Debate on IP, 1983: Wendy McElroy vs. J. Neil Schulman


Greybird

Recommended Posts

George,

The USA government is a piker against its citizens compared to Brazil's military dictatorship of the 60's and 70's. Or any of the main dictatorships, for that matter. Try living under a system where there is a formal Office of Censorship with a crack secret police to do the dirty work when the public stage of the courts would send the wrong message to foreign trade partners. And that's just one issue of repression.

It's OK to look to the original intention of the Founding Fathers and cuss what we now have, but there is the other end of the scale. It's good to look at that, too.

In terms of conceptual referents in reality, there are these two poles and we are in the middle. I don't see much anything else.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can speak only for myself, of course, but I know that I am struck dumb with admiration by the way the American system of checks and balances has left no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes.

Come on, Jeff.

Us against them again? The same rhetorical gimmick again?

Nobody I know of claims that the system of checks and balances closes all loopholes against tyranny. It just slices power up. In fact, the only people I know of who are perceived as claiming your meaning are people who don't, but are misrepresented by being misassigned that meaning like with your remark above.

So, am I for you or against you in this argument? How about neither?

That's exactly where I'm at.

I'm more in line with Glenn Beck, who holds that freedom doesn't work unless people (not just the leaders) are also active in trying to be good. In his case, that means going to church and getting his morals from there, but he has said often that he includes atheists who think right and wrong through and practice the right--in terms of individualism, of course.

The truth is, if you have a situation where a bunch of thugs get freedom, you soon have violent gangs. Then freedom evaporates.

Prove me wrong if you can.

Michael

The Founding Fathers could have written a somewhat better constitution but we would still have had the constant expansion of Federal power as illustrated by the Whiskey Rebellion, the Indian Wars, the Mexican War and the Civil War. It had a lot to do with raw American expansionary, moralistic hubris--the South had that too, not just the North and they clashed from that in their little war--and the idea that the people and government were one and lets go fight Spain and the Germans and the Germans again and the Japs and the communists, etc. All in all the American people have gotten what they deserve and what they did to the American Indians they are now doing to themselves and soon they will be all living on the reservation in trailers and shacks watching TV and drinking their snacks. How come Objectivists do not realize that Ayn Rand gave up her radical vision after the publication of Atlas? Greenspan went to Washington with her blessing. She was an anti-Nixonite for Nixon. She aminadverted upon Indians and homosexuals. She was the great intellectual and moral force taking up all the primary space. There were, what, two Objectivists in the world and the one she wasn't got the boot when he stopped lying to her? That's right. Nathaniel Branden was supposed to lie to her and for her as required. Love and exception making. That made the human foundation of the philosophy a lie, a lie that continues to this day with too many Objectivists pretending that in many ways she was what she wasn't the whole package considered. As far as I'm concerned she sacrificed her life to her great novel and her felt need for her public persona. She tried to save the world while telling all and sundry that they couldn't do it, which was a sorry way to preserve her monopoly. She was heroic to the nines, but bit off way too much for any one person to chew and by not letting human rights be the locus of her political and moral crusade let the likes of Buckley dominate conservatism and conservatives and the anti-intellectuals dominate libertarianism and libertarians, both of which, most of whom, went straight to impotent hell, just like Objectivism and Objectivists.

--Bran

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can speak only for myself, of course, but I know that I am struck dumb with admiration by the way the American system of checks and balances has left no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes.

Come on, Jeff.

Us against them again? The same rhetorical gimmick again?

Nobody I know of claims that the system of checks and balances closes all loopholes against tyranny. It just slices power up. In fact, the only people I know of who are perceived as claiming your meaning are people who don't, but are misrepresented by being misassigned that meaning like with your remark above.

The wording in my remark above was taken verbatim from Ayn Rand, Michael, from the quotation you introduced into the discussion.

As for the rest of your reply, I can only describe myself as speechless with wonder at the prospect of being led back to freedom by Glenn Beck.

