Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content count

    23,203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Brant Gaede

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Brant Gaede
  • Description
    Born in 1944 in Tucson, AZ. SF Aidman Vietnam combat veteran. Autodidact. Can drive the big rig. Hike and fly. Weep and write. Shoot and scoot.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Rand novels, The David, Shane, The Ox-Bow Incident, Forbidden Planet, Things to Come, The Wild Bunch, Oliver, Star Wars, Charade, North by Northwest, Psycho, Vertigo, Red River, Empire of the Sun, etc. Music: only the good stuff--e.g., Lynyrd Skynyrd "Simple Man"
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tucson, AZ
  • Interests
    All kinds of stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

45,285 profile views
  1. A Baseball Riddle

    You were. --Brant
  2. Theme and Plot Theme of The Fountainhead

    I don't read essays on Rand's novels. I may have read one article published by JARS on any subject. I'm not even that much interested in the double issue on Nathaniel Branden. I'm only interested in what's in my own head based on my first-hand experiences. Sometimes I write about such, in parts here, and sometimes--much less--elsewhere. If I write later at considerable length it's going to be all me as these things and people were of my experience. Afterwords I'll go back and read all that stuff, maybe. For me it's memoir first, scholarship second. Barbara Branden did both at once in The Passion of Ayn Rand. Nathaniel Branden was all memoir in Judgment Day. I wouldn't have joined into George H. Smith's talkafest about The Fountainhead even if i could have. I couldn't have. The (secondary) problem is George's big brain. The secondary problem with others is--well, not to say. (The primary problem is my brain--what's in it, as the result of experience and it's that I work off of.) Re George, he once said he'd read AS once and that was that so why wasn't The Fountainhead that was that? One thing I run from is lack of passion. Don't get me wrong, George has lots of passion, at least about more political and political-historical philosophical means. It's the essential libertarian-Objectivist divide. Well, to more clarify, there's Objectivism qua Objectivism then there's Objectivism qua esthetics and Objectivism qua politics. There's more, but George isn't qua any of that. He's a libertarian qua politics and to hell with politics, ideally speaking. Anarchy--now THAT'S passion! If I had to do it again when I went to Los Angeles in 2012 to see Nathaniel, I'd also have tried to see Barbara. I didn't because I inferred she was in ill health. Unannounced--to avoid the stress of a visitor--I'd have knocked on her door. You see we were friends, albeit not close friends--I was friendly with Nathaniel, but I'd not say friends for with him I'd have to be living in LA and work at it really hard while with her it was more natural--and that way she'd finally have had a visual and tactile knowledge of me I had had of her just from the photo on the back of the book Who Is Ayn Rand and then in real life later. She had had visual contact with me (and one telephone while researching PAR) three times only: 1) On September 20, 1968 when I walked into NBI in NYC and they were shutting it down (I'd come into NYC from NJ for Movie Night) completely ignorant of what had happened and there was Barbara behind the desk. I walked up to her asked, "What happened?" and she stated that NB and AR had had ... etc. A total shock to me. I wandered around the facilitiy and purchased a couple of items and left. I had dropped out of the University of Arizona after a semester and a half after coming home from Vietnam and came to NYC (living with my Dad and step-mother in NJ) in April and had attended some courses and seen NB and AR and LP and MARS(ures) and Frank O'Connor and I thought after being a killer medic I was in intellectual and moral heaven. 2) In 1975 NB came to NYC to give a lecture on some new something about self esteem (New Lectures?). Barbara was manning the desk and I exchanged some friendly words with her. 3) In 1986 on a book tour for PAR she came to NYC and there was a big get together and a lot of Objectivist and non-Objectivist bigwigs (were there including my old acting teacher Phillip J. Smith [whom I embraced but was shocked at his fragility [he felt so lite] and I filed up for an autograph for her PAR, deliberately last in line, and she remembered me from the telephone conversation ("The first thing I check when reading fiction is the style of writing"--"Oh, me too!" [approximate quotes] and after the autograph I kissed her on the cheek). There's more but that's enough, at least, for now. And likely enough. I liked all these people: AR, LP, BB, NB et al. and the personal, intellectual and moral context they were part and parcel of. And I was. Fundamentally, way down deep, that includes to this day Leonard Peikoff. I don't care that much re that that he went off the tracks in 1986 when he couldn't rationally and humanly deal with PAR. The only thing that really pisses me off about the man is the way he has let the AR material be butchered up by the two-bit re-doers of AR. The scholarship went completely out the window. The man was completely trapped in the AR matrix--as was AR herself--the matrix NB was blown out of--to his admitted great benefit--in 1968. It was a matrix BB never completely left. She kept touting AR as a (great) human being for the rest of her life. Natch! She was. Never mind any other stuff! The philosophy is simple, basically. The complexity is people. The true complexity of philosophy is when you throw in sundry people's esthetics. Objectism is 95% people, many at each others' throats. Objectivsm should be more 50/50, but it's very young. --Brant a modern man--there aren't many of us--and good luck understanding half of what that means (for I hardly do) women!--they know we boys need our toys (in that sense AR was a boy [my highest compliment]) the Ford Mtr Co. was a toy, BTW, and when Mrs Ford told Henry to settle with the striking union that's what he did Barbara Branden last (officially [signed in]) visited OB on March 28, 2012, my 68th birthday I am now rushing to the end of my (intellectual) life--I've got 10-15 years max to go on that thx to my genes (but thx to my genes I shouldn't be bald)
  3. A Baseball Riddle

