Stange Passage in Fountainhead

"With this human failing as a foundation, Objectivism can be used to bolster all sorts of violence-loving credos, can it not?"

Soooo, are you going to finish the book or are you just going to stop there? I suggest you finish it, and pay close attention to the relationships Roark develops with some wonderfully abstract characters.
When you're finished, if you're still upset by Roark's attitude, you'll at least have a fuller understanding. But I don't think you'll remain upset.

Finish the book!

Post 81

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:14pm

Kevin, I can see where this scene seems contradictory to Rourke's nature. Look at it from a different perspective: it wasn't rape, inasmuch as it was a sexual psychodrama, or role-playing scenario. There are many facets to human nature, and the ambiguity of this scene calls for the reader to think long and hard about this "out of character" behavior.

I'm guessing that Fountainhead is your first Rand novel? If so, relax and enjoy the ride. It only gets better. Wait until you get into Atlas Shrugged ;)

Post 82

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:24pm

Dominique's overt behavior shows her sexual invitation on several occasions. She comes back to the quarry day after day, checking Howard out, trying to pick him up without seeming to be trying. She invites him up to fix her broken fireplace (the movie was, perhaps unintentionally, more candid about this when she asks him "How would you like to earn some extra money?" Who can forget that shot of Cooper pounding a pneumatic drill, almost as big as he is, into the stone?). She reacts angrily when he sends Pasquale Orsini in his place.

The book has been in print for over 60 years. If it were sending bad messages and encouraging rape, we would have heard about it by now.

Peter

Post 83

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 9:52am

Hey Peter,

Dominique's overt behavior shows her sexual invitation on several occasions. She comes back to the quarry day after day, checking Howard out, trying to pick him up without seeming to be trying. She invites him up to fix her broken fireplace (the movie was, perhaps unintentionally, more candid about this when she asks him "How would you like to earn some extra money?" Who can forget that shot of Cooper pounding a pneumatic drill, almost as big as he is, into the stone?). She reacts angrily when he sends Pasquale Orsini in his place.

You're evidence only supports the argument that the woman in question was sexually attracted to the man. It also suggests that she was not at all clear how she intended to act upon that attraction, if at all. Her right as an individual extends not only to her desire, but to her ability to choose. Honestly, when you read these scenes for the first time, did you imagine that Roark was gonna barge into her house and rape her? As their flirtation proceeded, did that seem like what she was after to you? How then does Roark reach this conclusion, and more to the point, why would he even care?

You make the typical mistake of defining the scene solely on the evidence of Miss Francon's actions and her state of mind. Even Ayn Rand fell into that trap with her �engraved invitation� remark (hey, she wrote the book in the 40's, what's your excuse?). Would the fact that someone begged you to shoot them in the head mitigate the fact that you murdered them? Good golly, does personal responsibility simply not apply to sex? (Well, I guess it does if you're the woman. ;-) ) And let�s not forget that Dominique Francon is a 26 year old virgin at the time; she�s bound to have some pretty unrealistic notions about the act.

As I said in my last post: the real issue is not whether Dominique found sick pleasure in being forced, but rather what in blazes does Roark think he is doing? Roark does what he wants for his own reasons. Roark has never acted because someone else wanted him to. Seriously, do you really think he did this thing to please her? That�s a level of self-sacrifice worthy of Peter Keating: �Well, dear, if you really want me to rape you, what can I say? I suppose it is my civic duty to shove you down and take you right now.�

But this is Howard Roark we�re talking about. Rand states his intent clearly enough in the book:

He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement.

Defilement. "Sex as an act of defilement." It's hard for me to get around such a straight forward definition. Force is force. Are you saying that there's a context in which Roark didn't hold her down and forcibly penetrate her as she struggled to escape? A context that exists outside the twisted mind of Dominique Francon? If you did this to a woman you barely knew, could you convince anyone that you hadn't just raped her? "But she made eyes at me! She asked me to fix her fireplace!"