Best,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

The USA government is a piker against its citizens compared to Brazil's military dictatorship of the 60's and 70's. Or any of the main dictatorships, for that matter. Try living under a system where there is a formal Office of Censorship with a crack secret police to do the dirty work when the public stage of the courts would send the wrong message to foreign trade partners. And that's just one issue of repression....

Of course. It is also true that many 18th century governments were far worse than the British government. Indeed, many revolutionaries conceded that the British government, despite its many flaws, was still among the best governments on the face of the earth. But they still regarded its actions in the colonies as tyrannical and therefore as a legitimate target of violent revolution.

If you had said to a Founding Father, "True, the British government is bad, but it is a piker compared to the Turkish government" (this example was commonly used as the worst of the worst), they would not have been impressed." They probably would have replied, "How do you think the Turkish government got so bad in the first place?"

The colonials were extremely sensitive to legal precedents, which were especially significant under a common law system. The tax rate in the colonies was probably the second lowest in the world, and the tax rate in Britain was, on average, 26 times higher. Nonetheless, oppressive taxation was a major battle cry of the Revolution.

Consider also the tax on tea that led to the Boston Tea Party, which was the most significant single event that eventuated in the Revolution. This tax was a holdover from the Townshend Acts, which had been repealed except for the tax on tea; the latter was retained for the symbolic purpose of affirming parliamentary sovereignty.

This tax was miniscule, but many Americans, including Thomas Paine, pointed out that the amount of the tax was irrelevant. Rather, there was a vital principle involved; and if Americans had conceded this principle because of the small amount, the battle would have been lost. It would only have been a matter of time until more taxes were imposed.

My point about current American tyranny -- one with which 18th century revolutionaries would have agreed -- is simply this: Americans have already conceded almost every key principle of freedom to the American government. The philosophical and legal groundwork for tyranny has thereby been established. The fact that the exercise of tyranny in the U.S. may not be as bad as that found in other countries is irrelevant, from this point of view.

I have argued for decades that modern day libertarians could learn a lot from the close study of 18th political literature. The Founders were far more sophisticated and astute in such matters than most O'ists and libertarians are today.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maestro,

I only hope for checks and balances, but performance-wise I have not seen this working so well lately. However, it does not mean that I have abandoned nor lost any faith in that idea. As writers (say), we know the power of words alone, and how sacred that freedom is. Will it be protected at any level down the road? I do not know. I see deterioration, and I see dumbing down. I see Idiocracy (the film) as a viable probability, if not already in place. People are not educated as they were. Specifically, they are not of an inquisitive mind (I am talking general populous here--what I see all over every day in many places). Being inquisitive, questioning, is something that does not seem to be taught, or at least taught properly. I do conclude that there is a conscious effort from above (elites) to discourage inquisitive, "question authority" behavior. And it is easy enough to do--simply shift the learning to compliance with authority. This is a very expedient strategy, and it has been done over and over in human history.

I find very little depth in the masses. They are confused, and they are using the primal parts of their minds to survive. On the mega scale, to be otherwise is not encouraged.

It is so touching when I find "old school" type people--educated freethinkers, rugged individualists. I don't see true individualists that much anymore.

r

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, if you have a situation where a bunch of thugs get freedom, you soon have violent gangs. Then freedom evaporates.

Have you seen how spineless many anarchists have been about the Smith vs McElroy thing? If their utopia were ever achieved, they'd be the first to go. Within minutes of the state being abolished, they'd be clubbed to death by the first wave of power-lusting thugs while their fellow egg-headed anarchist theorists watched in indifference and said, "It's none of my business, it's between the two of..." (these fellow anarchist theorists would be interrupted mid-sentence by being clubbed to death themselves while the next ring of anarchist theorists watched in indifference, etc.). Instant tyranny.

Not that Objectivist minarchism would be any better. It would probably be worse. Imagine a government run by Objectivist luminaries like Peikoff, Harriman, Binswanger, Hsieh, Pigero, Rowlands, Newberry, Cresswell and Coates. It wouldn't just be tyranny, but a clusterfuck of tyranny.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, if you have a situation where a bunch of thugs get freedom, you soon have violent gangs. Then freedom evaporates.