    Geer! I don't know how to one up you on that one. --Brant Geeer! Maybe on the moon? --Brant Mickey Mantle almost hit one out of Yankee Stadium--734 ft. (I watched him and Roger Maris in their home run derby on TV back in 1961.)
  4. A Baseball Riddle

    Unless the other team gets a time at bat too. --Brant
  5. O.J. Simpson once again in the news

    Like this contrary view. --Brant but OJ never came forth in any public way proclaiming innocence much less at his trial--so he got run over by his cowardice?
  6. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    What did Einstein do but incrementally improve on Newton? He self-confessidly stood on Newton's shoulders. Was that phony modesty? I doubt it. QM: nothing to do with Newton or Einstein. Right? --Brant my grandfather, Irving Newton Brant, was given Newton as a middle name because his parents thought he was collaterally descended from Isaac (who had no children)--even if true, it was crap; Newtons don't beget Newtons nor do the Newtons' brothers and sisters; Newtons stand alone--not sad and quite true
  7. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    It's a given we're stuck with two theories when it seems we ought to have one. 1) Why one instead of two? 2) Why gravity instead of QM? 3) Gravity doesn't explain QM. It seems a dead end. 4) QM might explain gravity. QM seems to be open to expansion. So, I layman say, ignore "gravity" and focus on QM. --Brant
  8. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    By replacing gravity as commonly understood with another idea--even an empty set--one is left free of all the gravity intellectual baggage that might obscure instead of illuminate. (Of course, to gravity we'd likely return, but maybe with a better understanding.) You can get so invested in your ideas you get stuck. Might be gravity is just another expression of electromagnetic force? You'll say "No"?-- and I say, "I dunno." I'm always looking for a fresh perspective--on all subjects--and you seem to want certainty. (Old time Objectivists like Barbara Weiss liked to say, "Absolutely!") --Brant
  9. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    If they want a unified theory why not drop explaining gravity by replacing gravity with a hypothetical? --Brant
  10. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    The ultimate verification is technology that works. What does Higgs Boson have to do with that? It'll be interesting to find out future advances in particle physics as a result of this statistical technique. In the meantime Bayesian inference applied to particle physics sounds to self referential for my taste. But my taste and particle physics doesn't matter a whit. Nor should it. --Brant
  11. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    Aesthetics is not part of the Objectivist philosophy. Many think that because Rand wrote a lot about aesthetics it's part of Objectivism. They also think anything she wrote was Objectivism. And if she didn't write it it isn't. There are two reasons it's not part of Objectivism: It's subjective and there is no logical connection to the four basic principles all linked by the philosophy's essential individualism--that is, the individual thinking and judging mind (metaphysics and epistemology) to rational self interest in ethics/morality to protection of individual rights in politics (freedom). It's objectifiable. That's my take. This is not official Objectivism, whatever that is, insofar as I understand it. I differentiate between Objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Thus I no longer call myself an "Objectivist" and it's for the same reason I don't call myself a "Randian." (A Randian, of course, doesn't have to study Objectivism much, but an Objectivist is implicitly obligated to study and re-study everything Rand wrote if not said over many decades. If it took that long for Leonard Peikoff to get on top of the subject, don't expect to be any faster.) I use Objectivism as I think Objectivism is and should be with the capital "O" because I like it even though the lower case is more justified for clarity. --Brant
  12. Aristotle's physics properly deconstruct

    Thank you. --Brant
  13. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    You, as usual, respond to a small fraction of what I write. Unfortunately, I don't do intellectual charity. --Brant or fortunately
  14. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    So, philosophy for you is metaphysical only? Does this leave science without reality? --Brant Think Twice
  15. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    Okay. You are saying science is either philosophy free or free now of Aristotle's wrong philosophy making it a right philosophy? If it's philosophy free what is the scientific method? How does science lead philosophy? Facts lead thinking? I realize, but do you, that we are asking looking about us whether the chicken came before the egg? Scientists and their hangers' on are privileged in this society to pull up the drawbridge and, like the little boy in his crib clutching his teddy bear, pretend how autonomous they are. Do you know of evil scientists, engineers, industrialists, businessmen--all whom deal/dealt with facts (physical reality)--coughing up all the Zyklon B Hitler needed? Or do you just strike "evil"? Nazi philosophy lead those folk around and about by their collective noses. The "science" followed philosophy--for evil. When it follows philosophy for good we understand science is not, per se, beyond good and evil. Philosophy rules science because men have free will and they need standards of choice for their choosings. Thus ethics--morality--should be part of science--and more so than merely the scientific method. --Brant