How to tell an Objectivist woman by sight
Sandra Mendoza
walking down the street and I nudged him and said: *she's one*
Coming towards us was a woman *indicating* (an acting term referring to lousy
acting) hero worship. As she came closer, we saw the issue of LIFE turned to
the page showing an altar with a tape machine on it in an article on
Objectivism. We cracked up.
Objectivists are fun so long as you don't take them seriously.
Every see Nathan on TV waiting for applause after what he thinks is a brilliant
statement? Applause that never comes?
My son the genius became my intellectual heir the genius and the rest of us
just couldn't see it.
Sandra ;-)
Ken Gardner
> Objectivists are fun so long as you don't take them seriously.
Well, as a former Objectivist, what philosophy do you take seriously? What
are your specific disagreements with Objectivism qua philosophy?
Ken
SANDRAMEND
are your specific disagreements with Objectivism qua philosophy?>>
I said I didn't take Objectivists seriously. Most of them have a hauteur
suggesting that they not Aristotle and Ayn Rand came up with these ideas.
I take Aristotle very seriously. I take the study of logic very seriously. I
take the writings of Eric Hoffer, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Emperor Marcus
Aurelius very seriously.
I take Ayn Rand's anti-communism and her aesthetics very seriously.
I consider Leonard's support of the idea of private roads absolutely looney
tunes. There's a private road in this very wealthy county I live in that's only
a brief stretch of road but can devastate your tires.
I consider the idea of passing judgment on everyone all the time and being
contemptuous of everyone who doesn't meet your standards and using the virtue
of selfishness to excuse your bad behavior pathetic in the extreme.
There's probably more about Objectivism that irks me. I'll think of it.
Sandra
Phil
> I consider the idea of passing judgment on everyone all the time and being
> contemptuous of everyone who doesn't meet your standards and using the virtue
> of selfishness to excuse your bad behavior pathetic in the extreme.
You mean, making over-reaching generalizations based on limited
experience from your self proclaimed past (perhaps present) mentally
unstable state, is what you deem "judgement"? If so, what an
incredible psychological projection on your part as you spam the
group with your bizarre attempt to attack Objectivism via innuendos
and second handed bragging about your supposed association with
Ayn Rand's inner circle. "Bad behavior, pathetic in the extreme" is
a perfect characterization, and projection, of your posts.
Which stale blend of contradictory crap have you decided today
is your ideal replacement for Objectivism? What did you feel it was
yesterday?
You are not attacking Objectivism. You are simply spewing
emotionally laden slashes at a strawman that you believe represents
Objectivism, leaving behind a bunch of scattered straw and nothing else.
Phil Oliver
SANDRAMEND
<< second handed bragging about your supposed association with Ayn Rand's inner
circle. >>
Wrong. I was if anything part of the outer circle known as the Junior
Collective. I was there for about two years which rebuts your allegation that I
am:
<< making over-reaching generalizations based on limited experience>>
As to my:
<<self proclaimed past (perhaps present) mentally
unstable state, >> that's Betsy Speicher's take on me.
I did go through a period of depression. So did Ayn Rand, so did Nathaniel
Branden, so did a lot of Objectivists. When i came down with Epstein-Barr,
doctors who couldn't diagnose the illness said it was all in our heads so I
went to a shrink to examine my past yet again. We came up with nothing. And
when Boston General told an EB patient that she seek psychiatric help for her
illness, she responded: *I'm a psychologist, any other suggestions* a tale she
recounted on the Donahue show when she appeared with nutritional doctor Stuart
Berger.
<< You are simply spewing emotionally laden slashes at a strawman that you
believe represents Objectivism, leaving behind a bunch of scattered straw and
nothing else. >>
If you are part of that small branch of Objectivism that discarded Barbara
Branden along with Nathan and you haven't read her brilliant THE PASSION OF AYN
RAND, you've missed a great opportunity to have learned much more about how Ayn
Rand's epistemology worked and how devoted followers of Objectivism such as
Nathan and Barbara had their love of Romain Rolland and Thomas Wolfe result in
a searing psychologizing of what evil within them made them like such writers.
We all went through that about Beethoven, (I remember overhearing Deems Taylor
saying to Alan Greenspan that perhaps Beethoven was a bit square-toed) Mozart
and other artists Ayn disapproved of. Barbara goes into this subject in great
depth in her very valuable biography.
Sandra
Ken Gardner
[...]
> I did go through a period of depression. So did Ayn Rand, so did
> Nathaniel Branden, so did a lot of Objectivists.
Did any of them acknowledge this depression, or discuss or debate its actual
causes, at the time? If so, what did they believe caused the depression?
I ask because I have known about Objectivism for over 25 years and have
never gone through any such period, yet I observe that many "Objectivists"
seem to have agry, hostile, and even depressed personalities, at least when
they post over the Internet. [Note: Phil Oliver, the person to whom you are
responding, is one of the worst in this regard.] Ayn Rand herself had some
of these tendencies, at least in her writing.
I have a theory about it, but you were actually around these people and
could observe them first hand.
[...]
> We all went through that about Beethoven, (I remember overhearing Deems
> Taylor saying to Alan Greenspan that perhaps Beethoven was a bit
> square-toed) Mozart and other artists Ayn disapproved of. Barbara goes
> into this subject in great depth in her very valuable biography.
There is, however, at least one Objectivist who also believes that the
greatest classical music was essentially born in 1770 and died in 1827. :)
Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper to
me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved Rachmaninoff --
yuck!) and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew
Beethoven's music could possibily conclude that he had a "malovalent sense
of life," or whatever her problem was with Beethoven).
Ken
SANDRAMEND
SM: I did go through a period of depression. So did Ayn Rand, so did
> Nathaniel Branden, so did a lot of Objectivists.
KG: Did any of them acknowledge this depression, or discuss or debate its
actual
causes, at the time?
SM: Certainly not with me. I was NOT part of their inner circle. But Barbara
Branden writes about it in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, and it's in the movie of
the same name.
KG: If so, what did they believe caused the depression?
I ask because I have known about Objectivism for over 25 years and have never
gone through any such period, yet I observe that many "Objectivists" seem to
have agry, hostile, and even depressed personalities, at least when
they post over the Internet. [Note: Phil Oliver, the person to whom you are
responding, is one of the worst in this regard.] Ayn Rand herself had some
of these tendencies, at least in her writing.
I have a theory about it, but you were actually around these people and
could observe them first hand.
SM: My theory is that it's IN the philosophy. Over the years, I've heard about
purges and inquisitions all over the country. Repeatedly, people do the same
horrible things to each other.
KG: Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper to
me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved Rachmaninoff --
yuck!)
SM: Now wait a minute! It's not either or. I love both Rocky and Beethoven.
KG: and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew Beethoven's
music could possibily conclude that he had a "malovalent sense of life," or
whatever her problem was with Beethoven).>>
SM: Ayn was a champion jumper to conclusions. She did it with Beethoven, Mozart
and Ralph Waldo Emerson who she totally dismissed on the basis of his comment
that *consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds.*
Sandra ;-)
90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
SANDRAMEND
<< second handed bragging about your supposed association with Ayn Rand's inner
circle. >> >>
Do you even know what the term second hander means???
I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD 25 times before meeting Rand. I was excommunicated for
NOT being a second hander: for refusing to take the judgment of an out of
control megalomaniac about a man she'd not only never met but never seen over
my first hand judgment that that man was in all essentials of character very
much like Hank Rearden.
Helen Mirren, in her superb portrayal of Ayn Rand in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND
precisely captured how out of control Ayn could get when she got excited over
something such as her lover's infidelity or my being critical of her
hero/lover.
Sandra
You may have an important role as a negative example.
Ken Gardner
>KG: If so, what did they believe caused the depression?
>I ask because I have known about Objectivism for over 25 years and have
>never gone through any such period, yet I observe that many
>"Objectivists" seem to have agry, hostile, and even depressed
>personalities, at least when they post over the Internet. [Note: Phil
>Oliver, the person to whom you are responding, is one of the worst in
>this regard.] Ayn Rand herself had some of these tendencies, at least
>in her writing.
>I have a theory about it, but you were actually around these people and
>could observe them first hand.
>SM: My theory is that it's IN the philosophy. Over the years, I've heard
>about purges and inquisitions all over the country. Repeatedly, people
>do the same horrible things to each other.
I disagree that the cause is in the philosophy itself, based on my own 25
plus years of first hand experience. I cannot think of a single tenet of
Objectivism that, if properly understood, accepted, and practiced, would
lead to depression. To the contrary, Objectivism, especially its
metaphysics and epistemology, gives me the methodology for how properly to
use my mind and, therefore, to deal successfully with life -- especially
when I supplement this methodology with things that I have learned from
Aristotle and Adler.
My theory is that many approach Objectivism the same way that other people
approach religion -- dutifully following its ethical prescriptions in much
the same way that a Christian obeys the Ten Commandments -- and expect to be
as efficacious and brilliant as John Galt. They then get frustrated,
disappointed, and (ultimately) depressed when things don't work out the way
they expect. These are the people who get all worked up over content (and
ultimately the _words_ spoken by Rand, in the same way that fundamentalists
get all worked up over scripture) rather than METHODOLOGY -- how we identify
truths (including philosophical truths) and then act accordingly. For me,
the essence of Objectivism is not its content, but its methodology, i.e. how
we use our minds to understand reality and act accordingly.
Another component is a factor identified by Ms. Rand herself -- the
difference between the metaphysical and the man-made, and within the second
category the difference between your choices and actions and the choices of
actions of others that are not within your control. As a subcategory of
this component, Objectivists often become frustrated, angry, hostile, etc.
when they are unable to persuade others that Objectivism is true or even
that others should take them or Objectivism seriously. When the failure and
frustration become habitual, it turns to disappointment and, ultimately,
depression.
>KG: Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete
>stumper to me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved
Rachmaninoff -- yuck!)
>SM: Now wait a minute! It's not either or. I love both Rocky and
>Beethoven.
No way. It's Beethoven. Everything else is, at best, a mere footnote. :)
[...]
Ken
Betsy Speicher
> SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
> > We all went through that about Beethoven, (I remember overhearing Deems
> > Taylor saying to Alan Greenspan that perhaps Beethoven was a bit
> > square-toed) Mozart and other artists Ayn disapproved of. Barbara goes
> > into this subject in great depth in her very valuable biography.
> There is, however, at least one Objectivist who also believes that the
> greatest classical music was essentially born in 1770 and died in 1827. :)
> Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper to
> me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved Rachmaninoff --
> yuck!) and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew
> Beethoven's music could possibily conclude that he had a "malovalent sense
> of life," or whatever her problem was with Beethoven).
This idea of Ayn Rand rejecting people because they liked Beethoven is so
much mythology spread, I suspect, by people who would rather not admit the
REAL reason Ayn Rand rejected them.
This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:
"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or
would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and
painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close
friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew
perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]
"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or
disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what you
liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an
assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such thing.
It's a complete, total lie."
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
SANDRAMEND
--snip--
Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND:
Page 243. *Over the years, we were to hear Ayn excoriate the *grim, unfocused
malevolence of Rembrandt -- to a painter; Shakespeare's *abysmal failure* to
present human beings with free will --to a writer; Beethoven's *sense of
doom* --to a musician.
Page 311. She would dismiss composers such as Wagner and Beethoven as without
important merit -- because their work was malevolent. She would dismiss artists
such as Rembrandt for the same reason, and the entire Impressionist school as
*murky and unfocused.* She would dismiss most of the history of literature as
anti-Romantic and unstylized, and the history of philosophy, with the sole
significant exception of Aristotle and aspects of Thomas Aquinas as mystical,
dishonest, and irrational.
Page 386. Ayn admired Dali and Vermeer and dismissed Rembrandt and French
Impressionism as essentially without value; she admired Rachmaninoff, Chopin
and operetta music and dismissed Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and Handel (in a
section explaining why Joan, a painter, and Alan Blumenthal, a musician,
eventually left.*
Sandra
SANDRAMEND
<< Objectivism, especially its metaphysics and epistemology, gives me the
methodology for how properly to use my mind and, therefore, to deal
successfully with life -- especially when I supplement this methodology with
things that I have learned from Aristotle and Adler.>>
I TOTALLY agree with your emphasis on Ayn's methodology. I fell in love with
Sherlock Holmes when I was a child. At 12, I discovered that my theology
textbook had a logic section in the back. I read that first and became an
instant atheist which then led me to study philosophy because I wanted to be a
good person and the rationale I'd been taught was now gone: Be good to please
God.