Have you seen how spineless many anarchists have been about the Smith vs McElroy thing? If their utopia were ever achieved, they'd be the first to go. Within minutes of the state being abolished, they'd be clubbed to death by the first wave of power-lusting thugs while their fellow egg-headed anarchist theorists watched in indifference and said, "It's none of my business, it's between the two of..." (these fellow anarchist theorists would be interrupted mid-sentence by being clubbed to death themselves while the next ring of anarchist theorists watched in indifference, etc.). Instant tyranny.

Not that Objectivist minarchism would be any better. It would probably be worse. Imagine a government run by Objectivist luminaries like Peikoff, Harriman, Binswanger, Hsieh, Pigero, Rowlands, Newberry, Cresswell and Coates. It wouldn't just be tyranny, but a clusterfuck of tyranny.

J

It would be something along this line:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1690) was a virtual instruction manual for 18th century Americans, especially when it came to their conceptions of tyranny and the rights of resistance and revolution. Here are a few brief samples that pertain to issues I have discussed thus far. I have modernized spelling and punctuation.

...Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to.

...

'Tis a mistake to think this fault proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that. For wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made us of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many....

[To the argument that resistance and revolution cannot be justified until a government lapses into total tyranny, Locke replies:]

This is in effect no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty; and when their chains are on, tell them, they may act like free men. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny, if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it. And therefore it is, that they have not only a right to get out of it but to prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I can only describe myself as speechless with wonder at the prospect of being led back to freedom by Glenn Beck.

Jeff,

To help you regain your speech, you might start here (but there is a ton load of other material if you ever become interested):

The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century by Glenn Beck -- released in June and now (in July) sitting on several national best-seller lists, including NYT.

This is essentially The Federalist Papers in modern English.

On best-seller lists.

In modern-day America.

Do you know of anyone else who has been able to do anything comparable? I don't.

Here is the product description:

Glenn Beck revisited Thomas Paine's famous pre-Revolutionary War call to action in his #1 New York Times bestseller Glenn Beck's Common Sense. Now he brings his historical acumen and political savvy to this fresh, new interpretation of The Federalist Papers, the 18th-century collection of political essays that defined and shaped our Constitution and laid bare the "original argument" between states' rights and big federal government—a debate as relevant and urgent today as it was at the birth of our nation.

Adapting a selection of these essential essays—pseudonymously authored by the now well-documented triumvirate of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—for a contemporary audience, Glenn Beck has had them reworked into "modern" English so as to be thoroughly accessible to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Founding Fathers' intent and meaning when laying the groundwork of our government. Beck provides his own illuminating commentary and annotations and, for a number of the essays, has brought together the viewpoints of both liberal and conservative historians and scholars, making this a fair and insightful perspective on the historical works that remain the primary source for interpreting Constitutional law and the rights of American citizens.

Before Beck did his thing, in the mainstream, it was kind of dorky to talk about the Founding Fathers. Nobody did it.

Now it is cool.

So he is actually leading oodles of people "back to freedom." No amount of sarcasm will ever erase that fact.

I don't want to sound pompous, but if the Left with its Soros-funded mainstream smear-machines and butt-loads of academics couldn't erase the value of his work, I seriously doubt a libertarian will.

You are master of your own soul and speech, though. Be happy...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only hope for checks and balances, but performance-wise I have not seen this working so well lately.

Rich,

I saw it work perfectly in both 2008 and 2010.

I wish the backlash against Bush's power expansion had not been Obama, but there it is. The guy sold a dream of getting away from power abuses. It was a bill of goods, but it sounded like a dream to many people. So they elected him. With the 2010 election, the checks and balances of elections halted Obama's assault on what's left of freedom. I expect 2012 will be to put things more or less right again, including a repeal of Obamacare.

The problem is that we live in an age of remote controls and instant gratification. We want our fix now.

The system of checks and balances has a particular characteristic that I rarely see discussed. It is hard as hell to make fundamental changes to the constitution or anything else dealing with the government--and the process is slow. This is on purpose to avoid a charismatic person from lathering up the crowds and redoing the charter documents according to his (or her) whims and pleasure.