The book has been in print for over 60 years. If it were sending bad messages and encouraging rape, we would have heard about it by now.

I don't imagine you expect me to take this last bit too seriously, but how exactly would we have "heard about it?" Serial Rapist Found With Copy of Novel in Back Pocket? How many people do you imagine have turned away from Objectivism because of this one scene? Is that a wholly irrational response? You want to know how it sends bad messages and encourages rape? Because redefining this rape scene as something benign and consensual is the price some are willing to pay to become Objectivists. And if they will engage in this kind of moral slipperiness simply to join a club, reason suggests that they might find their morality slipping in the face of more powerful urges.

I�m interested in Objectivism, not justifying Ayn Rand�s sexual fantasy life.

Personally, I think it�s a flaw in Rand's depiction of her ideal man. Howard Roark�s behavior in the novel is exhilaratingly ethical until his response to Miss Francon�s question here:

"Why didn't you come to set the marble?"
"I didn't think it would make any difference to you who came. Or did it, Miss Francon?"

Of course I had no idea at that point what shape their first sexual encounter would take, but I was surprised and disappointed by this remark coming from a character who was fast becoming my favorite straight shooter in American literature. On the face of it, this response struck me as a load of b.s. Of course he knew it would make a difference. Is Howard playing head games with her? He seems to be pretending to a kind of innocence belied by his previous behavior. The Howard Roark I was getting to know would have said something a little more honest: �I didn�t want to play your game, Miss Francon. If you�re interested in me the way I�m interested in you, drop the pretense.�

On the other hand, maybe he didn�t know. Maybe he�s so self-absorbed that her real motives and desires are a mystery to him. In which case, what did he think he was doing?

As I said, I�m still reading (hey, Donald and Teresa, no worries, I'll finish it; fascinating book, yeah?). I do think Dominique�s nihilism severely limits her openness to sexual fulfillment. I think Rand masterfully describes Dominique�s psychology throughout the scene. It's a gripping and horrific scene. I just don�t understand why Roark the hero hadda get himself involved in Dominique�s psychosis, when he�d been able to eschew every madness that he�d encountered up to that point. Love makes you do crazy things I guess.

I dare say, if Ms. Rand hadn't written in the preface that Roark was some kind of flawless hero, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Fascinating book, yeah?

-Kevin

(Edited by Kevin Haggerty on 9/03, 1:27pm)

Post 84

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:15pm

Some thoughts, and relevent quotes from Rand:

Rand isn't trying to depict reality, she is writing a *Romantic* novel that recreates the amplified abstractions she observes in the real world. Like the Bible, you're reading myth which illustrates profound themes.

Rand describes the Romantic style in "The Romantic Manifesto". This was about Victor Hugo, but this also applies to her fiction as well, as she was writing in the same style, to the same ends:

**************

> The Romanic Manifesto 10. Introduction to Ninety-Three*
...
> that unrepeatable emotional experience is yours when you rediscover the novels of Victor Hugo. The distance between his world and ours is
> astonishingly short—he died in 1885—but the distance between his universe and ours has to be measured in esthetic light-years.
...
> His works are seldom discussed in the literary courses of our universities. He is buried under the esthetic rubble of our day—while
> gargoyles leer at us
>
> again, not from the spires of cathedrals, but from the pages of shapeless, unfocused, ungrammatical novels about drug addicts, bums,
> killers, dipsomaniacs, psychotics. He is as invisible to the neo-barbarians of our age as the art of Rome was to their spiritual ancestors, and for the same reasons.

...