During the tense Ayn Rand years I used to read Aristotle to calm down. It was
HE not Ayn who gave me the sense of a rational universe.
Reading logic textbooks and working the exercises was a hobby of mine for a
long time. And I published the logical fallacies article in the hope people
would challenge me on my failings. On that score, the Objectivists are doing a
better job than the Mensans. ;-)
Sandra
Ken Gardner
> I TOTALLY agree with your emphasis on Ayn's methodology. I fell in love
> with Sherlock Holmes when I was a child. At 12, I discovered that my
> theology textbook had a logic section in the back. I read that first
> and became an instant atheist which then led me to study philosophy
> because I wanted to be a good person and the rationale I'd been taught
> was now gone: Be good to please God.
> During the tense Ayn Rand years I used to read Aristotle to calm down.
> It was HE not Ayn who gave me the sense of a rational universe.
I'm reading Aristotle right now (recently re-read the Ethics, now reading
Rhetoric for the first time, planning to follow up with Poetics and then
Organon), and I know exactly what you mean regarding Aristotle. Ditto for
Mortimer Adler, who often comes across to me as Ayn Rand in a good mood.
<G>
> Reading logic textbooks and working the exercises was a hobby of mine
> for a long time. And I published the logical fallacies article in the
> hope people would challenge me on my failings. On that score, the
> Objectivists are doing a better job than the Mensans. ;-)
I have several different versions myself, including one by Lionel Ruby that
is my personal favorite. I wonder how much Rand was referring to standard
traditional (mostly Aristotelian) logic, and not the "new school" OPAR
version, when she wrote in several places that the laws of logic must guide
one's thinking.
Ken
Tom Robertson
><< This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:
>
>--snip--
>Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND:
>
>Page 243. *Over the years, we were to hear Ayn excoriate the *grim, unfocused
>malevolence of Rembrandt -- to a painter; Shakespeare's *abysmal failure* to
>present human beings with free will --to a writer;
I had an ongoing exchange a few years ago with someone who quoted
Shakespeare's "there's nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so"
in his sig. I would respond with, say, the Bible's more objectivist
approach of "there is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is
the way of death." etc. Was Shakespeare really this subjectivist?
<snip>
Curtis Plumb
Ken Gardner wrote:
> There is, however, at least one Objectivist who also believes that the
> greatest classical music was essentially born in 1770 and died in 1827. :)
> Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper to
> me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved Rachmaninoff --
> yuck!) and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew
> Beethoven's music could possibily conclude that he had a "malovalent sense
> of life," or whatever her problem was with Beethoven).
>
> Ken
First, you are "completely stumped." Then you offer her Russian background
(which would figure to make Tchaikovsky averse to LVB) and ignorance of
Beethoven's music as the reason for her critical disinterest. And then you are
unsure what "her problem was with Beethoven." I wonder why you are so
obsessed with the fact that a person's musical tastes don't align with yours?
This focus on Rand's displeasure with Beethoven seems odd, unless you are
merely looking for a way to distance yourself from those wayward Arians.
Since you seem to find Rachmaninov's music yucky, would you mind listing
other composers that fit this description? How would you describe the sense
of life of his third piano concerto or second piano sonata?
It also disappoints me to see you throwing in with this new addled muckraker.
Curt Plumb
Ken Gardner
>First, you are "completely stumped." Then you offer her Russian
>background (which would figure to make Tchaikovsky averse to LVB) and
>ignorance of Beethoven's music as the reason for her critical
>disinterest. And then you are unsure what "her problem was with
>Beethoven." I wonder why you are so obsessed with the fact that a
>person's musical tastes don't align with yours? This focus on Rand's
>displeasure with Beethoven seems odd, unless you are merely looking for
>a way to distance yourself from those wayward Arians.
I'm not obsessed with anyone's musical tastes. I'm just curious, that's
all. Nor do I consider it any big deal that I like Beethoven and she likes
Rachmaninoff. And I really don't care what the waywards think. I think I
have already distanced myself from them about as far as I can possibly get
without having to go into the subject of music as well.
>Since you seem to find Rachmaninov's music yucky, would you mind listing
>other composers that fit this description? How would you describe the
>sense of life of his third piano concerto or second piano sonata?
It's easier for me to say who I like. I like very few composers other than
Beethoven. I would certainly include Tschaikovsky in the list of the few
that I like, and a handful of others (Sibelious, Rimsy-Korkasoff [sp], some
Shostakovich, Rodrigo, Copeland, some Mahler [not much], Haydn).
>It also disappoints me to see you throwing in with this new addled
>muckraker.
Well, we have a common interest in Aristotle and Mortimer Adler, and she
claims to have been close to the inner circle during the formative years of
the Objectivist movement. And again, I'm curious re why such a person would
turn away from Objectivism. You can learn from anyone if you close your
mind to what they have to say, even if you ultimately determine that they
are wrong in some respect.
Ken
Fred Weiss
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns908424C25D0E8...@24.4.0.74...
> Well, we have a common interest in Aristotle and Mortimer Adler,
So please tell us something of interest which she has said about either.
>You can learn from anyone
What have you learned from her - other than what she has declared is her
primary interest: bitchy gossip.
Fred Weiss
Curtis Plumb
dislike for Rachmaninov. Actually, I'm stumped at how you can
appreciate Tchaikovsky, if you can't bear to listen to Rachmaninov.
Or have you admitted by now that it's "no big deal" and we can just
move on? If that's the case, why do you periodically point to this
musical disagreement, as if it were a shortcoming on Rand's part?
For what it's worth, I think I understand her problem with Beethoven,
which is not to say I don't enjoy the music. But I do think it is
unreasonable to hold this over her head, when an exposition of her
thoughts about it do not exist.
Curt
Lionell K. Griffith
><< This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:
>
>--snip--
>Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND:
>
As if "The Passion of Ayn Rand" is proof of anything but the ravings
of someone who discovered she acted as stupidly as her husband, Ayn,
and Frank and does not want to own that fact. Its a huge "its
everyone elses fault" diatribe and cannot be used as a detailed report
of fact. Oh, it may acutally contain some fact, but one cannot
clearly separate the fact, fiction, and neurotic fantasy.
Lionell K. Griffith
>I TOTALLY agree with your emphasis on Ayn's methodology.
Then why don't you use it?
Ken Gardner
>> Well, we have a common interest in Aristotle and Mortimer Adler,
>So please tell us something of interest which she has said about either.
I'm actually more interested in hearing what she has to say about
Objectivism as a philosophy, either pro or con, beyond the little that she
has already said.
>> You can learn from anyone
>What have you learned from her - other than what she has declared is her
>primary interest: bitchy gossip.
I guess I'm more patient than you are. I'm not interested in the "gossip"
either, except as a backdrop for anything she has to say about the
philosophy that she hasn't already said.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Well, you didn't seem to find it very difficult to express your
>dislike for Rachmaninov. Actually, I'm stumped at how you can
>appreciate Tchaikovsky, if you can't bear to listen to Rachmaninov.
>Or have you admitted by now that it's "no big deal" and we can just
>move on? If that's the case, why do you periodically point to this
>musical disagreement, as if it were a shortcoming on Rand's part?
I do periodically point to this musical "disagreement," but not as a
shortcoming on Rand's part (or mine) except in the extremely limited sense
that I mention in my next comment.
>For what it's worth, I think I understand her problem with Beethoven,
>which is not to say I don't enjoy the music. But I do think it is
>unreasonable to hold this over her head, when an exposition of her
>thoughts about it do not exist.
Again, you are reading way too much into what I said. If I have any
objection here at all, it is to any implicit attempt to express moral or
philosophical disapproval of a person based on his expressed preference for
Beethoven (or Mozart, etc.) over Rachmininoff.
Ken
Josh
>Curtis Plumb <ero...@loop.com> wrote:
>>which is not to say I don't enjoy the music. But I do think it is
>>unreasonable to hold this over her head, when an exposition of her
>>thoughts about it do not exist.
>
>Again, you are reading way too much into what I said. If I have any
>objection here at all, it is to any implicit attempt to express moral or
>philosophical disapproval of a person based on his expressed preference for
>Beethoven (or Mozart, etc.) over Rachmininoff.
>
>Ken
I listen to and enjoy a lot of pop music and rock and roll and such.
I've grown away from it somewhat over the years, but I still enjoy it.
For twenty years or so (80-90) it seemed to me that whatever value I saw
in some of the mainstream British Invasion and classic American Rock
that I liked was superseded by seriously negative 1-4-5 drivel. In
particular the heavy metal and glam thing seemed to me worthless
starting in the 70's, and I never much changed my mind.
Now this may all be worthless to those who look down upon the Beatles
and the Who and CCR and such, but I see some parallel in these
conversations about Classical stars. I am incapable of listening to
some of the more negative lousy pop so-called music of the 80's and 90's
without just becoming a complete won't-shut-up pain-in-the-neck. Let
someone put on Aerosmith or Ozzy Osbourne or Motley Crue or Jane's
Addiction or whatever and all I can think is how can people listen to
this stuff. And what kind of people listen to this stuff?
I remember thinking about Aerosmith "surely this can't last". How wrong
I was. They are often held up to me as "the best" of that sort of
music. 25 years later and these geniuses are playing in front of
hundreds of millions of people around the globe for the Super Bowl
instead of someone who in my view might be a more talented pop star,
with a much more positive musical presentation. There are any number of
genres and talents that play pop music, now, that I like, so I don't see
much point in trying to compile a list. But it was very striking to me
to see Harry Connick Jr. playing the NBA all-star game. The NBA got it
right. The NFL didn't. And it's not the first time the NFL has blown
it. I wonder why.
Yes, I enjoy some of the classical music you folks mention, on occasion,
and what is never played on radio, in a supposedly capitalistic economy,
outside of New York or LA, but should be, Broadway Music. But this "who
would listen to that stuff" musical question recurs for me mostly in
terms of pop taste.
A couple of months ago I went to Temple for the first time in twenty
years. I'm an atheist and had no religious feelings, but I thought it
might be something different to do with a Friday night. I can think of
worse things. The reason I mention it is that I sat there the whole
time kvetching about the music. I didn't like the tunes they chose
(some of the prayers have more than one tune that can be applied to
them). So I just thought that it was kind of funny that that was my
reaction.
As to Rand and her apparent insistence on partly judging people based on
their musical tastes, I think we all do some of that don't we? I recall
some point perhaps in the Romantic Manifesto where she mentioned that
how music affects us was something that she felt was an unsolved
question. Not that this prevented her or me or most of us from passing
some judgment on others for how they respond to this or that music, but
I do think it's interesting that it's one of the few points where she
quite clearly said "I don't know" about an aspect of the question.
jl
Dean Sandin
She has _nothing_ to say about the ideas. She is fixated on gossip,
personalities, psychobabble, and her own hurts. Ideas are not real
to her. They are not the grasp of reality to her, if we are to take
her postings as seriously representing her mentality. They are means
of expressing gossip, personalities, psychobabble, and her own hurts.
Attempts to communicate with her have met solely with that mindset.
Lesson: You can't squeeze blood from a vegetable, and you can't
expect reason from this person. That it talks, and talks in great
waves of posts, is not evidence of adherence to reason.
--Dean
Curtis Plumb
Ken Gardner wrote:
Ken Gardner wrote earlier:
"Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper to
me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved Rachmaninoff --
yuck!) and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew
Beethoven's music could possibly conclude that he had a 'malevolent sense
of life,' or whatever her problem was with Beethoven)."
"No one who actually knew Beethoven's music could possibly conclude that
he had a 'malevolent sense of life,' or whatever her problem was with Beeth
oven."
I take that statement to be extremely condescending.
