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 unread


Post 0

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great quote! I especially like this:

"You can continue to perceive, to see what the book is about, to judge what you've been reading — or you can lose yourself in the pleasure you feel, focus only on it, look only for ways to maintain it, ignoring and evading any evidence that might contradict it...if you've focused on maintaining your emotion at any price, then you'll rationalize it by any means possible...blinding yourself, destroying your perception for the sake of your emotion. "

Emotional intrinsicism is never good.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I'm only half way through the book but so far there are gems like that scattered everywhere ... simple examples by both Barbara and Nathaniel that concretize the concepts in everyday experiences. The style is such that I can almost hear the words being pronounced and is very readable.

(and I like the font)

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 1/14, 9:38pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 11:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You admitted that you typed this in for use in the thread about "Avatar." You're using it over there to berate anyone who disagrees with your (and a posse of eight to ten others') assessment of it — such as daring to see any virtues in Cameron's storytelling, whatever may be his viewpoints.

That use of a quote as a rhetorical bludgeon has nothing to do with Barbara Branden's point. Anyone who works his or her way into such a reactive emotional state, about anything, very likely has a problem with his or her own mental functioning — namely, a selective focus on the facts that are available to them.

This level of a reader's or viewer's cognitive success has nothing to do with the esthetic success, or not, of someone else's work of art.

I'm seeing echoes of a "self-criticism" session in the gyrations over "Avatar": When will you admit to not seeing what we've told you is the essence of that work? And to your inefficient thinking?

I could be wrong, but I had, oh, the vague impression that this kind of intimidating group-think was among the phenomena that Rand wanted to leave behind in Leningrad, back in 1926.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and by the way, as to your veracity in quoting Branden, you included above:

[...] Well, if your mind is functioning rationally, you will perceive that you have made a mistake — that is, that whatever this movie is preaching it isn't individualism. [Emphasis added]

Ah, but wasn't she talking, before and after this sentence, about a book?

When you're going to use someone else's words to support your current case ... well, try to be less obvious in giving an impression that the other person is actually discussing the current case.

Branden wrote what you're quoting nearly a half-century ago, when Cameron (and I) were playing with G.I. Joe action figures.

Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve Reed:

[...] Well, if your mind is functioning rationally, you will perceive that you have made a mistake — that is, that whatever this movie is preaching it isn't individualism. [Emphasis added]

Ah, but wasn't she talking, before and after this sentence, about a book?


Because there's no conceptual connection to be made between a book and a movie? They both tell a story, I should think that would be obvious Branden's quote can apply to any medium that does so.

As far as the group think accusation, which apparently includes me in that insult so I'll go ahead and comment on it, the manner in which you use the insult could just as easily be turned around against you. Since a "group" of people that include you like the movie and have defended it and the artist. But that's not what "group think" means. It doesn't mean a group of like-minded individuals who have independently arrived at the same conclusions using their reasoning and critical thinking skills. Group-think rather is accepting a view based on a desire to conform to a particular group's prevailing view-point.

To describe that to any RoR member is rather ludicrous. Pick any two individuals on this forum and tell me they haven't had their disagreements? I personally have never been in the company of a more viciously independent people in my life. So I don't take kindly to the ad hominem smears Steven.

Post 5

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
" ... viciously independent ... "

I prefer the term "actively independent" as "vicious" has the root "vice" which independence is not.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My thanks, Steve, for noting the typo. I have corrected it.

Congratulations also on noticing that my ulterior purpose in posting this quote was to support my own arguments. Very few people will catch such things, assuming falsely that much of what I write is random, and that when I do have a purpose it is to usually disprove my own point. That earns you my sanction for both your above posts.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Congratulations also on noticing that my ulterior purpose in posting this quote was to support my own arguments. Very few people will catch such things, assuming falsely that much of what I write is random, and that when I do have a purpose it is to usually disprove my own point.

Chortle


Post 8

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Would you, even remotely, ascribe Barbara Brandon's excellent comments as applying to my earlier responses concerning Avatar? There are no true similarities.

jt

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 10:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The person to whom that should matter is you, Jay. I think that one hint a person can take is, is he, at any point, saying "well, you could choose to interpret the story as being about (some valid issue)."

The fact that Pedro Almodovar often fills his movies with drug addict and pervert anti-heroes or that Kubrick's movies display a malevolent sense of life doesn't mean that I can't enjoy much of their work on some level. Full Metal Jacket is cinematically brilliant and thematically evil. It's not my job to apologize on their behalf. Again, I would strongly recommend reading Ayn Rand Answers and the Art of Fiction on this, as well as Branden.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.