> Modern readers... should be cautioned that a first encounter with Hugo might be shocking to them: it is like emerging from a murky underground, filled with the moans of festering half-corpses, into a blinding burst of sunlight. So, by way of providing an intellectual first-aid kit, I would suggest the following: Do not look for familiar landmarks—you won't find them; you are not entering the backyard of "the folks next door," but a universe you did not know existed. Do not look for "the folks next door"—you are about to meet a race of giants, who might have and ought to have been your neighbors. Do not say that these giants are "unreal" because you have
> never seen them before—check your eyesight, not Hugo's, and your premises, not his; it was not his purpose to show you what you had seen a thousand times before. Do not say that the actions of these giants are "impossible'' because they are heroic, noble, intelligent,
> beautiful—remember that the cowardly, the depraved, the mindless, the ugly are not all that is possible to man. Do not say that this glowing new universe is an "escape"—you will witness harder, more demanding, more tragic battles than any you have seen on
> poolroom street corners; the difference is only this: these battles are not fought for penny ante.
>
> Do not say that "life is not like that"—ask yourself: whose life? This warning is made necessary by the fact that the philosophical and
> cultural disintegration of our age—which is bringing men's intellect
> down to the concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment perspective of a savage—has brought literature to the stage where the concept of "abstract universality" is now taken to mean "statistical majority."
> To approach Hugo with such intellectual equipment and such a criterion is worse than futile. To criticize Hugo for the fact that his novels do not deal with the daily commonplaces of average lives,
> is like criticizing a surgeon for the fact that he does not spend
> his time peeling potatoes. To regard as Hugo's failure the fact that
> his characters are "larger than life" is like regarding as an
> airplane's failure the fact that it flies.

From "Journals of Ayn Rand" :
**************

> December 26, 1935 An important thing to remember and bring out in the
> book: while Howard Roark, at first glance, is monstrously selfish
> and inconsiderate of others—one sees, in the end, his great consideration for the rights of others (when they warrant it) and his
> ruthlessness only in major issues;
...

> A man who is what he should be.

...

> Dominique Wynand: The woman for a man like Howard Roark. The perfect priestess.

...

> Attitude toward life. He has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world. He knows what he wants and what he thinks.

...

> Sex—sensuous in the manner of a healthy animal. But not greatly interested in the subject. Can never lose himself in love. Even his great and only love—Dominique Wynand—is not an all-absorbing, selfless passion. It is merely the pride of a possessor. If he could not have her, it would not break him or affect him very deeply. He might suffer—in his own indifferent way, a suffering that can never reach deep enough to obscure life. His attitude toward Dominique is not: "I love you and I am yours." It's: "I love you and you are mine." It is primarily a feeling of wanting her and getting her, without great concern for the question of whether she wants it. Were it necessary, he could rape her and feel perfectly justified. Needless to say, it is she who worships him, and loves him much more than he loves her. He is the god. He can never become a priest. She has to be the priestess. Until his meeting with Dominique, he has had
> affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the
> slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such.

Here's an excerpt from Rand's controversial article on why a woman shouldn't be president, that illustrates her concept of femininity:

> The Objectivist—December 1968 An Answer To Readers (About A Woman
> President) (published January 1969) By Ayn Rand

...

> But when it comes to the post of President,

...

> do not ask: "Could she do the job"

...

> but what would it do to her? The issue is
> primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of
> life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the
> essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man.
> "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying
> inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and
> admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of
> strong character and independent value-judgments. A "clinging vine"
> type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men.
> Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it
> and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a
> human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship
> is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

...

> the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding
> her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own
> sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman
> does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or
> leader.

...

> a President does not deal with equals, but only with
> inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy
> of their positions, their work and their responsibilities). This, for
> a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation.

...

> To act as the
> superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals
> with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would
> require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness and an
> incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress)
> every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could
> not be herself,

...

> By the nature of her duties and daily activities,
> she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically
> inappropriate and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.

**************

Some people can't deal with the vulnerability of telling someone they love they love them, so they project their fear and frustration on them and become hostile to them.

Some women invite or tolerate rape, but that isn't what is going on in Fountainhead:

1. To preserve their "honor" by not-consenting to being "dishonored"
(Any sensible man understands the difference in "no" said in delighted glee, and "no" said in fear, anger or terror).