From your list of composers earlier presented, I have formed the opinion
that your knowledge of music is about average. So is mine. So it would
never
occur to me to challenge Ayn Rand's opinion, as many seem willing to do. I
would,
instead, be interested to explore the psychology of music (for want of a better
term.) Rand was very perceptive, so to assume that her opinion of Beethove
n was
mere filigree seems problematic. Maybe some premise checking would be more
in order.
Curt
Owl
news:20010413221259...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
> I consider Leonard's support of the idea of private roads absolutely
looney
> tunes.
I'm surprised that Leonard Peikoff would advocate such a sensible idea.
>There's a private road in this very wealthy county I live in that's only
> a brief stretch of road but can devastate your tires.
That's anecdotal. There is good reason to believe private roads would be
superior to government roads, just as everything else private is superior to
everything governmental. Do you know anything about this issue?
Some further reading:
http://www.cc.utah.edu/~cwn4235/PrivateRoad.html
SANDRAMEND
Shakespeare's like the Bible. You can find sayings to support whatever point of
view you hold.
Sandra ;-)
If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy.
SANDRAMEND
<< As if "The Passion of Ayn Rand" is proof of anything but the ravings of
someone who discovered she acted as stupidly as her husband, Ayn, and Frank and
does not want to own that fact. Its a huge "its everyone elses fault" diatribe
and cannot be used as a detailed report
of fact. Oh, it may acutally contain some fact, but one cannot clearly
separate the fact, fiction, and neurotic fantasy. >>
Obviously, your level of epistemology requires the abridged version: the
SHOwtime film for which Helen Mirren won a highly-deserved award and in which
Julie Delpy captured Barbara perfectly.
Alas, Peter Fonda came off as the drugged up farmer he is. And Eric Stolz
obviously did no research or he would have captured Branden's accent and his
lurching from Mike Hammer to Sigmund Freud persona.
Nonetheless, the film captures what Rand was like when in an out of control
fury. As was said at the time: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
SANDRAMEND
<< I have several different versions myself, including one by Lionel Ruby that
is my personal favorite. >>
I would be incredibly grateful if you'd email it to me. Ken. And will credit
you as provider when I conquer my HTML phobia and get all my logic stuff
online.
<<I wonder how much Rand was referring to standard traditional (mostly
Aristotelian) logic, and not the "new school" OPAR version, when she wrote in
several places that the laws of logic must guide one's thinking. >>
Ayn Rand had the puniest collection of books you've ever seen. BUT she had the
Complete Works of Aristotle and the WD Ross book on Aristotle, Oxford
University Press.
Therefore, without being certain, I infer that it was Aristotelian logic she
was referring to.
Sandra ;-)
The strongest of all our convictions is that two contradictory statements are
not both true at the same time... ARISTOTLE
SANDRAMEND
Then why don't you use it?
>>
As in???
Sandra
On my belly I couldn't lower myself to your level.
Ken Gardner
[Re Lionel Ruby's logic book]
> I would be incredibly grateful if you'd email it to me. Ken. And will
> credit you as provider when I conquer my HTML phobia and get all my
> logic stuff online.
I can't because it is in paper form, not electronic form. But you can order
it from Amazon books.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>"No one who actually knew Beethoven's music could possibly conclude that
>he had a 'malevolent sense of life,' or whatever her problem was with
>Beethoven."
>I take that statement to be extremely condescending.
>From your list of composers earlier presented, I have formed the
>opinion that your knowledge of music is about average.
It's much more extensive than average. Part of the reason why I like
Beethoven so much is because I have a thorough and exhaustive knowledge of
the works of just about every other major classical composer as well. I've
had over 12 years training on the violin and piano, and have actually played
in an orchestra that performed works such as Tchaikovsy's Second Piano
Concerto in public (in addition to many other symphonic works). So I assure
you that I know exactly what I am talking about on this particular subject.
>So it would never occur to me to challenge Ayn Rand's opinion, as many seem
>willing to do.
I'm mot aware that Ayn Rand had any special expertise in music. And more
generally, no one's opinion is properly beyond challenge, on any subject.
>I would, instead, be interested to explore the psychology of music
>(for want of a better term.) Rand was very perceptive, so to assume that
>her opinion of Beethoven was mere filigree seems problematic. Maybe some
>premise checking would be more in order.
I agree, but probably not in the sense you mean.
Ken
Curtis Plumb
Ken Gardner wrote:
> I agree, but probably not in the sense you mean.
>
> Ken
Touché.
SANDRAMEND
it from Amazon books.>>
A book? I thought you meant a list. Are you referring to THE ART OF MAKING
SENSE by Lionel Ruby? I've had that book by my side since Leonard used Ruby's
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC as a text in the course at Hunter College.
Love that book. So witty. so much fun. Some idiot *improved* it and took out
the wit while adding questions at the end of each chapter. Yawn.
The chapter on the logic of Sherlock Holmes is a special favorite of mine.
Did you by chance see the miniseries on Dr. Joseph Bell, Conan Doyle's mentor,
on whom Sherlock Holmes is based? It starred Ian Richardson as Bell and was
pretty good. On PBS, of course.
Sandra ;-)
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/logicalms22/">*ELEMENTARY, MY DEAR WATSON*</A>
Ken Gardner
> A book? I thought you meant a list. Are you referring to THE ART OF
> MAKING SENSE by Lionel Ruby? I've had that book by my side since
> Leonard used Ruby's INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC as a text in the course at
> Hunter College.
My Ruby book, which I mentioned earlier, is INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. I've
never heard of "The Art of Making Sense."
> The chapter on the logic of Sherlock Holmes is a special favorite of
> mine. Did you by chance see the miniseries on Dr. Joseph Bell, Conan
> Doyle's mentor, on whom Sherlock Holmes is based? It starred Ian
> Richardson as Bell and was pretty good. On PBS, of course.
Nope. I watch very little non-hockey related TV. <G>
Ken
R Lawrence
If one looks back at Betsy Speicher's earlier post (the one being quoted by
Ms. Mendoza above), one sees that the "myth" being referred to is the
following:
>This idea of Ayn Rand rejecting people because they liked Beethoven is so
>much mythology <snip>
Mrs. Speicher then quotes Leonard Peikoff:
>If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or
>would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and
>painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close
>friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
It is important to recognize here what is being claimed as a "myth." To my
knowledge, no one denies that Rand disliked Beethoven's music. Nor does
anyone deny that she could be quite forceful in expressing her dislike of
it -- or of anything else that she disliked. It is the dislike and the
expression of it that is attested to in the quotes from Branden above.
What is disputed is the claim that Rand rejected (or broke with or
excommunicated or whatever term you prefer) people because they disagreed
with her artistic tastes. Although this claim is commonly made, it is not
supported by the material in Barbara Branden's book, nor by material from
any other sources that I have seen. If anything, the available information
suggests that people could remain friends with Rand for long periods while
disagreeing with her artistic tastes. Peikoff attests to disagreeing with
her about Beethoven and horror fiction. Branden's account of Rand's
relationship with the Blumenthals indicates that they disagreed over
Beethoven, etc., for many years, and that it was the Blumenthals who
decided to break with Rand (not vice versa). Branden herself admits to a
love of Thomas Wolfe, a writer Rand disliked.
Perhaps Ms. Mendoza never meant to claim that Rand rejected people over
these issues, just that Rand frequently expressed strong views on the
subject. I don't see the former claim expressed clearly in any of her
posts. If so, then we just have a case of people talking past one another.
If Ms. Mendoza really is making the former claim, then she should present
better evidence for it than the above quotes from Branden, because those
quotes don't support what others are calling the "Beethoven myth."
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
SANDRAMEND
<< it would never occur to me to challenge Ayn Rand's opinion, as many seem
willing to do. I
would, instead, be interested to explore the psychology of music (for want of
a better
term.) Rand was very perceptive, so to assume that her opinion of Beethoven
was mere filigree seems problematic. Maybe some premise checking would be
more in order.>>
Ayn was quite willing to give opinions on things she knew little about: Emerson
on the basis of one quote, and probably the music of Beethoven and Mozart as
well.
In my last encounter with her, she psychologized for FIVE hours about a man
she'd never met nor even seen just on the basis of the line *Nathan and Barbara
are the two rational people most likely to be irrational in an emotional
situation.*
Ayn's psychologizing is covered extensively in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, by
Barbara Branden. Very eye-opening.
Sandra ;-)
If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I
will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is
only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius
Carl Snyder
References: <t%UB6.4485$rX5.2...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>
<20010414112503...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hatchetman.killfile.org
Ken Gardner wrote:
>I ask because I have known about Objectivism for over 25 years and have
>never gone through any such period, yet I observe that many "Objectivists"
>seem to have agry, hostile, and even depressed personalities, at least when
>they post over the Internet. [Note: Phil Oliver, the person to whom >you
>are responding, is one of the worst in this regard.] Ayn Rand >herself had
>some of these tendencies, at least in her writing.
Ken, I did not realize you were a psychologist qualified to diagnose
depression. One thing I have noticed regarding Phil Oliver on this
newsgroup is that over the past six months he has been under attack by a
parade of non-entities, this Sandramend troll being just the latest.
Second, I don't see how you could tell Mr. Oliver is depressed simply by his
writing. In my book he is very brave to continue posting here despite the
abuse. The sort of actions that occur on this newsgroup could be summed up
as "zeroes attacking heroes". Mr. Oliver is certainly no zero.
-cs
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Ken Gardner
>> I ask because I have known about Objectivism for over 25 years and
>> have never gone through any such period, yet I observe that many
>> "Objectivists" seem to have agry, hostile, and even depressed
>> personalities, at least when they post over the Internet. [Note: Phil
>> Oliver, the person to whom >you are responding, is one of the worst in
>> this regard.] Ayn Rand >herself had some of these tendencies, at
>> least in her writing.
>Ken, I did not realize you were a psychologist qualified to diagnose
>depression.
I'm not. However, the regulars here who have observed Phil here at HPO know
exactly what I'm talking about.
>One thing I have noticed regarding Phil Oliver on this
>newsgroup is that over the past six months he has been under attack by a
>parade of non-entities....,
How can a "non-entity" attack anyone? I thought that it was Objectivism 101
that only entities can act.
>Second, I don't see how you could tell Mr. Oliver is depressed simply by
>his writing. In my book he is very brave to continue posting here
>despite the abuse. The sort of actions that occur on this newsgroup
>could be summed up as "zeroes attacking heroes". Mr. Oliver is
>certainly no zero.
Phil is just another Internet asshole. You got your zeros thoroughly mixed
up here.
Ken
Betsy Speicher
> << This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:
[How Ayn Rand accepted people, like him, who did not share her tastes in
music and literature
> Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND:
> Page 243. *Over the years, we were to hear Ayn excoriate the *grim, unfocused
> malevolence of Rembrandt -- to a painter; Shakespeare's *abysmal failure* to
> present human beings with free will --to a writer; Beethoven's *sense of
> doom* --to a musician.
Ayn Rand expressed her honest opinion about some artists to other artists.
> Page 311. She would dismiss composers such as Wagner and Beethoven as without
> important merit -- because their work was malevolent. She would dismiss a
> rtists
> such as Rembrandt for the same reason, and the entire Impressionist school as
> *murky and unfocused.* She would dismiss most of the history of literature as
> anti-Romantic and unstylized, and the history of philosophy, with the sole
> significant exception of Aristotle and aspects of Thomas Aquinas as mystical,
> dishonest, and irrational.
When Ayn Rand thought something lacked value, she said so.
> Page 386. Ayn admired Dali and Vermeer and dismissed Rembrandt and French
> Impressionism as essentially without value; she admired Rachmaninoff, Chopin
> and operetta music and dismissed Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and Handel (in a
> section explaining why Joan, a painter, and Alan Blumenthal, a musician,
> eventually left.*
Ayn Rand had definite tastes in painting and music. The Blumenthals who
disagreed with Ayn Rand's taste in art and music were neither kicked out
nor denounced. Instead they left and denounced Ayn Rand.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
SANDRAMEND
<< Ayn Rand had definite tastes in painting and music. The Blumenthals who
disagreed with Ayn Rand's taste in art and music were neither kicked out nor
denounced. Instead they left and denounced Ayn Rand.>>
A typical Speicherian distortion. The Blumenthals didn't leave because their
views different from Ayn's. They left because she wouldn't leave alone the fact
that their tastes differed.
