Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RAW on Rand
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Clore
Apr 4, 2012, 5:22:48 PM4/4/12
to
The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS
(belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in
those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the appeal for me that it has
retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages.
(The average youthful reader of Thus Spake Zarathustra decides he is the
Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated
Genius.) Like most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly
parroting all the Rand dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was
invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was "summoned to the Presence," Arlen
said.) I confessed my doubts about certain of the Rand dogmas and was
Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the
Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests
were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of
tolerance by comparison.
I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that
I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an
effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always
tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.
--Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger II: Down to Earth
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1561840114/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
(belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in
those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the appeal for me that it has
retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages.
(The average youthful reader of Thus Spake Zarathustra decides he is the
Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated
Genius.) Like most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly
parroting all the Rand dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was
invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was "summoned to the Presence," Arlen
said.) I confessed my doubts about certain of the Rand dogmas and was
Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the
Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests
were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of
tolerance by comparison.
I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that
I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an
effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always
tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.
--Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger II: Down to Earth
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1561840114/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Tomm Carr
Apr 5, 2012, 2:50:46 PM4/5/12
to
On 04/04/2012 02:22 PM, Dan Clore wrote:
> [a bunch of stuff]
Too bad your brush with Objectivism didn't improve your ability to
conduct a reasoned, logical argument. Do you really think spouting this
drivel tended to raise you above the level of Ayn Rand, or anyone?
--
TommCatt
There's a fine line between an attitude problem and thinking clearly.
> [a bunch of stuff]
Too bad your brush with Objectivism didn't improve your ability to
conduct a reasoned, logical argument. Do you really think spouting this
drivel tended to raise you above the level of Ayn Rand, or anyone?
--
TommCatt
There's a fine line between an attitude problem and thinking clearly.
RichD
Apr 12, 2012, 2:50:21 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 4,, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS
> (belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called
> Objectivism in those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the
> appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with
> alienated adolescents of all ages.
> (The average youthful reader of Thus Spake Zarathustra decides
> he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides
> she is an Alienated Genius.)
> Like most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly
> parroting all the Rand dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
>
> Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was
> invited to meet Ayn Rand once. I confessed my doubts about
> The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS
> (belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called
> Objectivism in those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the
> appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with
> alienated adolescents of all ages.
> (The average youthful reader of Thus Spake Zarathustra decides
> he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides
> she is an Alienated Genius.)
> Like most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly
> parroting all the Rand dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
>
> Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was
> certain of the Rand dogmas
Which ones?
> and was Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash
> my teeth in the Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the
> Trots and Catholic priests were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made
> both groups look like models of tolerance by comparison.
But so what? Does Wilson, anywhere in this diatribe,
refute or counter any of her writing? He admits to
infatuation with her work - though it's unclear if he read
anything beside "Fountainhead" - then is dejected
when he meets the author. His whining is pure Oprah,
oh the poor poor jilted lad. Was he also the child of
alcoholic parents?
The inability to separate art from the artist is the hallmark
of a halfwit. And by extension, that includes you, Sparks -
> I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years
> later that I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time,
> --Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger II: Down to Earth
Smear and psychobabble.
OK, I am now persuaded of the cogency of his case.
--
Rich
Dan Clore
Apr 15, 2012, 6:43:07 PM4/15/12
to
On 4/12/2012 11:50 AM, RichD wrote:
> On Apr 4,, Dan Clore<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:'
>> The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS
>> (belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called
>> Objectivism in those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the appeal
>> for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated
>> adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of Thus Spake
>> Zarathustra decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful
>> Randroid decides she is an Alienated Genius.) Like most Randroids,
>> I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the Rand
>> dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
>>
>> Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually
>> was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. I confessed my doubts about
>> certain of the Rand dogmas
>
> Which ones?
I don't know (that was quoted from Robert Anton Wilson), but RAW did
> On Apr 4,, Dan Clore<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:'
>> The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS
>> (belief system) was Ayn Rand's philosophy (not yet called
>> Objectivism in those days). The Fountainhead had exactly the appeal
>> for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated
>> adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of Thus Spake
>> Zarathustra decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful
>> Randroid decides she is an Alienated Genius.) Like most Randroids,
>> I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the Rand
>> dogma and imagining I was an "individualist."
>>
>> Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually
>> was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. I confessed my doubts about
>> certain of the Rand dogmas
>
> Which ones?
write an entire book on natural law and natural rights:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/091517961X/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Everyone interested in Rand or natural law in general ought to read this.
Charles Bell
Apr 24, 2012, 4:53:13 AM4/24/12
to
And this, precisely, is the point of socialism -- to free individuals
to run their own lives, without being forced into subservience to
capitalists and/or the state.
http://tinyurl.com/dbc2zq
The problem is that these "limitations inherent in nature and society"
are no such thing. They result from the monopolization of resources by
a minority who are then kind enough to offer others "choices" like
working for them or starving.
http://tinyurl.com/asnllb
The capitalist does not produce wealth, unless the capitalist is also
a worker. Workers can do just as well or better at producing wealth
without capitalists, as empirically by the many existing workers
cooperatives
http://tinyurl.com/cs8g3f
to run their own lives, without being forced into subservience to
capitalists and/or the state.
http://tinyurl.com/dbc2zq
The problem is that these "limitations inherent in nature and society"
are no such thing. They result from the monopolization of resources by
a minority who are then kind enough to offer others "choices" like
working for them or starving.
http://tinyurl.com/asnllb
The capitalist does not produce wealth, unless the capitalist is also
a worker. Workers can do just as well or better at producing wealth
without capitalists, as empirically by the many existing workers
cooperatives
http://tinyurl.com/cs8g3f
0 new messages