about it as you say), you should have called me on it and given me a chance to either argue or apologize before you started blasting away in your first post on this subject. I am also surprised because your email to me explaining more about what you meant (which I haven't had a chance to answer) was so much kinder and so much more fair.

You ask how I feel about being talked to that way? I feel angry and hurt. Angry because it was unjust, and hurt because I have valued you on these boards and thought that you had valued me. If your ugly post was meant as a lesson for Linz or others who have been too harsh on these boards, I don't particularly like being an object lesson.

About the actual content of your post: I don't understand what point you are getting at asking me questions about my career choices. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I don't really feel like discussing it with you after the first part of your post. You said, “Yes, you said you enjoyed getting your finger dirty. Would you consider it the dream of your life?” Yesterday, I would have assumed this was kindly meant and that the “getting your finger dirty” part was a language issue. After reading your post to me, I have to ask, was this meant to be sarcasm? Did you mean to demean farming as a career? Perhaps you didn't intend that. I hope not.

You say that I took your quote out of context on purpose. I certainly did not. I don't even think I took it out of context at all. I know you were talking about an artist's _own_ pursuit of his talent _and passions_. My point was that an artist has no moral duty to his own talent, only his own passion. However, even if it had been out of context, I would not have done it on purpose, and have certainly given you no reason to think that I would. It would behoove you to be more careful about calling people dishonest, especially people who have shown themselves to be decent and honest so far.

About Mozart: What I said was that he did not work _that_ much harder than the other preschoolers. By that I meant that no amount of hard work could explain how different he was from other children musically. If I had worked that hard on music as a child, I would not have been Mozart. I have never implied that hard work is unnecessary. I even believe it is the most important ingredient for success. But, in order to be Mozart, Michael Jordan, Ayn Rand, or Michelangelo, there had to be talent there as well as hard work. I just can't believe that anyone would think every single child is born with the same intelligence, the same athleticism, the same musical ability. When studying foreign languages in college, some people in my classes picked them up effortlessly (one boy never even did his homework and yet he could translate on sight,) while I studied very hard to reach the same (or sometimes even lower) level of proficiency. Even the babies in my child's baby music class had different levels of ability!

If you would like to discuss this more, I would be glad to do that. However, I will not respond to another post written in the tone of your last one.

Kelly Elmore

Edited to add underscores in one unclear place.


(Edited by Kelly Reynolds Elmore
on 4/20, 12:59pm)


Post 33

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong:
 In your discussion you conveniently castrated my sentence in order to suit your own agenda, and that is self-serving and dishonest…
What a beautiful, poetic expression!

(Turn off Linz mode. Please take note how that makes you feel, and makes everyone in this thread feel...)

I don't know about everyone else. I laughed with pleasure from your well-crafted and pointed expression. (And overall, I *like* Linz mode, even if he sometimes gets carried away. A lot better than mealy-mouthed appeasement and abject and undeserved praise I often see here).

I also see that you have started to address the other side of this issue, the one addressing the subjectivist error. Nice start.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly - I hope you're not going to be so dismayed by one bad review that you become reluctant to keep up the flow of articles. I too am "absolutely stunned" by certain folks' reactions at times. I am still gobsmacked that some apparently think I have no right, on my own turf, to lose my temper with someone who utters what is just about the most vile sentiment ever expressed here. Or that I have no right to lose my temper, period. These prissy paragons of propriety.

Let me say that I regard *you*, Kelly, as SOLO's most exciting find in a long time. Do not worry about PC tongue-clickers. Your observations in this particular article were right on the money. Ayn Rand's dismissal of "innate endowment" was rubbish. Talent is a mix of innate endowment *and* hard work. And no one else has the right to dictate how one should use it.

Keep up the great work!

Linz


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil
Down boy. Get off the leg.
I just sent you a doggie bone sanction bonk for that!

ROFL

Michael


Post 36

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand's dismissal of "innate endowment" was rubbish.
It's precisely this kind of sloppy dismissal of Ayn Rand that is the real rubbish. Dismissal of Ayn Rand isn't the badge of honor that some here seem to take it as. Treating it as if it were one just leads to big piles of rubbish.

Ayn Rand never dismissed the idea of "innate endowment". On the contrary, she explicitly recognized that every child is born with a different natural capacity.
Talent is a mix of innate endowment *and* hard work. And no one else has the right to dictate how one should use it.
Which is something that no one posting to this thread would disagree with.


Post 37

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"prissy paragons of propriety."

Linz, I don't mind them half as much as the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael.....what's all this? 

Have you gone totally astray? Are you out there humping people's legs while you make me wait an eternity for you?  Do I have to ask Phil to keep an eye on you...... I trusted you.  I really, really trusted you.  And now this... You are a dog!!! 

Git to the kitchen and clean up your mess!  NOW!


Post 39

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne - there's a passage in one of Rand's essays where she refers contemptuously to "the myth of innate endowment." I'm at my day job & can't track it down right now. Maybe someone else here can.

Linz


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.