It had never occurred to me before but Ayn in terms of aesthetics which deal
with matters of taste and opinion based on philosophical and psychological
values acted as if her tastes were the only valid ones.
I consider Dali a good draughtsman, but I also consider his art highly
irrational.
I consider operetta and tiddlywinks music a bore. But Rand took what may have
had personal resonance for her: light operetta music in a society as heavy and
dull as Fred Weiss's writings.
And she would never leave it alone. Barbara goes into this at length in her
book THE PASSION OF AYN RAND.
Nathan had admired Romain Rolland's JEAN CHRISTOPHE. Barbara had admired Thomas
Wolfe. They were hounded and psychologically analyzed for hour after hour until
they recanted.
You know, I'm beginning to forgive Nathaniel Branden. He merely did to us what
had been done to him by Ayn.
Sandra
Tym Parsons
> >Ken, I did not realize you were a psychologist qualified to diagnose
> >depression.
>
> I'm not. However, the regulars here who have observed Phil here at HPO know
> exactly what I'm talking about.
Enough to know that Gardner's claims are baseless.
Tym Parsons, HPO Regular.
Owl
> Ayn Rand had the puniest collection of books you've ever seen. BUT she had
the
> Complete Works of Aristotle and the WD Ross book on Aristotle, Oxford
> University Press.
If only she'd had W. D. Ross' other book, _The Right and the Good_, hundreds
of followers might have been saved from confusion.
SANDRAMEND
<< If only she'd had W. D. Ross' other book, _The Right and the Good_, hundreds
of followers might have been saved from confusion.>>
Could you elaborate on that fascinating comment? I've never found a commentator
on Aristotle as excellent as W.D.Ross. I know nothing about his book THE RIGHT
AND THE GOOD.
Gratefully,
Sandra
When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes -
Desiderus Erasmus
Tempus Fugit
artistic tastes. She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist
view of the world. It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share
her artistic bend is philosophically flawed. (This is because her artistic
temperament was a reflection of her philosophy or else her claim about an
integrated system fails).
It is easy to see contradictions in her preferences. Rachmaninoff is the
brooder par excellence. Beethoven brooded in a rebellious way while
Rachmaninoff broods in defeat and despair. Dali is the quintessential
subjectivist. Trying to place art on any basis other than the subjective is
a sign of confusion, dogmatism and mediocrity. Rand's opinions on art need
not be discussed at any length. They do not merit serious consideration.
Only the mediocre worry at great length about what the other mediocrity said
or believed. Rand's superior intelligence was compartmentalized to the point
that it was disabled by glaring blind spots. Thus her alleged philosophy
ends up being bull shit.
Carmichael
"Curtis Plumb" <ero...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:3AD9447A...@loop.com...
>
>
> Ken Gardner wrote:
>
> > There is, however, at least one Objectivist who also believes that the
> > greatest classical music was essentially born in 1770 and died in 1827.
:)
> > Ayn Rand's attitude towards Beethoven has always been a complete stumper
to
> > me -- I attribute it to her Russian background (she loved
Rachmaninoff --
> > yuck!) and ignorance of Beethoven's works (no one who actually knew
> > Beethoven's music could possibily conclude that he had a "malovalent
sense
> > of life," or whatever her problem was with Beethoven).
> >
> > Ken
>
> First, you are "completely stumped." Then you offer her Russian
background
> (which would figure to make Tchaikovsky averse to LVB) and ignorance of
> Beethoven's music as the reason for her critical disinterest. And then
you are
> unsure what "her problem was with Beethoven." I wonder why you are so
> obsessed with the fact that a person's musical tastes don't align with
yours?
> This focus on Rand's displeasure with Beethoven seems odd, unless you are
> merely looking for a way to distance yourself from those wayward Arians.
>
> Since you seem to find Rachmaninov's music yucky, would you mind listing
> other composers that fit this description? How would you describe the
sense
> of life of his third piano concerto or second piano sonata?
>
> It also disappoints me to see you throwing in with this new addled
muckraker.
>
> Curt Plumb
Tempus Fugit
Robert J. Kolker
Tempus Fugit wrote:
> Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected in your
> artistic tastes. She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist
> view of the world. It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share
> her artistic bend is philosophically flawed. (This is because her artistic
> temperament was a reflection of her philosophy or else her claim about an
> integrated system fails).
In this Rand was wrong. Artistic and aesthetic preference are
subjective clean through. There is no more to preferring one
painting to another than to preferring one flavor of ice
cream to another. Each of us knows what he or she likes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is ugliness and all
things in between. To argue that there is an objective basis
of the goodness of this art or this music over another is
balderdash.
Bob Kolker
Betsy Speicher
> Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected in
> your artistic tastes.
She held no such view.
> She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist view of the
> world.
This is, in fact, not true. Ayn Rand's definition of art is: "A
recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
judgements." That includes the metaphysical value of ANY philosophy
including Christianity, Kantianism, etc.
> It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share her
> artistic bend is philosophically flawed.
Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Garbage in, garbage
out.
Tempus Fugit
"Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.20.010418...@hypermall.com...
> On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
>
> > Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected in
> > your artistic tastes.
>
> She held no such view.
She did, as you say below. I have only paraphrased the premise of the
definition from the perspective of the observer. If it is an integrated
system you certainly would not "sanction" a "dichotomy" between
"metaphysical value judgements" and artistic prefrences, either by the
artist or the observer. (She fantasized with an f, not ph.)
> > She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist view of the
> > world.
> This is, in fact, not true.
Obviously meaning "proper" art.
>Ayn Rand's definition of art is: "A
> recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
> judgements." That includes the metaphysical value of ANY philosophy
> including Christianity, Kantianism, etc.
And those others are incorrect, so their art can not be good or proper.
> > It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share her
> > artistic bend is philosophically flawed.
>
> Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Garbage in, garbage
> out.
> Betsy Speicher
In what way is it garbage to say that an Objectivist is expected to hold
"metaphysical value judgements" in line with Objectivism, and to sanction
"recreations of reality" that follow from that? Your denial of that is
interesting.
Carmichael
Tempus Fugit
SANDRAMEND
I can't stand Mahler's music but I wouldn't say that to someone who likes his
music. Why would I do that?
Similarly, I can't stand Thomas Wolfe (who Barbara Branden liked) and I was
bored by Romain Rolland's JEAN CHRISTOPHE (which Nathaniel Branden had loved).
It doesn't mean I'm right and they were wrong. We respond to art for complex
reasons and should respect each other's taste.
Even when we respond to the same books and music, we can be doing so for very
different reasons. I know a woman who had a Dagny Taggart bracelet made and
loves ATLAS SHRUGGED, but has no interest in the philosophy and doesn't share
Rand's politics, epistemology, and certainly not her metaphysics or ethics.
Who cares. She bought the book.
Paraphrasing and expanding what Nathaniel Branden said to Edith Efron (then a
producer for Mike Wallace) at an early Basic Principles lecture, most readers
are just ballast who will buy the book because it's a best seller or because
they'll seem smart by having it on their coffee table or because people are
talking about it. They'll read the book, enjoy it and forget the ideas. But as
in her letter to the readers of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, others will recommend it to
their friends and will apply the ideas and ultimately change the culture.
Sandra
James E. Prescott
message news:20010418152325...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> [...Our differing preferences] doesn't mean I'm right and
> they were wrong. We respond to art for complex
> reasons and should respect each other's taste.
It would never occur to me in my wildest dreams to ever condemn a person for
what he responds to in art. I don't think it likely that Ayn Rand did such a
thing, but I suppose it's possible (given all that I've read), and I
certainly think it's likely that some of her closest associates did this --
or something very close to it.
Here's my take.
Artistic taste is an emotional response. It's automated, and comes, like any
emotion, from one's beliefs about reality, from what Ayn Rand called one's
metaphysical values judgements. That's a belief about the world coupled with
a belief about it means to, what it matters to, what effect it has upon,
oneself and the values one holds dear.
Now it may a common misconception, or at least an easy mistake to make, to
think that a person's own beliefs are under his own volitional control.
("Believe whatever you want" being a common expression.) But that's simply
not true. If you could control what you yourself believe -- particularly
control your own metaphysical value judgements -- you'd not only control
your own emotions, you'd control/change-at-whim your own grasp of reality,
and you'd be schizophrenic, and you'd soon be dead.
Unlike (general) beliefs and metaphysical value judgements, /morality/ is a
chosen code of values and principles that guide a man's choices and actions.
Though not in direct control of our own beliefs, there is certainly one
fundamental choice we do all confront -- the choice to think or not to
think -- and while this is precisely the basic moral choice that affects the
whole of one's character, including one's metaphysical values judgments, it
/isn't/, by any means, the /only/ thing that affects it. A person's
character, including value judgments, are affected by innumerable objective
factors in his genes and his environment (his upbringing, etc.) which have
nothing whatsoever to do with his moral choices.
Therefore, it's simply irrational to judge a person "immoral" on the basis
of any artistic preference or any other emotional response to anything. The
judgement of good or evil needs to be restricted to its proper domain: that
over which the person has a /choice/, namely, the choice to exercise his
reason or not, and the consequential choices to adhere, or not, to a
rational code of values and principles in guiding his own behavior.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Betsy Speicher
>
> "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
> > > Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected in
> > > your artistic tastes.
> > She held no such view.
> She did, as you say below. I have only paraphrased the premise of the
> definition from the perspective of the observer.
You have totally mangled and misapplied it.
> If it is an integrated system you certainly would not "sanction" a
> "dichotomy" between "metaphysical value judgements" and artistic
> prefrences, either by the artist or the observer.
Why not?
> (She fantasized with an f, not ph.)
That was a quote from YOUR spelling.
> > > She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist view of the
> > > world.
> > This is, in fact, not true.
> Obviously meaning "proper" art.
Ayn Rand held that evaluations of that sort did not belong in a definition
of art and her definition of art does not have it.
> > Ayn Rand's definition of art is: "A
> > recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
> > judgements." That includes the metaphysical value of ANY philosophy
> > including Christianity, Kantianism, etc.
> And those others are incorrect, so their art can not be good or proper.
That's what YOU say. Ayn Rand said no such thing. In fact, some very
fine and exquisite art is based on relgious premises. (One favorite of
Ayn Rand's was a Dali crucifixion.)
> > > It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share her
> > > artistic bend is philosophically flawed.
> > Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Garbage in, garbage
> > out.
> In what way is it garbage to say that an Objectivist is expected to
> hold "metaphysical value judgements" in line with Objectivism, and to
> sanction "recreations of reality" that follow from that?
It is garbage because it simply is not true.
Jason Lockwood
> > hold "metaphysical value judgements" in line with Objectivism, and to
> > sanction "recreations of reality" that follow from that?
>
> It is garbage because it simply is not true.
Indeed, Objectivists frequently disagree about the value of works of art. A
perfect recent example is the movie "Chocolat." I loved the movie and know
some other Objectivists who did, too, but Robert Tracinski liked it a lot
less and said why in his article in the most recent TIA. I disagree with his
views of the movie, but does that make him or me any less an Objectivist?
And what about those people, like Leonard Peikoff, who liked things that Ayn
Rand did not - like Beethoven or Somerset Maugham? The examples are endless.
We've beat this dead horse so many times on HPO that it's hardly worth
waxing on and on about it.
Jason Lockwood
Tempus Fugit
> On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
>
> >
> > "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
>
> > > > Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected
in
> > > > your artistic tastes.
>
> > > She held no such view.
>
> > She did, as you say below. I have only paraphrased the premise of the
> > definition from the perspective of the observer.
>
> You have totally mangled and misapplied it.
>
> > If it is an integrated system you certainly would not "sanction" a
> > "dichotomy" between "metaphysical value judgements" and artistic
> > prefrences, either by the artist or the observer.
>
> Why not?
It's the law of cause and effect. A pear tree bears pears.
> > (She fantasized with an f, not ph.)
>
> That was a quote from YOUR spelling.
Yes. I corrected myself.
