About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

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


Post 20

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica,

I had forgotten that they had made that adaptation, the actual novel quite easily outshines it one million-fold. If there is a B&N or a Borders open near you now, I'd drop everything and get that book before bedtime tonight.

Ted

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
PC:  Let's not get hung up on semantics...the thread is experiential, not philosophical or theoretical.


Oh, I am so sorry. I was assuming that words have meaning.  How impolite of me.  Let me assure you that vality or vology and ethievemology are the romantion of ethievement for choism.  You might think that  conscion is volity realism and realues reflects volism.  However, highess or volitaphysice is objection without conal ethievemolism.
PC: And, really, to describe that person in a substantive way.  


Allow me to offer this.


When she was aroused, she smelled like the ocean.  Now, when I am at the ocean I think of her; and I when I come out of the water, I smell her on my skin.  She wore her honey brown hair in a long bob. Hanging straight, it did not quite touch her shoulders.  When she curled it, her neck was exposed.  She had long legs and a short torso.  She usually wore chinos and in the summer cut-offs, but I liked her best in pleated plaid skirts.  She said they made her look frumpy and she would wear a straight skirt or A-line instead.  She was indifferent to style and it is impossible to describe her blouses because they were so plain. Simple, straight, unadorned in white or pastel green, pink, yellow, or blue, just enough color to be not-white and yet, for all intents, just that: colorless.  It made her face stand out all the more.  Simple, clear, pan-European features, completely proportional and in that, unremarkable, except for her lips and her eyes.  She wore a friendly smirk, as if bemused by the obvious and what lay unrevealed beneath it.  Her eyes were bright blue, very blue because her pupils were always contracted.  Later, I learned that this is a sign of disapproval: she did not like what she saw.  I could understand that about the wider world, but she looked at me that way, too -- though not in the dark.  In my bed, I fell into those bottomless pupils seeking the person within... and finding only questions.  She had the audacious openness and perfect confidence of a kitten, though, colloquially, there was nothing kittenish about her.  She was an honors student.  In those days, we called it "Major Work.'  Later, looking into another girl's eyes, I heard it called "the Cleveland system."  She did all the math and science and lent me her mathematics monthly magazines, but her passion was music: she played the violin. 
 
When I met her, I was reading The Fountainhead and I gave her Anthem to read.  We read all of Ayn Rand's books together.  We played Rachmaninoff when we began necking and petting and eventually did "it." When my family moved to the high rises on the Gold Coast, I took her to parties with my new friends, not so that she could meet them, but so that we could stand at the penthouse windows and look out at Cleveland.  From the Lake, we knew where to find the industrial fires.  We watched ore ships making the Cuyahoga.  The cars on the Shoreway were pearls flowing to the Terminal Tower with its caverns and trains.  When we rode downtown on the Rapid, the blast of motion sweeping us under the city, we looked deep into those sanctified spaces, knowing that in there was a Motor.  We came out of the Terminal Tower, past the shops, past the cigarette stand with the old man (too bad we did not smoke yet), and into the streets of the second or third greatest city in the history of mankind, the home of Rockefeller, Michelson & Morley, Winton and Stouffer... and the Patrick Henry University.





(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/21, 4:29am)


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

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 9:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

My First Objectivist: Newberry - The Pursuit

After I had read Atlas Shrugged and all the rest that was available in 1984, I tore the card out of the Anti-Industrial Revolution and mailed it in. I certainly wasn't going to deface my Atlas Shrugged by doing that. In the mail I got a sample copy of the ARI's publication at that time, whatever it was entitled then. I remember thinking how odd it was to hear Mary-Lou Retton being praised in an article for winning a gold medal without crying as if to be an Objectivist were to be a Vulcan. (if anyone knows who wrote that article, please tell.) Then there came an issue that had an insert in it with an advertisement for a striking new artist. I remember sitting on the porch, mesmerized by the paintings, having opened the envelope at the mailbox before I even went inside the house. I saw the image you can see in full here and in thumbnail to the right. That was my first real Objectivist - someone who existed in the here and now, and who could embody Rand in spirit, not pay lip service to her in sterile self-censored words of careful elitism. The next experience I had like this was reading David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses. Seeing this painting was the first time I felt I had in some indirect way met an Objectivist.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 4:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William Dwyer hath writ: I next subscribed to "The Objectivist Newsletter," in which ...  It was an amazing 5 years -- from 1963 to 1968."

Every issue of the Objectivist Newsletter brought a startling new way to look at something assumed to be true but only by default, between the lines of news stories, in the tones of voice when people spoke of current events.  Ayn Rand's expression for that via Dagny in  Atlas was "Of course..." 

It took a few years after the split for the ideas to wind down into repetitions.  I read nothing new from them for decades.  I was bored by their refusing to endorse Ronald Reagan for president, and by the continuing the harrangue against the Libertarians, which while deserved, certainly went doubles and more for any other political party on the ballot in all 50 states, and mostly by the failure to address any new ideas, politics only being derived from more basic truths. 