2. So they can use guilt to control (Hank Rearden's wife in AS uses his guilt about sex to control him; Eric Berne calls this "game" "Rapo"
http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_rapo.htm

Dominique - could any man ever be good enough for Dominique? Rape is the only way she could have it, and from the description of Roark, he was taking what he considered was his own.

Scott

Post 85

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 7:15pm

Hello!

Mr. Haggerty, you write: "Roark has never acted because someone else wanted him to. Seriously, do you really think he did this thing to please her?"

Yes and no. Roark was taking what he wanted precisely because he wanted it, but were it not for Dominique�s desire and for his knowledge of her value, he would never want her in the first place.

Is Dominique kinky/dark/twisted or any of the other bleak adjectives applied to her on this forum?
No. She lives in a world where sex is always bought with pity or with gratitude; she never wanted it or accepted it on those terms. In order to possess her body in its entirety, Roark must prove to Dominique that he is powerful enough to have it. He must show her that he puts his needs and wishes before her own, yet allowing her to see that he needs and desires her becomes the ultimate demonstration of his love.

You say: �The Howard Roark I was getting to know would have said something a little more honest: �I didn�t want to play your game, Miss Francon. If you�re interested in me the way I�m interested in you, drop the pretense.��

I disagree. The relationship between Roark and Dominique is nothing less than a battle. It is a constant struggle for power that Dominique wants to lose with all her might. Roark plays her game in the beginning and occasionally allows her to �win,� only to help her realize her own desires. Dominique does not want to feel weak or inferior. The whole point is that her understanding of her own self worth is so great that she can only give herself to someone who is not afraid to take her. In the action of the �rape� Roark is saying, �I don�t have to beg or even ask. I know that I am worthy of you and here�s the proof.�

If the actual practice of this ideal still bothers you, Mr. Haggerty, then, yes, I think you may think of it as symbolism. I do agree that in many ways it is symbolic, and yet, not unrealistic.

Mr. Stephens � I agree with you entirely. Let�s just hope the so-called feminists don�t stubble upon your post. Incidentally, what do all of you enthusiastic Objectivists think of the idea of a woman being president?

Post 86

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 9:06pm

Mrs. Dudina,

"Incidentally, what do all of you enthusiastic Objectivists think of the idea of a woman being president?"

Is she the best person for the job? I'd have to compare how she would perform as president compared to another candidate, just like I do with any other candidate. Being female will have a slight disadvantage with people who do not respect female leaders, but that can be outweighed by making better decisions.

Welcome to SOLO.
- Dean

Post 87

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 9:41pm

Mr. Gores,

First: Thank you for the welcome!

Second: I do not mean to question whether or not a woman is the best person for the job (as opposed to a man). I was simply referring to the previous post, mentioning Rand's belief that "This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation."
Do you agree that a woman's nature may prevent her from comfortably filling the position of president?

P.S. I am simply a "Miss Dudina," not a Mrs.

Post 88

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 10:08pm

a President does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work and their responsibilities). This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture.

I don't see any reason why any being would desire to be inferior. Sure, being the greatest can be lonely. Never-the-less, striving to be the greatest is an excellent goal for everyone to have. Please, do strive (benevolently) to be so great that you only deal with inferiors- for your own sake (and mine because of harmony of interest between rational men).

Total passion for the total height!

Post 89

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 10:22pm

Hello again,

You seem to be missing the point of my question. I have not attempted to figure out whether or not a woman can be a great president. I'm sure it's possible. Nor have I suggested that a woman should not strive for superiority.
I am interested in hearing people's views on whether this feminine quality that Rand speaks of would really make it harder for her to take such a high post. I would also like to hear opinions on whether or not this quality actually exists.

Post 90

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 3:45am

Tania,

I think the quality of wanting to look up to people definitely exists, but I disagree with the way Ayn Rand is applying it here.