> > > > She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist view of the
> > > > world.
>
> > > This is, in fact, not true.
>
> > Obviously meaning "proper" art.
>
> Ayn Rand held that evaluations of that sort did not belong in a definition
> of art and her definition of art does not have it.
Please clarify. In what way, if any, does Ayn Rand's definition of art
relate to the Objectivist philosophy? Does Objectivism as a philosophy
address the question of esthetics? If so, how? How does the Objectivist
definition of art differ in its relationship to "reality" (or in any other
way) from the normal definition of art, which is based on a subjective
judgement of beauty?
> > > Ayn Rand's definition of art is: "A
> > > recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
> > > judgements." That includes the metaphysical value of ANY philosophy
> > > including Christianity, Kantianism, etc.
>
> > And those others are incorrect, so their art can not be good or proper.
>
> That's what YOU say. Ayn Rand said no such thing. In fact, some very
> fine and exquisite art is based on relgious premises. (One favorite of
> Ayn Rand's was a Dali crucifixion.)
If the "metaphysical judgements" are incorrect, the "recreation of reality"
has no appeal, except for its beauty. If beauty is the criterion of the
validity of art, (regardless of the validity of the "metaphysical value
judgements" which inspired the art), then the definition is deficient in a
fundamental way.
> > > > It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share her
> > > > artistic bend is philosophically flawed.
>
> > > Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Garbage in, garbage
> > > out.
>
> > In what way is it garbage to say that an Objectivist is expected to
> > hold "metaphysical value judgements" in line with Objectivism, and to
> > sanction "recreations of reality" that follow from that?
>
> It is garbage because it simply is not true.
>
> Betsy Speicher
Be more specific. Which is not true (above)?
a. that an Objectivist is expected to hold "metaphysical value judgements"
in line with Objectivism
or
b. that an Objectivist is expected to sanction (as art, by definition)
recreations of reality that follow from correct metaphysical value
judgements.
Are you and Mr. Lockwood saying that there is no "Objectivist esthetics",
but that an Objectivist considers only the beauty of the art object, just
like everyone else?
Carmichael
Tempus Fugit
> On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
>
> >
> > "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On 18 Apr 2001, Tempus Fugit wrote:
>
> > > > Rand phantasized that a proper approach to "reality" was reflected
in
> > > > your artistic tastes.
>
> > > She held no such view.
>
> > She did, as you say below. I have only paraphrased the premise of the
> > definition from the perspective of the observer.
>
> You have totally mangled and misapplied it.
>
> > If it is an integrated system you certainly would not "sanction" a
> > "dichotomy" between "metaphysical value judgements" and artistic
> > prefrences, either by the artist or the observer.
>
> Why not?
It's the law of cause and effect. A pear tree bears pears.
> > (She fantasized with an f, not ph.)
>
> That was a quote from YOUR spelling.
Yes. I corrected myself.
> > > > She had a definition of art in terms of the Objectivist view of the
> > > > world.
>
> > > This is, in fact, not true.
>
> > Obviously meaning "proper" art.
>
> Ayn Rand held that evaluations of that sort did not belong in a definition
> of art and her definition of art does not have it.
Please clarify. In what way, if any, does Ayn Rand's definition of art
relate to the Objectivist philosophy? Does Objectivism as a philosophy
address the question of esthetics? If so, how? How does the Objectivist
definition of art differ in its relationship to "reality" (or in any other
way) from the normal definition of art, which is based on a subjective
judgement of beauty?
> > > Ayn Rand's definition of art is: "A
> > > recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value
> > > judgements." That includes the metaphysical value of ANY philosophy
> > > including Christianity, Kantianism, etc.
>
> > And those others are incorrect, so their art can not be good or proper.
>
> That's what YOU say. Ayn Rand said no such thing. In fact, some very
> fine and exquisite art is based on relgious premises. (One favorite of
> Ayn Rand's was a Dali crucifixion.)
If the "metaphysical judgements" are incorrect, the "recreation of reality"
has no appeal, except for its beauty. If beauty is the criterion of the
validity of art, (regardless of the validity of the "metaphysical value
judgements" which inspired the art), then the definition is deficient in a
fundamental way.
> > > > It _necessarily_ follows that anyone who does not share her
> > > > artistic bend is philosophically flawed.
>
> > > Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Garbage in, garbage
> > > out.
>
> > In what way is it garbage to say that an Objectivist is expected to
> > hold "metaphysical value judgements" in line with Objectivism, and to
> > sanction "recreations of reality" that follow from that?
>
> It is garbage because it simply is not true.
>
> Betsy Speicher
Be more specific. Which is not true (above)?
a. that an Objectivist is expected to hold "metaphysical value judgements"
in line with Objectivism
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Tempus Fugit <acar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:S5iD6.37007$nI4.4...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> It is easy to see contradictions in her preferences. Rachmaninoff is the
> brooder par excellence. Beethoven brooded in a rebellious way while
> Rachmaninoff broods in defeat and despair. Dali is the quintessential
> subjectivist.
Just to clarify, I seem to recall that Rand judged art in style, and
content.
Dali's style is very clear, but his content is distorted. Rand regarded only
Dali's style favourably.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3ADDAF15...@mediaone.net...
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is ugliness and all
> things in between. To argue that there is an objective basis
> of the goodness of this art or this music over another is
> balderdash.
Do you not think one must learn the finer things in life?
Who do you think buy's the 'art' work in Kmart?
An educated mind is a discriminating mind.
--
Arnold
Chris Cathcart
>Ken, I did not realize you were a psychologist qualified to diagnose
>depression. One thing I have noticed regarding Phil Oliver on this
>newsgroup is that over the past six months he has been under attack by a
>parade of non-entities, this Sandramend troll being just the latest.
>
>Second, I don't see how you could tell Mr. Oliver is depressed simply by his
>writing. In my book he is very brave to continue posting here despite the
>abuse. The sort of actions that occur on this newsgroup could be summed up
>as "zeroes attacking heroes". Mr. Oliver is certainly no zero.
That tells us quite a bit about you, I might say. Oliver is one of the most
worthless and idiotic posters who've ever stepped in here and grunted their
inane psycho-babble here. He has never had anything of value to offer here,
since all he does is post psychologizing attacks on people who really do se
e him
exactly for what he is: a mindless, ARI-sychophantic intellectual thug who
posts
nothing of value. It remains a completely mystery to the rational,
reality-oriented element here why Phil Oliver continues to have any kind of
respect at all among anyone who stands for rationality and intellectuality.
If you question this, I challenge you to find one thing that Oliver has posted
here -- ever -- that has been of any value, rather than thoroughly wacko
babblings about other posters here to whom he has taken a dislike -- including,
I might add, wacko second-hand babblings not based on first-hand reading of the
posters he's attacked, since he's killfiled them.
I can be confident that a large number of people here don't even bother to read
anything he has to say, since it's so whacked-out and irrational, or, if th
ey do
bother to read anything he says, it's for the entertainment value of seeing
just
how stupid he can be today.
Tempus Fugit
"Arnold Broese-van-Groenou" <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:7TqD6.4359$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
I am disinterested in Rand's artistic preferences except as they relate to
an Objectivist theory of esthetics if there is such. It seems to me that
coining a definition of art is 90% of a theory of esthetics. The rest is
amplification.
Carmichael
Tempus Fugit
esthetics or the revolutionary implications of Rand's definition of art, if
any is alleged.
Carmichael
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010418152325...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> Aesthetics deals not with matters of FACT but of TASTE and OPINION.
>
> I can't stand Mahler's music but I wouldn't say that to someone who likes
his
> music. Why would I do that?
>
> Similarly, I can't stand Thomas Wolfe (who Barbara Branden liked) and I
was
> bored by Romain Rolland's JEAN CHRISTOPHE (which Nathaniel Branden had
loved).
> It doesn't mean I'm right and they were wrong. We respond to art for
complex
> reasons and should respect each other's taste.
>
SANDRAMEND
<< It would never occur to me in my wildest dreams to ever condemn a person for
what he responds to in art. I don't think it likely that Ayn Rand did such a
thing,
Yes, she did. Barbara Branden wrote about it in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, and I
had first hand experience of it. I like Turner's seascapes. Very suspicious to
Rand who liked Vermeer (understandable as a great technician. THE artist I
would study in order to learn about the technical side of art) and Dali, an
irrational collectivist who was delighted that the Communists were winning the
culture war. MONA LISA'S MUSTACHE, T.J. ROBJOHNS GIBBINGS - a book recommended
by the Objectivists.
<< Now it may a common misconception, or at least an easy mistake to make, to
think that a person's own beliefs are under his own volitional control.>>
Your beliefs certainly are under your control.
<< If you could control what you yourself believe -- particularly control your
own metaphysical value judgements -- you'd not only control
your own emotions, you'd control/change-at-whim your own grasp of reality,
and you'd be schizophrenic, and you'd soon be dead.>>
You're confusing beliefs and emotions.
<<Though not in direct control of our own beliefs>>
We are in full control of our beliefs. As to our emotions, it's even possible
to get a handle on them thusly:
Fifteen years ago, I would have lunch with a Mensa group. Two of the men (still
among my best friends) would say terribly sexist things to make me angry. They
liked to see my eyes flash (a guy thing). But the following week, the same
statements wouldn't work because in the meantime i had reprogrammed myself.
As Albert Ellis pointed out: A) is the sexist statement and C) is the
emotional response. In between there is B. What I told myself about A, the
sexist statement, which resulted in C) anger.
Another favorite sideways way of identifying your subsconscious values can come
from identifying your emotional reactions to films. WHY do I love Hawksian
women? (they're sexy, independent, witty and very, very modern) Why do I find
John Ford westerns depressing. (because the women just wave goodbye at the men.
they never have any fun. They're not partners, they're mothers who stay home,
cook, clean and look after the kids). Why does that bother me. Because I don't
want to be limited to that role. You can do this with any film you love. You
can do it with books, with music. Just ask yourself WHY you respond as you do.
A lot of your subconscious will become conscious.
Sandra ;-)
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/wrldlywit/myhomepage/movies.html"> HEROIC,
HILARIOUS, EROTIC and ROMANTIC Films</A>
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/reina616/"> A ROMANTIC'S CLASSICAL MUSIC
LIST</A>
Once you get a handle on what's affecting you emotionally, you can choose to
change your inner programming.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Tempus Fugit
"James E. Prescott" <jep...@news.kornet.net> wrote in message
news:9bkt71$oio$1...@news1.kornet.net...> ........
> Now it may a common misconception, or at least an easy mistake to make, to
> think that a person's own beliefs are under his own volitional control.
> control your own metaphysical value judgements -- you'd not only control
> your own emotions, you'd control/change-at-whim your own grasp of reality,
> and you'd be schizophrenic, and you'd soon be dead.
Rand's basic challenge of "to think or not to think" refers specifically to
metaphysical judgements. Free choice is the axis of Objectivism. In
Objectivist theory, positive (correct) emotions follow fropm correct
thinking (correct metaphysical judgements). In the communist Soviet Union
there was an official esthetics which followed from the philosophy. So it
must be with any philosophical system that claims to integrate all aspects
of existence. The tree must bear fruit in kind.
Tom
Ahh...Arnold, please explain the world of art from the educated in today's
society. "Educated" and discriminating are completely diametrically opposed,
particularly in the world of humanities.
How about an "objective" mind is a discriminating mind!?
Tom Scheeler
PhD, School of Hard Knocks
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Betsy Speicher
> Please clarify. In what way, if any, does Ayn Rand's definition of art
> relate to the Objectivist philosophy?
Ayn Rand's definition of art delimits what is or is not art. That is
the function of a definition according the Objectivist epistemology.
> Does Objectivism as a philosophy address the question of esthetics? If
> so, how?
Ayn Rand wrote a whole book of essays about esthetics: _The Romantic
Manifesto_.
> How does the Objectivist definition of art differ in its relationship
> to "reality" (or in any other way) from the normal definition of art,
> which is based on a subjective judgement of beauty?
Ayn Rand's definition of art is NOT based on a "subjective judgement of
beauty." To see what it IS based on and why see _The Romantic Manifesto_.
Betsy Speicher
Neither.
