| | To All,
At the risk of being called a "Randoid", I offer the following quote from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal (pg 145)(quoted from Ayn Rand Lexicon) re: compromise, after which I will make some comments, and say goodbye.
"The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.
- In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
- In and collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
- When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to advantage of the irrational side."
Comment #1: I will leave it up to each of you to judge where TOC falls in each of these rules.
Comment #2: I have decided to reveal my identity and tell a little of my history as it relates to this thread and other threads to which I posted. I give this history to both show how my views have changed and to document my proximity to the "action" over many years. I am not and will not argue the pros and cons again in this forum.
My name is Tom Rowland. I was introduced to Objectivism in 1956 by a drama teacher in Junior High School who read the bicycle scene from The Fountainhead to our class. I read everything then available (not much) and later, while attending Juilliard, attended virtually every NBI lecture series and several of Rand's talks at Columbia University. During the course of my life I have given piano lessons to Mary Ann Sures, been given legal counsel by Charles Sures, coached in piano by Alan Blumenthal and ran the campus club at the University of Maryland under the direction of Ed Locke. I even had the pleasure of meeting Patricia Wynand while serving as pianist for Phillip J. Smith's production of Fantasticks at Houghton Lake Playhouse in Michigan. I was present at the last summer conference at which both David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff appeared, held at St. Johns University on Stanton Island, and participated in the vigorous debates surrounding Linda Reardon's review of Kelley's logic text. When Kelley established IOS, I somewhat cautiously sided with him, feeling a certain unease, but deciding that, since I could not put my finger on exactly why I didn't particularly like Dr. Kelley, my "reasoned judgement" at the time should override my feelings of discomfort, based, in part, I believed, on "nothing more" than my prior acquantance with some strong supporters of Peikoff. This rather timorous support of Kelley was in turn supported by a long-term friendship with Fred Seddon, with whom I had forged a very deep relationship in the late 60s, while living in Pittsburgh.
Over the years Fred and I had many heated debates, ranging from our debate about the two major schisms to his revisionist views of Plato, Hume and Kant, among other disagreements.
Our strong friendship developed over many years and many moves on my part. The events of 9/11 precipitated a string of arguments which began with my re-examination of the issue of "The Sanction of the Victim" It became clear to me that the attack on the Twin Towers was the result of sanctions we had given to prior terrorist attacks through our weak or non-exitent response to them. In re-reading the relevant materials, it became increasingly clear that Peter Schwartz and Leonard Peikoff had been right in their original assessment of Kelley. I began to argue the case with Fred as well as to continue to argue that his views of Hume, Plato and Kant were based on out-of-context mis-readings of them and of Rand. Our anger and frustration at the gradual deterioration of our ability to talk to each other without fire, led us to eventually abandon the friendship of some 30 years, in 2002.
So I find it ironic that a few short weeks ago I should stumble upon this site, remember the name "SOLO" from my "previous life", find Fred's name among the members, and learn of the current state of TOC, the Brandens, et all. I began to post, using a pseudonym, to see what kind of response I would get. On the spur of the moment I formulated a name which was a foreshortening of "take yes for an answer" (thinking of Nietszche's and Roark's sense of life comments on "Yea-saying"). I wasn't very surprised that most of the posts I received in reply were more concerned with my name than with anything I said, including responses voicing outrage at the "dishonesty" and "cowardice" of any Lone Ranger and Spiderman fan who would dare to wear a mask to hide his identity while fighting a battle for "truth, justice, and the American way" in the face of the glare of scrutiny and derisive laughter provided by the crew of regulars to this forum.
Finally, just this morning, unable to sleep her in Seattle (well, Tacoma, actually) I found a reference to the "Hellen Reardon" incident and followed the link. What a delightful, serendipitous surprise to discover the likely "mad woman of Denver" and her wonderfully insightful comments on the Brandens and TOC. I couldn't say it any better and won't even try.
Over and out.
|
|