A lot of people, male or female, want to have someone to admire. Often, people look up to the stars of sport or entertainment, but it could be any field. This quality is not confined to females.

In addition, a president can still have other people to admire. Being the president does not make you the best at every imaginable activity!!

Kevin,
I think your comment is very valid: "I�m interested in Objectivism, not justifying Ayn Rand�s sexual fantasy life." Ayn Rand�s sexual fantasy life is bizarre and I would hope people would not take it too seriously.

Jillian.

Post 91

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 4:13am

Miss Dudina writes:

"a little more honest: �I didn�t want to play your game, Miss Francon. If you�re interested in me the way I�m interested in you, drop the pretense.�

I disagree. The relationship between Roark and Dominique is nothing less than a battle. It is a constant struggle for power that Dominique wants to lose with all her might."

Dominique has a wounded sense-of-life. Roark doesn't. If Howard Roark had a sister, perhaps she would demand to be leveled with, rather than raped?

You wrote:
"Roark plays her game in the beginning and occasionally allows her to �win,� only to help her realize her own desires. Dominique does not want to feel weak or inferior."

Perhaps you'll concede that a superior Roark is teaching a slightly deluded Dominique a lesson of sorts?

You wrote:
�I don�t have to beg or even ask. I know that I am worthy of you and here�s the proof.�

Then there's the "Stockholm Syndrome": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

You wrote
"Mr. Stephens � I agree with you entirely. Let�s just hope the so-called feminists don�t stubble upon your post."

Is a feminist one who, as Rand might say, proves an 'achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal' - that is the female rejects the role of being servant, baby-factory or sex-toy in a prostitution-contract marriage? Or is a feminist one who considers males an oppressive enemy to take revenge on?

"Incidentally, what do all of you enthusiastic Objectivists think of the idea of a woman being president?"

First lets separate the issue of gender-roles. There are dominant and submissive sex-roles. Its obvious what Rand's concept of femininity is. I think its obvious her self-image, her concept of her femininity, would interfer with her leading men, and she values being a woman with a passive gender role more than being a leader or accomplishing a mission.

One might now argue traditional active/passive gender roles are now archaic. Our society is certainly more tolerant of deviations from the traditional norm than it use to be.

As a practical matter, counting my managers, I've had 24. 19 males, four were jerks. Five females, and four were jerks.

By jerk, I mean offensive and controlling. They valued social dominance more than they valued achievement of a mission or work product. I've mostly worked in engineering environments. The best managers I've had practiced management by exception. I don't care if they come around to check up on me, I do mind when they change objectives and procedures consistent with arbitrary exercise of power in a demeaning and insulting way, to reward sycophants and punish dissenters. In fact, I suspect my last manager was getting even for abuse she probably was subjected too.

At any rate, watching a couple seasons of Donald Trump's horrible series "The Apprentice" confirmed suspicions, and clearly illustrates women tend to focus on relationships and men on accomplishing a mission. The women were more likely to "bicker", attributing failure to arbitrary excuses rather than objective causes for their ulterior motive. That's the nature of "reality" TV, to contrive fights. But that is obviously how politics is played in real life. In real life, there are nuclear weapons to be managed.

So although there are no doubt exceptions, I suspect there are 4/5 / 1/5 or 4:1 effective male presidents for every effective female president. And any attempts to "equalize" management or engineering would perhaps be no more effective than trying to "equalize" the interior decorating or pre-school professions.

Call me sexist, but A is A, people are people.

Scott

Post 92

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 8:56am

Jillian,

I think you make a very important point in saying that "Being the president does not make you the best at every imaginable activity!!"
I do think that the women have a natural tendency to be "hero-worshippers," but I don't think that being president would prevent a woman from being able to value and to look up to other. Being president is not necessarily the ultimate height. For this reason, I find Ms. Rand’s opinion odd.