In the creation of art and the contemplation of art the "metaphysical
value judgements" are experienced as an _emotional_ sum which Ayn Rand
called a "sense of life" -- a concept which is central to her esthetic
theory. She held that _everyone_ has a sense of life which is their
implicit view of man and his place in the universe and it is in terms of
this personal emotional context that he creates or responds to a work of
like.
a. It is not that an Objectivist is "expected to hold" metaphysical value
judgements, but that everyone has metaphysical value judgements underlying
everyone's response to art.
b. It is not that an Objectivist is "expected to sanction" this art work
or that one. Emotions are automatic responses and a person responds to
what he responds to and enjoys what he enjoys.
The Objectivist esthetics deals with the role and function of art in human
life and and the relationship between a person's (implicit) philosophy and
the art he creates and responds to. As such, it is descriptive rather
than prescriptive.
Ayn Rand also discusses, in detail, each of the separate art forms, their
characteristics, and how values are communicated in each. Then she deals
with the evaluation of art -- what is bad, good, and great art -- and the
justification and validation of the standards used to do so.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Tom <tms...@news.net> wrote in message
news:qCtD6.491$I31.4...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Arnold Broese-van-Groenou" <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8TqD6.4360$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ADDAF15...@mediaone.net...
> > >
> > > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is ugliness and all
> > > things in between. To argue that there is an objective basis
> > > of the goodness of this art or this music over another is
> > > balderdash.
> >
> > Do you not think one must learn the finer things in life?
> > Who do you think buy's the 'art' work in Kmart?
> > An educated mind is a discriminating mind.
> > --
> > Arnold
>
> Ahh...Arnold, please explain the world of art from the educated in today's
> society. "Educated" and discriminating are completely diametrically
opposed,
> particularly in the world of humanities.
>
> How about an "objective" mind is a discriminating mind!?
I don't follow you here. Are you disagreeing that one needs to learn to
appreciate the arts? By 'discriminating, I mean one learns to 'distinguish'
between the well done and the flashy. That is, one needs education in the
subject.
Certainly, I have enjoyed someone teaching me, things I had not perceived in
art, music or architecture.
That said, I don't claim to be an expert in the arts, so you will have to
ask someone else to explain it.
Or are you having a dig at modern 'education', preferring the word
'objective'?
I'm no defender of today's 'educated' in the humanities, if that's what you
think. I would have thought you would know that though.
--
Arnold
Jddescript
>From: Arnold Broese-van-Groenou bro...@ozemail.com.au
>Date: 4/18/01 7:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8TqD6.4360$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au>
-----------------------------------------------------------
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Good point. Maybe it is clearest with her example of the building which matches
the technical caspability and the use function in the most efficient way for
achieving the integrated beauty. Her ART [Ayn Rand Theory] esthetics is the
most deep and profound of her accomplishments and probably won't be widely
celebrated for many years after, for example, Ayn Rand economics is known by
all educated people. JD
]
]
]
]
]
]
---------------------------------------------------------
Tempus Fugit
>
> > Be more specific. Which is not true (above)?
> > a. that an Objectivist is expected to hold "metaphysical value
judgements"
> > in line with Objectivism
> > or
> > b. that an Objectivist is expected to sanction (as art, by definition)
> > recreations of reality that follow from correct metaphysical value
> > judgements.
>
> Neither.
>
> In the creation of art and the contemplation of art the "metaphysical
> value judgements" are experienced as an _emotional_ sum which Ayn Rand
> called a "sense of life" -- a concept which is central to her esthetic
> theory. She held that _everyone_ has a sense of life which is their
> implicit view of man and his place in the universe and it is in terms of
> this personal emotional context that he creates or responds to a work of
> like.
Traditional views hold that everyone has an implicit view of man and his
place in the Universe and it is in terms of this personal emotional context
the he creates or responds to a work of art. How does this differ from the
Objectivist esthetic?
> a. It is not that an Objectivist is "expected to hold" metaphysical value
> judgements,
You are contradicting the record. A proper Objectivist is expected to hold
certain metaphysical value judgements. Participants in this ng deny each
other the designation of Objectivists because they are not holding the
expected value judgements. If this does not apply across the board then
Objectivism is not an integrated system. If a recreation of reality is based
on false metaphysical values, is it bad art? Why not? (Because it can still
be beautiful?) Is there good art and bad art? How does the definition in
question separate art from faux art? To my knowledge the traditional concept
simply fails to find beauty in "bad" art. How does the Objectivist
definition reject non-art?
>but that everyone has metaphysical value judgements underlying
> everyone's response to art.
Absolutely traditional. It has always been known that art styles reflect the
underlying culture.
> b. It is not that an Objectivist is "expected to sanction" this art work
> or that one. Emotions are automatic responses and a person responds to
> what he responds to and enjoys what he enjoys.
It has always been so. What is the Objectivist slant?
> The Objectivist esthetics deals with the role and function of art in human
> life and and the relationship between a person's (implicit) philosophy and
> the art he creates and responds to. As such, it is descriptive rather
> than prescriptive.
Beg your pardon. That is traditional esthetics. If there is no slant based
on the distinctive doctrines of Objectivism, then there is no Objectivist
esthetics, or there is but the questions have not been answered.
> Ayn Rand also discusses, in detail, each of the separate art forms, their
> characteristics, and how values are communicated in each. Then she deals
> with the evaluation of art -- what is bad, good, and great art -- and the
> justification and validation of the standards used to do so.
Bingo! Those are the questions.
Carmichael
> Betsy Speicher
Tempus Fugit
Tempus Fugit
>
> > Please clarify. In what way, if any, does Ayn Rand's definition of art
> > relate to the Objectivist philosophy?
>
> Ayn Rand's definition of art delimits what is or is not art. That is
> the function of a definition according the Objectivist epistemology.
Perhaps you did not read the entire question. As the fulcrum of
_Objectivist_ esthetics, how does the definition relate to Objectivist
doctrine?
> > Does Objectivism as a philosophy address the question of esthetics? If
> > so, how?
>
> Ayn Rand wrote a whole book of essays about esthetics: _The Romantic
> Manifesto_.
>
> > How does the Objectivist definition of art differ in its relationship
> > to "reality" (or in any other way) from the normal definition of art,
> > which is based on a subjective judgement of beauty?
>
> Ayn Rand's definition of art is NOT based on a "subjective judgement of
> beauty." To see what it IS based on and why see _The Romantic Manifesto_.
Okidoak. Anyone else?
Carmichael
James E. Prescott
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote in
message news:20010418231300...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
> You're confusing beliefs and emotions.
No, I'm not. And actually, emotions are easier to control.
If, for example, you are standing at the edge of a precipice you will likely
feel fear, an outcome of your belief that you are standing at the edge of a
precipice and of your knowledge of what you'd suffer if you fell from it.
Well, you do indeed have at least some chance of volitionally controlling
your /fear/, but you've virtually no chance of volitionally "ceasing to
believe" that you are where you are. And if you could do the latter, well,
you'd likely die of it.
You, Sandra, are confusing our ability to change beliefs by volitionally
seeking out the truth with the supposed (but, in reality, non-existent)
"ability" to just suddenly believe whatever you'd like to believe. You can't
do that. And if you could, you wouldn't be doing it for very long.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
gbp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tempus Fugit" <acar...@mail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: The Beethoven *Myth* (Was: Re: How to tell yet another
pseudo-Objectivist by their distortions
>
> "SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
> news:20010414213106...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
> > << This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio
show:
>
> > she admired Rachmaninoff, Chopin
> > and operetta music and dismissed Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and Handel (in
a
> > section explaining why Joan, a painter, and Alan Blumenthal, a
musician,
> > eventually left.*
>
> Any critical person who admires operetta music in preference to Mozart
does
> not deserve to exist in the planet, much less to pontificate about
> esthetics, much less to "re-invent" esthetics. It amazes me that you
people
> fail to see the bizarre absurdity of it all. It's Peter Sellers "Being
> There" all over again.
> Carmichael
>
>
SANDRAMEND
SM: You're confusing beliefs and emotions.
<<No, I'm not. And actually, emotions are easier to control.>>
No they're not. Emotions are CONSEQUENCES of your beliefs.
<<If, for example, you are standing at the edge of a precipice you will likely
feel fear, an outcome of your belief that you are standing at the edge of a
precipice and of your knowledge of what you'd suffer if you fell from it.
Well, you do indeed have at least some chance of volitionally controlling your
/fear/, but you've virtually no chance of volitionally "ceasing to
believe" that you are where you are. And if you could do the latter, well,
you'd likely die of it.>>
Worse example you could have given. It would be irrational to try to convince
yourself you're not standing at the edge of a precipice.
<<You, Sandra, are confusing our ability to change beliefs by volitionally
seeking out the truth with the supposed (but, in reality, non-existent)
"ability" to just suddenly believe whatever you'd like to believe. You can't do
that. And if you could, you wouldn't be doing it for very long.>>
Ayn was called the *Sorceress of Reason* (a brilliant appellation by Nathaniel
Branden) precisely because she could persuade anyone of anything. Changing
peoples' beliefs was what she did best.
She made one MAJOR mistake which I'll get to on my post on SHOULDs
Sandra ;-)
James E. Prescott
> [...] It would be irrational to try to convince
> yourself you're not standing at the edge of
> a precipice.
That's not the point. Emotions are consequences of beliefs, yes. That's what
I wrote. And beliefs are consequences of awareness -- and of many factors
including but not limited to the choices you make, particularly the choice
to think or not to think.
You can control/change your actions, obviously, by a simple choice. You can
/sometimes/ choose not to feel or to feel something different (generally
people do this by choosing not to think about what makes them feel bad, and
choosing to think instead about what makes them feel good), but that's
difficult because emotions are, as you say, automated responses to beliefs.
And that's the point! You can /never/ simply "choose" to believe or not
believe something. As I said, if you could, then you would control your
emotions completely (obviously!), you'd be schizophrenic and you'd die.
Again, I'm not saying beliefs are not influenced by our choices. You are
reading me wrong if you believe that. I said the opposite, that they are.
I'm saying only that you cannot pick and choose what you believe; that your
choice is fundamentally just the choice to think or not to think, and that
your beliefs and then your emotions will follow from that (and from the
other factors I mentioned earlier).
> Ayn was called the *Sorceress of Reason* (a brilliant
> appellation by Nathaniel Branden) precisely because
> she could persuade anyone of anything. Changing
> peoples' beliefs was what she did best.
Being persuaded that something is true does not mean choosing to believe it.
It means one chose to be aware. If one were persuaded that something is true
and then, by a simple choice, one "did not believe it," you'd have a point,
Sandra. As I said, that's a common or easy mistake that simply makes no
sense. You can't "be persuaded" and "not believe."
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Betsy Speicher
> "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > In the creation of art and the contemplation of art the
> > "metaphysical value judgements" are experienced as an _emotional_
> > sum which Ayn Rand called a "sense of life" -- a concept which is
> > central to her esthetic theory. She held that _everyone_ has a
> > sense of life which is their implicit view of man and his place in
> > the universe and it is in terms of this personal emotional context
> > that he creates or responds to a work of like.
> Traditional views hold that everyone has an implicit view of man and
> his place in the Universe and it is in terms of this personal
> emotional context the he creates or responds to a work of art. How
> does this differ from the Objectivist esthetic?
I would disagree that this is the "traditional" view. My degree is in
Philosophy (B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1966) and my special
interest was ethics and esthetics in which I took many courses. I also
took art courses on the college level. I never heard the above view from
amy other philosopher. Aristotle, who is my second-favorite philosopher,
had some interesting observations about esthetics, but his views were not
at all like Ayn Rand's.
Betsy Speicher
> "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > In the creation of art and the contemplation of art the "metaphysical
> > value judgements" are experienced as an _emotional_ sum which Ayn Rand
> > called a "sense of life" -- a concept which is central to her esthetic
> > theory. She held that _everyone_ has a sense of life which is their
> > implicit view of man and his place in the universe and it is in terms of
> > this personal emotional context that he creates or responds to a work of
> > like.
> > a. It is not that an Objectivist is "expected to hold" metaphysical value
> > judgements,
> You are contradicting the record.