Then, about 1995, I  was given tapes by  David Kelley.  His lecture on induction and his validation of perceptual reality both re-energized my understanding. 
Ted Keer eke: ... how odd it was to hear Mary-Lou Retton being praised in an article for winning a gold medal without crying ...
That is an element of the conceptual delivery system for the true believers.  When Jerry Falwell said that 9/11 was God's punishment for our sins, that was an example of the same kind of thinking. I have not put all of this together in my own head yet, but there is some way to discern when widening an abstraction brings more understanding and when the speaker is making an unwarranted leap to discuss something else entirely. 

In some ways, it ties to the "conspiracy theory" view of the world where events are not as they seem.  After all, the world sure looks flat and the sky looks like an overturned bowl, and the sun "comes up" here and "goes down" there, pursued by the stars that look like campfires far away...  I mean, at some level, things are more complicated than they appear, but in some other way, whether or not Mary Lou Retton cries begins and ends inside her head.  If you want to justify not displaying strong emotions in public, that is another discussion entirely.   But we do that, we true believers, be we marxists or christians or muslims or objectivists.

That is why, at some level, the demand for proof espoused by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman and even Penn Jillette is more than just a "healthy skepticism," but mental health itself.  Perhaps the question is: How much uncertainty can you live with? 

(And was this just an example of itself?)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/21, 4:24am)


Post 24

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 6:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I
have not put all of this together in my own head yet, but there is some way to discern when widening an abstraction brings more understanding and when the speaker is making an unwarranted leap to discuss something else entirely. 


It's called - Context....


Post 25

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 8:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
After I had read Atlas Shrugged and all the rest that was available in 1984, I tore the card out of the Anti-Industrial Revolution and mailed it in. I certainly wasn't going to deface my Atlas Shrugged by doing that. In the mail I got a sample copy of the ARI's publication at that time, whatever it was entitled then. I remember thinking how odd it was to hear Mary-Lou Retton being praised in an article for winning a gold medal without crying as if to be an Objectivist were to be a Vulcan. (if anyone knows who wrote that article, please tell.)
I don't know who wrote the article, since I didn't receive the publication. But I once heard Dr. Edith Packer, an Objectivist psychologist, express that opinion, so she may have been the author. Packer wasn't decrying emotions or emotional expression. Far from it. What she was saying is that to cry instead of expressing joy upon the realization of a great achievement reflects a pessimism about the possibility of success. The fact that Mary Lou Retton was elated upon receiving her honors revealed that she expected to win -- that she was confident her efforts would succeed. Had she lost, that would more likely have caused her to break down in tears. To cry upon succeeding says just the opposite -- that one had no confidence in one's ability to succeed and instead expected to lose. It's the difference between the "benevolent universe premise" -- in which success is considered the norm -- and the "malevolent universe premise," in which it's considered the exception.

- Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I suppose it could have been Edith Packer's argument, thanks for the response. The argument itself then is not that it is inappropriate to respond emotionally (which often means with tears of joy) to a good event, but that Retton simply wasn't all that overwhelmed because she expected to win anyway?

I took it when I read it as simply meaning that people's tears of joy (which I & just about everyone else believes indicate absolutely nothing about their "benevolent universe premises" but are rather biochemical indicators of the strength - good or bad - of their emotions - recent studies back this up) were misunderstood by someone who was rationalizing from weird premises to reach a conclusion in favor of, in effect, emotional suppression.

My sister is a rational, agnostic, libertarian biologist married to an objectivist materials-science engineer. They had always intended to have children, in which I long encouraged them. They had announced that they were trying. I had expected that they would conceive. She has done so twice, and upon learning of her pregnancy I burst into joyful tears on both occasions. (their first child often serves as my avatar here.) I have also cried watching documentaries of the Berlin Wall coming down, (and also when that happened in real time,) watching documentaries of the Moon shots, and when reading beautiful passages in books.

I enjoy bursting into tears of joy as often as possible.

I think the theory as I understood it (and maybe I misunderstood it) is flawed, and that some people may simply be constitutionally sanguine and not prone to such outbursts. Others may be emotionally repressed. But the point of my making the reference in the first place was that I found the Objectivists of 1984 to be strange complaint-filled unhappy creatures - until I saw Michael Newberry's paintings.

Ted Keer

Post 27

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     My 1st meeting with an 'O-ist': whoah! --- Technically, in those days, us followers/fans of Rand considered ourselves as 'Students of...', but, such a concern is really semantical now.

     I was attending a per-week tape-course given by an attractive, single blonde a 45-min drive from my apt. The course was Piekoff's Intro to Logic, from which I'd hoped I'd glean something new which I hadn't read before. His Q&A's were more informative, to say the least. There were approx 8 of us attending; rarely did anyone miss a meeting. All were interesting people; no 'Randroids' there that I noticed...'till 1/2-way through the weeks, when Rand died.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D


Post 28

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 5:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     The next week, the 'break' discussion centered around her death, and the question came up "How'd she die anyway? Nothing was specified on that."