Scott,

You write: "Dominique has a wounded sense-of-life. Roark doesn't. If Howard Roark had a sister, perhaps she would demand to be leveled with, rather than raped?"

I do not think that Rand thinks so. If we look to Atlas Shrugged for a few more examples of her ideal sexual encounter, we see that in all cases, Dagny needs to be "forced" in order to enjoy the act. This is the case with Galt and it is even the case with Rearden, whom she does not consider her superior.

You say: “Perhaps you'll concede that a superior Roark is teaching a slightly deluded Dominique a lesson of sorts?”

I agree, but not if you mean that by raping her, he is punishing her.
In Atlas, Dagny teaches Rearden a similar lesson, not by raping him, but by playing along with his delusions in order to allow him to grasp the nature of his own mistake. Isn’t that exactly what Roark does? Dagny not only allows Rearden to call her depraved, she even goes so far as to call herself a whore; knowing full well that she is no such thing, and that deep down Rearden does not believe it either.

You say: “Then there's the "Stockholm Syndrome"”

I wouldn’t call this a syndrome since it has a logical foundation. Furthermore, Stockholm Syndrome develops after the victim is trapped, and psychologically or physically abused over a period of time. Rand’s heroes do not force women to look up to them.

However, your question does bring up an interesting point. What is the nature of Stockholm Syndrome? Why are we so likely to experience it? Does that say something about human nature?

You ask which “breed” of feminists I mean? I was referring to the latter category. As you say: “one who considers males an oppressive enemy to take revenge on”. And I used the term sarcastically, since I do not think that these are true feminists.

You write: “The women were more likely to "bicker", attributing failure to arbitrary excuses rather than objective causes for their ulterior motive.”

I’ve noticed this as well – though never in myself – which is why I was interested in this question in the first place. Fear not; I do not call you a “sexist”. I think that a sexist believes in set superiority, or else, nonexistent equality. You do not fit into either category. I appreciate your frankness, and your presentation of valuable data. Where would we be without Wikapedia and reality TV?

Post 93

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 9:37am

Saner perhaps?

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:01pm

Saner, yes. But perhaps less entertained/informed?

I work for a video research company (conducting man-on-the-street interviews), and I have recently finished a project which entailed asking people how they become experts on a particular subject. Most individuals immediately answered that they turn to Google and Wikapedia. So, I ask you, is today's abundance of easily accessible information helping or hurting us as individuals and as a society? Will schools, degrees and books eventually be eliminated with Google remaining as our intellectual life support?
Perhaps this is a bit of a slippery slope argument, but I am genuinely concerned.

Tania

Post 95

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 6:03am

This is the same error in mindset that is given when large corporations, such as Wal-Mart come on the scene - and many whine that all competing businesses will fall by the wayside. Not so will this be - ah has been shown via other such groups - diversity actually reigns moreso, even if in smaller locales, if nothing else than a check of the omniverousness of the large... one could say it follows the law of diminishing returns...

Post 96

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 6:06am

Tania,

You wrote:

"You write: "Dominique has a wounded sense-of-life. Roark doesn't. If Howard Roark had a sister, perhaps she would demand to be leveled with, rather than raped?"

I do not think that Rand thinks so. If we look to Atlas Shrugged for a few more examples of her ideal sexual encounter, we see that in all cases, Dagny needs to be "forced" in order to enjoy the act. This is the case with Galt and it is even the case with Rearden, whom she does not consider her superior."

Agreed. Just examining limits, or perhaps being contrary.

"You say: “Perhaps you'll concede that a superior Roark is teaching a slightly deluded Dominique a lesson of sorts?”

I agree, but not if you mean that by raping her, he is punishing her."

No, its hardly a rape.

"You say: “Then there's the "Stockholm Syndrome"”

I wouldn’t call this a syndrome since it has a logical foundation. Furthermore, Stockholm Syndrome develops after the victim is trapped, and psychologically or physically abused over a period of time. Rand’s heroes do not force women to look up to them.