Not any record that I am aware of.
> A proper Objectivist is expected to hold certain metaphysical value
> judgements.
Proper, by what standard? Expected, by whom?
> Participants in this ng deny each other the designation of
> Objectivists because they are not holding the expected value
> judgements.
That is a matter of accurate description rather than propriety or
expectation. I wouldn't call someone with black hair a blond either.
In addition, you are context dropping. We were discussing inner, implicit
metaphysical value judgements which give rise to the emotional sum Ayn
Rand called a sense of life. You just switched to context to explicit,
conscious ideas which are not the same thing.
> If this does not apply across the board then Objectivism is not an
> integrated system. If a recreation of reality is based on false
> metaphysical values, is it bad art?
No! In fact, Ayn Rand wrote a great deal about great art which embodies
philosophically false ideas. Her favorite writer, the great Romanticist
Victor Hugo, was a religious, altruistic socialist. She also regarded
other artists, like Dostoyevsky whose philosophy and sense of life were
almost the opposite of hers, as great artists.
> Why not? (Because it can still be beautiful?) Is there good art and
> bad art?
Yes.
> How does the definition in question separate art from faux
> art?
Rather than rehash _The Romantic Manifesto_, I suggest you read it. Then
you will know what Ayn Rand's views actually are. Then, if you still wish
to criticize them, you will not do so from a position of ignorance.
Betsy Speicher
> SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.com> wrote
> [...]
> You, Sandra, are confusing our ability to change beliefs by
> volitionally seeking out the truth with the supposed (but, in reality,
> non-existent) "ability" to just suddenly believe whatever you'd like
> to believe. You can't do that.
Oh yes she can! Just watch her.
> And if you could, you wouldn't be doing it for very long.
True. She cannot seem to hold onto a train of thought from paragraph to
paragraph.
Tempus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
The argument strikes me as evasive. It is proper for a fountain to give
water, and for a pear tree to bear pears. It is expected.
> In addition, you are context dropping. We were discussing inner, implicit
> metaphysical value judgements which give rise to the emotional sum Ayn
> Rand called a sense of life. You just switched to context to explicit,
> conscious ideas which are not the same thing.
The inner, implicit metaphysical value judgements are what we truly believe
about ourselves and the world. It is to be hoped that explicit value
judgements do not come in conflict with that "sense of life".
> > If this does not apply across the board then Objectivism is not an
> > integrated system. If a recreation of reality is based on false
> > metaphysical values, is it bad art?
>
> No! In fact, Ayn Rand wrote a great deal about great art which embodies
> philosophically false ideas. Her favorite writer, the great Romanticist
> Victor Hugo, was a religious, altruistic socialist. She also regarded
> other artists, like Dostoyevsky whose philosophy and sense of life were
> almost the opposite of hers, as great artists.
>
> > Why not? (Because it can still be beautiful?) Is there good art and
> > bad art?
>
> Yes.
>
> > How does the definition in question separate art from faux
> > art?
>
> Rather than rehash _The Romantic Manifesto_,
You have been willing to rehash up to this point.
> I suggest you read it.
> Then
> you will know what Ayn Rand's views actually are.
If I had a specific need of getting Ayn Rand's views first hand I would be
reading Ayn Rand. I am in an Objectivist newsgroup asking what the
Objecivist views are. This can be answered first hand by any Objectivist who
knows what his views are. Ayn Rand is dead, you are alive. Why ask a dead
Objectivist if I can ask a live Objectivist with whom I can spontaneously
dialogue? The more rational approach is the best approach. I believe that
you have studied Objectivism and are familiar with the party line. That is
sufficient for my purposes.
> Then, if you still wish
> to criticize them, you will not do so from a position of ignorance.
I am trying to raise information. You explain and explain until we get to
the question. Then you pass. There is something particularly perverse about
that. You are full of anecdotes and unsupported declarations of "fact". I
have deliberately framed my argument in the form of questions so as not to
commit to premature criticism. This gives you the opportunity to surprise me
with an unexpectedly rational reply. I already understand that a definition
of art does not address what good or bad art is, except by implication. I
believe that you are saying that Rand's definition is in your opinion a
"discovery" of what art really is. I have emphasized and continue to mantain
that any such "discovery" has implications. A search for those implications
is the object of the dialogue. At this point your reply is: "Sure does". We
have wasted each other's time. Blah, blah, blah post after post but in the
end the answer to the only question on the table - which has been patiently
re-phrased after every evasive answer - is deferred.
Carmichael
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <9bcu5a$jg5$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>That's anecdotal. There is good reason to believe private roads would be
>superior to government roads, just as everything else private is superior
to
>everything governmental. Do you know anything about this issue?
That is a truly idiotic comment and incredibly ignorant about human nature.
People only pretty up what is for their own exclusive use, because most
peopl are incredibly selfish. The thought process is something like this -
'Someone else is bound to fuck it up eventually, so I won't bother making
good in the first place.'
Private roads, a good idea? You're just as mad as Pol Peikoff and Adolf
Speicher over there.
R Lawrence
Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> There is good reason to believe private roads would be
>>superior to government roads, just as everything else private is superior
>>to everything governmental. Do you know anything about this issue?
>
>That is a truly idiotic comment and incredibly ignorant about human nature.
>People only pretty up what is for their own exclusive use, because most
>peopl are incredibly selfish. The thought process is something like this -
>'Someone else is bound to fuck it up eventually, so I won't bother making
>good in the first place.'
That explains why it is impossible to find a fine restaurant or fancy hotel
that is privately owned.
<snicker>
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Jason Lockwood
hotel
> that is privately owned.
And you don't EVEN want to know what government run hotels and restaurants
are like!
I've experienced them in Eastern Europe. It ain't pretty.
Jason Lockwood
SANDRAMEND
<< > Any critical person who admires operetta music in preference to Mozart
does not deserve to exist in the planet >>
Ayn Rand was living in Soviet Russia, a dank, dark, depressing place. If
operetta music gave her a sense of a world more to her liking, that's fine.
I have no objection to her liking operetta music. I do object to her dissing
Beethoven, Wagner and other composers whose music I love.
Sandra
Owl
news:9bnshl$4s4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >That's anecdotal. There is good reason to believe private roads would be
> >superior to government roads, just as everything else private is superior
> to
> >everything governmental. Do you know anything about this issue?
>
> That is a truly idiotic comment and incredibly ignorant about human
nature.
> People only pretty up what is for their own exclusive use, because most
> peopl are incredibly selfish. The thought process is something like this -
> 'Someone else is bound to fuck it up eventually, so I won't bother making
> good in the first place.'
Mr. Smith,
Your above remarks allow one to infer that your answer to my question was,
"No, I know nothing whatsoever about the proposal, but I feel confident
making nonsensical pronouncements about it anyway." I would recommend that
you learn something about ideas before spewing forth such pronouncements, or
perhaps even refrain from such pronouncements altogether. Your message
served no purpose other than to portray yourself as an ignorant dogmatist
with an irrational hatred of ideas he doesn't understand.
Betsy Speicher
> "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > > How does the definition in question separate art from faux
> > > art?
> > Rather than rehash _The Romantic Manifesto_,
> You have been willing to rehash up to this point.
Yes, but what I respond to depends on how interested I am in the topic and
how much time I have. As my monthly CyberNet deadline approaches, I have
much less time.
> > I suggest you read it.
> > Then
> > you will know what Ayn Rand's views actually are.
> If I had a specific need of getting Ayn Rand's views first hand I would be
> reading Ayn Rand.
That's really the ONLY way to get them accurately.
> I am in an Objectivist newsgroup asking what the Objecivist views are.
> This can be answered first hand by any Objectivist who knows what his
> views are.
.... and has the time and interest.
> Ayn Rand is dead, you are alive. Why ask a dead Objectivist if I can
> ask a live Objectivist with whom I can spontaneously dialogue?
Spontaneous dialog would be much more productive if all the parties knew
what they were talking about.
> The more rational approach is the best approach. I believe that
> you have studied Objectivism and are familiar with the party line. That is
> sufficient for my purposes.
I'm afraid it is not for mine. As long as the discussion is interesting
to me and I have time, I'll participate, but my interest is waning and my
time is growing short.
If you really want an accurate account of Ayn Rand's views on art, read
_The Romantic Manifesto_. If you don't necessarily care about accuracy
and just want a dialog, perhaps other posters on this group can accomodate
you.
David Friedman
6079 Smith W <win...@NOSPAMministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
(About private roads)
> People only pretty up what is for their own exclusive use, because most
> peopl are incredibly selfish.
Well, let's see. Apple has factories making computers. I'm a
stockholder. Are those factories for my exclusive use? No.
Thousands of miles of railroad track were laid by private firms in the
19th century. I guess the only reason was to let the president of the
firm get, by private car, from one side of the country to the other.
Certainly nobody would have built those rails for other people to use.
Or in other words, you are being silly. There are some practical
problems with private roads, although many fewer than there were thirty
years ago, thanks to improvements in the relevant technology (automated
toll collection) in the meantime. But the unwillingness of investors to
make things that other people will use--and pay for--isn't one of them.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <9boevs$aq3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
>"6079 Smith W" <win...@NOSPAMministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9bnshl$4s4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >That's anecdotal. There is good reason to believe private roads would be
>> >superior to government roads, just as everything else private is
superior
>> to
>> >everything governmental. Do you know anything about this issue?
>>
>> That is a truly idiotic comment and incredibly ignorant about human
>nature.
>> People only pretty up what is for their own exclusive use, because most
>> peopl are incredibly selfish. The thought process is something like this
-
>> 'Someone else is bound to fuck it up eventually, so I won't bother making
>> good in the first place.'
>
>Mr. Smith,
>
>Your above remarks allow one to infer that your answer to my question was,
>"No, I know nothing whatsoever about the proposal, but I feel confident
>making nonsensical pronouncements about it anyway."
Nonsensical? It's only nonsensical if you a) don't understand it or b) don't
want to understand it because of your dogma.
>I would recommend that
>you learn something about ideas before spewing forth such pronouncements,
or
>perhaps even refrain from such pronouncements altogether.
I noted all the examples that people used (factories, restaurants, hotels)
had one common factor: their primary purpose was for profit-making.
Privately owned facilities such as roads would have no profits, therefore
thaere is no logical reason why it is in the owner's best interests to take
proper care of them uless he or she levies a hefty tax on using his or her
stretch of road - and proposing that would mean, for a journey of, say, ten
miles, paying some 200 people individually.
>Your message
>served no purpose other than to portray yourself as an ignorant dogmatist
>with an irrational hatred of ideas he doesn't understand.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Mr. plural Pot, meet mr. Kettle.
Tempus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: How to tell yet another pseudo-Objectivist by their distortions
> On 19 Apr 2001, Tempus wrote:
>
> > "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How does the definition in question separate art from faux
> > > > art?
>
> > > Rather than rehash _The Romantic Manifesto_,
>
> > You have been willing to rehash up to this point.
>
> Yes, but what I respond to depends on how interested I am in the topic and
> how much time I have. As my monthly CyberNet deadline approaches, I have
> much less time.
You are a selective re-hasher.
> > This can be answered first hand by any Objectivist who knows what his
> > views are.
>
> .... and has the time and interest.
>
> As long as the discussion is interesting
> to me and I have time, I'll participate, but my interest is waning and my
> time is growing short.
You were interested enough to initiate the dialogue but your interest has
waned. That IS an acceptable reason for declining to continue.
> If you really want an accurate account of Ayn Rand's views on art, read
> _The Romantic Manifesto_.
Not feeling capable or inclined or both to provide an accurate account is
also acceptable to me.
>If you don't necessarily care about accuracy
> and just want a dialog, perhaps other posters on this group can accomodate
> you.
I already explained to you why I will not study the Romantic Manifesto. It
is because I don't need to. If I needed to study Objectivism at its source
for some reason that is not currently apparent I would be doing so. You
already admitted that you are incapable, unable and disinclined to answer my
questions and I ACCEPT THAT. It's OK. Why? Because, although I wanted the
answer for debating purposes, I don't need it. If you try to understand the
difference between want and need you would not be sending people to read Ayn
Rand. People who feel a need to read Ayn Rand are doing so. I enjoy
polemics. It is an amusing hobby. I also feel that I can help you a great
deal if you just answer my questions. But I don't need to help you. And now
that you don't want to help me, we can turn our attention to other points of
debate that may interest us.