     I (stupidly) ventured "Probably 'the Big "C".' Whoops!!!

     Not until a few years later did I come to understand a...sensitivity...within O-ist circles about smoking, cancer, and Rand being mentioned in the same breath.

     The hostess course-giver showed me how little I knew about what I'd later consider the new neo-'inner-circles' of Rand fans.


2Bcont
LLAP
J:D


Post 29

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 5:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     The hostess (usually in the background of conversation, 'till now) didn't just ask, but clearly challenged me with "Why do you say that? What proof do you have? What's your evidence? (etc, yadda.)" I answered as simply (dare I say: 'innocently'?) as I could: "Statistics. That's the most common [it was, then] form of death."

     Little did I know the minefield(s) I stepped into. She'd feel right at home in those forums that find Rand-criticizing (nm I find such trivially-concerned, but, worth dealing with) near anathema and only from 'evil' evaders.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D


Post 30

Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 5:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     She launched into a very condescending tirade, in front of everyone, about how I have no buisness discussing what I know nothing about, am merely being a rumor-spreader, should check my 'facts' (like, guess why someone asked the question?), etc, yadda. The rest of the course wasn't too...congenial, but, I finished it. Never took another on anything nohow nowhere...no way.

     My 1st Randroid. Got my cherry popped there. 

     At least she didn't call me names...but then, I think she was just a newbie at this.

LLAP
J:D

PS: THEN, later, on IRC, there was 'Bearster.' But, he's another story.

(Edited by John Dailey on 6/28, 5:28am)


Post 31

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The first Objectivist I met was back home in N.Y. at a coffee shop I used to frequent. At the time I had not given Ayn Rand's writings too thorough of a looking at but I was a big Aristotle reader. Suffice to we agreed on much. I've met plenty of Objectivists since and am always impressed with the person I'm meeting.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Friday, July 13, 2007 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never really found another person that I could call an adherant to Rand's ideas. Pretty much I started my life from what most Americans did, born into a Christian household (or atleast one that espoused that affliation). Later on, I became a socialist and a skeptic. It wasn't until my twenty third year of life, I came to get a chance to read Ayn Rand. I read Anthem, in spite of what others said about the woman. I thought, if she was really that awful, I would probably stop at page two. Oddly, I read Anthem in about an hour (or two, I can't remember exactly). It was a refreshing read to me. Someone else who recognized, what I suspected many times in my life, so I thought maybe I wasn't so crazy (nuts, whacko, goofball, and other dismissives) after all. Then I went from Anthem to Fountainhead, ITOE, and finally Atlas Shrugged (although I need to finish For the New Intellectual, The Romantic Manifesto, and the rest of her works, but time usually presses against that venture). Basically, you could call me the "dark horse" of Objectivism. :-) All the other Objectivists I know are all from here, and never been disappointed by any of them for their candour and acuity of thought. :-)

-- Brede

Post 33

Friday, July 13, 2007 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You can skip "For the New Intellectual" or put it at the bottom of your list. Except for the long introductory essay, which covers material in her other works, the rest of the book is just excerpts of speeches. I would recommend that you read Romantic Manifesto ASAP since it deals with epistemological as well as aesthetic issues, and I regard it as second only to ITOE.

Ted

Post 34

Friday, July 13, 2007 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bridget:

I too first read Rand at 23, TF, then AS-VOS-PWNI-A-RM-WTL. I have yet to read FTNI or ITOE.

Tyson


Post 35

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tyson:

     You got that far, you really should read ITOE; else you're missing a lot of 'understanding.'

LLAP
J:D


Post 36

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:

I'll consider it. I know that Rand puts forth new theories on concepts, universals, etc. and that could all well be good. My hesitation comes in the fact that I do not have, despite taking some 100 and 200 level philosophy courses, a good enough grounding in philosophy to critically analyze the work, as I did Rand's other writings. I do not like to simply know things, I like to 'understand' and I don't think reading ITOE without a theoretical counterargument in my head will do me much good. Needless to say, this is my weakest branch of philosophy.

Tyson

PS- Add CUI to my list of read Rand, I just finished it... two years ago.
PPS- Is anyone willing to sell me their copy of ITOE or at least ship it to me on a 1-month loan? I will pay you money.

(Edited by Tyson Russell on 7/16, 10:37pm)


Post 37

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tyson, just read it without anxiety or even worrying if you get it all, and then read it again a week later. No one will be testing you. It will make much more sense the second time. Order it used from abebooks.com, you can get the first edition (shorter, but just as effective) very cheaply.

Post 38

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted:

I didn't see you there.

I see that Biswanger and Peikoff are behind the second edition. Is this the essential difference between the 1st and 2nd editions? Did they meddle or did they actually do some good?

Tyson

(Edited by Tyson Russell on 7/16, 10:45pm)


Post 39

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 11:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The second edition adds a lot of excellent secondary material from a seminar she gave to other philosophers who had read the book. The first edition material is included untouched. If cost is an issue, the first edition is sufficient, but if you can afford it, go for the second.

Ted

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


User ID Password or create a free account.