However, your question does bring up an interesting point. What is the nature of Stockholm Syndrome? Why are we so likely to experience it? Does that say something about human nature?"

Rand points out that force is anti-mind, and puts an interesting twist at the end of AS. Torture fails to break Galts mind, but instead breaks Jim Taggart.

I would attribute the efficacy of "brainwashing", such as practiced by the North Koreans and on Patty Hearst, as weakness or dishonesty with self.

One uses volition to either discover or evade objective reality, truth. To brainwash, people are worn-down with stress, punished for not-believing and behaving, and rewarded for believing. It can happen in a high-intensity prison or cult environment, or slowly over years in a corrupt or sick culture.

Once again, I was making an argument to the extreme, as you wrote, "Roark must prove to Dominique that he is powerful enough to have it...The relationship between Roark and Dominique is nothing less than a battle."

Ever see the movie "Blade Runner"? It has some interesting parallels. A pseudo-rape, a psychotic robot that discovers what it means to live, and respect life as an end in itself. Freedom.

"I appreciate your frankness, and your presentation of valuable data."

Thanks,

Scott

Post 97

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 10:26pm

In Romantic Manifesto, art is defined as the artists selective re-creation of experience according to the artists conception of reality and values.

In AS, the feminine Dagny is a sexual social-climber. In Fountainhead, Dominique is again a type of social-climber, provoking Roark during courtship, testing for weakness. As Tania describes, we are watching a conflict and combat. Given its at a deeper, more profound, philosophical level than most crude social conflicts involving "teasing" (ridicule) and manipulation.

Eric Berne describes "games" - sick methods to win a rat-race of dominance over sacrifices, as the dysfunctional modes in human relationships. Rand assert the same; men are ends in themselves, and man qua rational man must recognize this fact of existence. She describes a number of sick games without identifying them.

It seems to me Dominique is playing the sick game of "mine is better", in her provocations of Roark. And Dagny is a similar sexual social-climber. To use a metaphor, if you went to a market, hacked up and damaged every product to examine its quality, you'd be expected to pay the cost.

But Roark and Galt, rational as they are, tolerate insults from these irrational, game-playing women? Why don't they want rational equals that offer values, not insult? That courageously are not afraid to level, but rather must hide their vulnerable desire in insults?

"The Apprentice" is a fine example. Trump is an asshole, that rather than uses his wealth and influence to create an ennobling entrepreneur contest, creates a pornographic, gladiatorial half-social back-stabbing fight. Berne called the game something like, "Lets you-and-him fight". I could describe several ways a competition for the best manager could better be posed, without the spectacle of a "Board Room" where Trump chooses a winner and loser of a zero-sum rat-race, none is humiliated, and the best, not the luckiest or Machiavellian subjectivist is entrusted with authority. In combat the race often goes to the lucky, not the strong or wise!

Yet his assistance, George (?) and Caroline (?), are powerful, professional, intelligent, dignified leaders. How could they work for a lesser man like Trump?

A sore-loser, a geek, that lost the social rat-race and has gone from feeling like un-popular damaged social-goods, to vandalized social-goods, with outstanding accounts against the rat-race, holds social-climbers and subjectivists playing social games of "mine is better" in contempt, when there are objective values, such as making a profit, running a factory, inventing a motor, winning a war, saving lives, et. How could an objective-oriented producer like Rearden, Galt or Roark respect a woman like Dagny or Dominique that is so subjective, shallow and vulnerable she is insulting and demeaning?

The premise behind a rat race is might-makes-right, and that is what Dominique does to Roark. Yes, he's game for the fight. A dignified, rational gentleman wouldn't condescend. I can understand Rand depicting Roark admired Wynands intentions and accomplishment, while hated his methods and premise. Dominique was admirable for her aspiration, perhaps beauty, if not her sick behavior. If Roark couldn't do any better (more rational) than Dominique, Rand should have said so.

Scott

Post 98

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 4:37am