Carmichael
fizz...@freedom.net
>
> >Ken, I did not realize you were a psychologist qualified to diagnose
> >depression. One thing I have noticed regarding Phil Oliver on this
> >newsgroup is that over the past six months he has been under attack by a
> >parade of non-entities, this Sandramend troll being just the latest.
> >
> >Second, I don't see how you could tell Mr. Oliver is depressed simply by his
> >writing. In my book he is very brave to continue posting here despite the
> >abuse. The sort of actions that occur on this newsgroup could be summed up
> >as "zeroes attacking heroes". Mr. Oliver is certainly no zero.
>
> That tells us quite a bit about you, I might say. Oliver is one of the most
> worthless and idiotic posters who've ever stepped in here and grunted their
> inane psycho-babble here. He has never had anything of value to offer here,
> since all he does is post psychologizing attacks on people who really do se
> e him
> exactly for what he is: a mindless, blah, blah, blah...
This is just too precious. Cathcart out-Sandra's Sandra in both lack
of self-awareness and degree of psychological projection. Cathcart is
so deluded that he does not see himself in what he says of others.
Really hysterical.
Phil Oliver is an intelligent, self-educated, successful businessman.
Slacker Cathcart eked out an M.A. in philosophy at a third-rate
school. While a student he would sign his postings to an e-mail list
with "Department of Philosophy", giving the impression he was a
professor rather than a student. Cathcart has recently become a
self-proclaimed PhD. He now neither works nor goes to school, and
lives at home and sponges off his parents so he can spend his slacker
time posting to the internet.
And *this* pretentious, pathetic, imbecillic creature has the nerve to
call Phil by the names which Cathcart is himself so well-known; should
he only look into the mirror. Cathcart is a little baby boy, a
stranger and afraid in a world he never made, and all he can do is
project onto others the miserable, sleazy, nihilistic state of his own
existence.
In a previous post I had to wipe the tears of laughter away as I
reflected on the pretense which is Cathcart. This time Cathcart is
just too pathetic a creature to even be laughed at.
...The Fiz...
Owl
> I noted all the examples that people used (factories, restaurants, hotels)
> had one common factor: their primary purpose was for profit-making.
> Privately owned facilities such as roads would have no profits,
What? Where on earth did you get that assumption from?
Pete McCutchen
>Alas, Peter Fonda came off as the drugged up farmer he is. And Eric Stolz
Actually, I thought Peter Fonda gave an outstanding performance.
>obviously did no research or he would have captured Branden's accent and his
>lurching from Mike Hammer to Sigmund Freud persona.
>
>Nonetheless, the film captures what Rand was like when in an out of control
>fury. As was said at the time: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Sure. Rand's anger with Branden was undoubtedly motivated largely by
sexual jealousy.
Still, what I didn't like about the film was that it didn't show _why_
she was such a compelling figure. What enabled her to attract this
group of followers? What drew them to her?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>Ayn Rand was living in Soviet Russia, a dank, dark, depressing place. If
>operetta music gave her a sense of a world more to her liking, that's fine.
>
>I have no objection to her liking operetta music. I do object to her dissing
>Beethoven, Wagner and other composers whose music I love.
In fact, like you, I enjoy the music of Beethoven and Wagner (I tend
to like my classical music big). Still, I'm not sure why you find it
so bothersome that Rand "dissed" composers whose music you love. I
don't have the passage at hand, but I vaguely recall that she, at one
point, dissed science fiction, a genre that I very much enjoy.
Despite being a long-time science fiction fan, I've managed to forgive
her for not sharing all my aesthetic tastes.
--
Pete McCutchen
R Lawrence
>SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>>Nonetheless, the film captures what Rand was like when in an out of control
>>fury. As was said at the time: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
>
>Sure. Rand's anger with Branden was undoubtedly motivated largely by
>sexual jealousy.
Undoubtedly? I have the impression that a fair number of people do doubt
it. After all, Rand hadn't slept with Nathaniel Branden in almost a decade
when his other affair was revealed to her. But then a lot of casual readers
(or non-readers) the Brandens' books don't seem to realize that when they
comment on the Rand-Branden falling out.
The perceptive reader might also note that these accounts tell that Rand
was already upset with Branden to the point of cutting off their friendship
(but not their business relations) *before* she learned of "the other
woman." Noticing that, one might then contemplate how Nathaniel Branden had
lied to and manipulated Rand for four years running, and how that might
have upset Rand as much or more than sexual jealousy would have.
That Rand would have been jealous is entirely plausible, but that it was
the primary motivation for her anger is far from being undoubtable or
undoubted.
Tempus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Barbara Branden's THE PASSION OF AYN RAND
> On 15 Apr 2001 20:04:06 GMT, SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>
> >Alas, Peter Fonda came off as the drugged up farmer he is. And Eric Stolz
>
> Actually, I thought Peter Fonda gave an outstanding performance.
>
> >obviously did no research or he would have captured Branden's accent and
his
> >lurching from Mike Hammer to Sigmund Freud persona.
> >
> >Nonetheless, the film captures what Rand was like when in an out of
control
> >fury. As was said at the time: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
>
> Sure. Rand's anger with Branden was undoubtedly motivated largely by
> sexual jealousy.
Any objective person would conclude that the "woman scorned" syndrome is the
logical explanation for the suddenness and intensity of the reaction. The
slap on the face is very telling. Women only slap when scorned. However I
have little doubt that she rationalized it as do her apologists - it was the
duplicity, the lies, the dishonesty - a mortal sin for an Objectivist hero.
Regarding the dormant state of the affair at the time, it is my
understanding that she was trying to re-kindle.
> Still, what I didn't like about the film was that it didn't show _why_
> she was such a compelling figure. What enabled her to attract this
> group of followers? What drew them to her?
> Pete McCutchen
I thought that was communicated fairly well on the occasion of the first
visit by the Brandens. She was regal and very dominant in relation to two
passive, absorbent souls in search for a guru. They became putty in her
hands. I have dealt with strong and persuasive people and seen how easily
they gather a following of weaker, adoring disciples. One is reminded of Jim
Jones, David Koresh, etc.
Carmichael
AynRand12
>> she was such a compelling figure. What enabled her to attract this
>> group of followers? What drew them to her?
>> Pete McCutchen
>
>I thought that was communicated fairly well on the occasion of the first
>visit by the Brandens. She was regal and very dominant in relation to two
>passive, absorbent souls in search for a guru. They became putty in her
>hands. I have dealt with strong and persuasive people and seen how easily
>they gather a following of weaker, adoring disciples. One is reminded of Jim
>Jones, David Koresh, etc.
>Carmichael
Two points: First, the *movie* "The Passion of Ayn Rand" is so inaccurate and
so unfair to both Rand and Branden that any conclusions one draws from the
movie do not warrent much consideration.
If you wish to discuss Rand's character or the atmosphere of the NBI days,
consult Barbara Branden's book, and -- especially, IMO -- Nathaniel Branden's
book, "My Years With Ayn Rand".
Second, if you were familiar with the actual facts of Branden's first meeting
with Rand, you would not say that he was a "passive, absorbent soul in search
of a guru."
Of course, if all you knew of Rand was what was presented in the movie POAR,
that would be the conclusion you would draw...which just proves my point. That
movie was garbage...historically and aesthetically.
Interesting, isn't it, that the only person who came off good in that film was
Barbara Branden herself?
Don Watkins
Jddescript
>Date: 4/23/01 6:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010423200300...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>
>>> Still, what I didn't like about the film was that it didn't show _why_
>>> she was such a compelling figure. What enabled her to attract this
>>> group of followers? What drew them to her?
>>> Pete McCutchen
>Of course, if all you knew of Rand was what was presented in the movie POAR,
>that would be the conclusion you would draw...which just proves my point.
>That
>movie was garbage...historically and aesthetically.
>
>Interesting, isn't it, that the only person who came off good in that film
>was
>Barbara Branden herself?
>
>Don Watkins
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Excellent point although I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara felt that she had
given the story a fair and accurtate treament. Ayn Rand was a very emotional
and feminine lady along with her mental brilliance and it's a characteristic
hard for another woman to appreciate. The idea that a British cop type [Merren]
could convey her brilliance is at best very poor casting. Maybe Sandra could do
the story justice! JD
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
------------------------------------------------------
Pete McCutchen
<win...@NOSPAMministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>I noted all the examples that people used (factories, restaurants, hotels)
>had one common factor: their primary purpose was for profit-making.
>Privately owned facilities such as roads would have no profits, therefore
>thaere is no logical reason why it is in the owner's best interests to take
>proper care of them uless he or she levies a hefty tax on using his or her
>stretch of road - and proposing that would mean, for a journey of, say, ten
>miles, paying some 200 people individually.
Yes, most of the folks who propose privately-owned roads believe that,
indeed, the owners would charge for their use. Not a "hefty tax," but
a fee. I don't know about the UK, but we do have such roads in the US
-- we call them "toll roads," and, for the most part, they really are
in better shape than roads for which there is no toll.
Building and maintaining a road does cost money; it seems quite
reasonable to me that the folks who use it should pay it.
Now, privately-owned roads might well turn out to be a bad idea,
largely because, in some cases, they may well be a real-live example
of "natural monopoly." But if they're a bad idea, it's not because of
the silly reason you've adduced.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>>Sure. Rand's anger with Branden was undoubtedly motivated largely by
>>sexual jealousy.
>
>Undoubtedly? I have the impression that a fair number of people do doubt
>it. After all, Rand hadn't slept with Nathaniel Branden in almost a decade
>when his other affair was revealed to her. But then a lot of casual readers
>(or non-readers) the Brandens' books don't seem to realize that when they
>comment on the Rand-Branden falling out.
As a "casual reader" of both Branden books, I must admit that I was
not fully aware that there had been that long an interregnum between
the end of his sexual relationship with Rand and their breakup. This
new datum does cause me to have less confidence in that conclusion.
>
>The perceptive reader might also note that these accounts tell that Rand
>was already upset with Branden to the point of cutting off their friendship
OK, it's been a while since I read the books. Why was she upset with
him before learning of his affair?
>(but not their business relations) *before* she learned of "the other
>woman." Noticing that, one might then contemplate how Nathaniel Branden had
>lied to and manipulated Rand for four years running, and how that might
>have upset Rand as much or more than sexual jealousy would have.
How did he "lie to and manipulate" her, other than with respect to
their affair?
--
Pete McCutchen
Fred Weiss
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> How did he "lie to and manipulate" her, other than with respect to
> their affair?
Well, for one thing, both Brandens have admitted they had serious
reservations about Objectivism but they were representing themselves as
spokesmen and speaking in her name.
They also obviously were not being honest about their feelings toward her.
Both of their books are filled with contemptuous comments about her ( a good
deal of it contradictory, if you read the books closely).
That any intelligent reader can get from their books.
(Just consider: Barbara Branden was so seriously conflicted she was having
panic attacks. On the other hand, nothing bothers Nathaniel. He puts Clinton
to shame as a manipulator par excellence.)
But apart from that, a number of the incidents described in their books are
simply false and a few things have been, shall we say, conveniently omitted.
Other people present - and not necessarily pro-ARI people (of which there
are very few left from that era anyway) - have been interviewed and have
testified to it. Eventually it will all come out.
But you don't need any of that to make a judgement about the Brandens - or
Ayn Rand. More than sufficient facts are out there now.
Fred Weiss
SANDRAMEND
<< Actually, I thought Peter Fonda gave an outstanding performance.>>
Fonda captured the passivity but not the elegance and style of Frank O'Connor.
<< what I didn't like about the film was that it didn't show _why_ she was
such a compelling figure. What enabled her to attract this
group of followers? What drew them to her? >>
1. Her writing which was idealistic, romantic, stylized, and philosophical.
2. Her ability to cut through complex issues and present clear solutions.
3. Her intensity and passion. She made philosophy interesting.
I'm sure others will think of other reasons.
Sandra