I have a feeling that the Tea Party is going to stick around for a while. In a culture of nudge, it has shoved so far. And shoved hard in the right direction. I doubt it will stop. And I doubt it will stop growing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

You have a point there. And Neil smiles too much and Wendy not enough. Bad choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I seem grumpy about the Kinsella article, I am, and here is part of the reason. Kinsella quotes Wendy's "Retrospective," an article in which Wendy has conveniently and drastically understated my role in the anti-LP movement in the mid-1970s. I cannot cover all of her misrepresentations here. Instead, I will present some documentary background and then explain its significance in a subsequent post.

Let's begin with with Wendy's highly selective account, as quoted by Kinsella:

...And, then, Carl Watner, George H. Smith and I established our own unique circle by creating The Voluntaryist newsletter and re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream. A libertarian used book store named Lysander's Books that I co-owned became the center of Voluntaryism.

This is a good example of how Wendy distorts history in order to exaggerate her own importance, even in regard to insignificant matters. Does it ultimately matter who came up with "Voluntaryist" as the name for a libertarian periodical that few libertarians have read or ever will read? Or does it ultimately matter who introduced the label "voluntaryism" into the modern movement? No, not really, but here is the true story that you will never hear from Wendy.

On my use of the term "voluntaryism," see some of the references here:

http://books.google....&q=voluntaryism

On my use of the term "voluntaryists, see some of the references here:

http://books.google....q=voluntaryists

When I thought of the idea of starting a non-political libertarian newsletter, one that would explore alternative strategies, I naturally suggested the title "The Voluntaryist," and I suggested that we use the label "voluntaryism," given that I had just finished and published an article in which those labels played prominent roles. Why? Well, for the simple reason that the terms were not already in use, and they had something of a libertarian pedigree. Contrary to Wendy's dumb assertion, however, the terms were never part of the "libertarian mainstream."

As I said before, this stuff is pretty minor -- and is precisely because it is so minor that Wendy's fuzzy and deceptive account is so petty. Why didn't she simply say that I suggested the labels "voluntaryism" and "voluntaryist," and that she and Carl agreed? But, no....Wendy had to steal even a meagar morsel of fame, giving herself credit for "re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream."

What a sleazebucket this woman is.

Ghs

When someone writes a good history of the libertarian movement [Radicals for Capitalism is not it--more errors than a politician has lies; leaves out too much), George will be remembered more than Wendy. I know many people who respect George, far more than respect Wendy. I've been around the modern libertarian movement since practically its beginning (I became active in 1964) and George has been WAY more influential than Wendy. Meanwhile she is digging herself in deeper and deeper, staining her already tattered reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never "run with the evisceration" in my life, and I don't plan to start now.

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

J. Neil looks the jollier, for sure.

I like Neil's "beatnik cap." It signifies an in-your-face eccentricity that is very appropriate in Neil's case.

The late Sam Konkin -- the titular head of "Anarcho Village" in Long Beach, which also included Neil and another talented science fiction writer, Vic Koman -- used to dress entirely in black, and he often carried a small black flag with him while attending public events.

Friends of mine would sometimes call Sam a "kook." I typically replied, tongue-in-cheek, that, yes, Sam certainly did not enjoy the social respectability that we other anarchists did. :rolleyes:

Neil, like Sam, is eccentric, but this is a natural eccentricity, one that flows from his personality. There is nothing artificial about it. The cap expresses Neil's personality and outlook on life. In that sense it is the perfect fashion statement -- and that's why I like it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Neil's "beatnik cap."

Always on the lookout for incidental segues, I would like to say that the Beat Generation of the 1950s was more cuturally significant and interesting than the "Hippie Counterculture" of the 1960s, much of which was an intellectual wasteland.

My bias, if that is what it is, may be partially owing to the significant role that jazz played during 1950s. Jack Kerouac, for example, paired with the tenor sax players Al Cohn and Zoot Sims for his 1959 album, "Blues and Haikus," and he once called a SF-based tenor saxophonist (whose name I cannot recall offhand) the perfect embodiment of the Beat movement.

For the huge influence of jazz on some leading writers and poets of the Beat Generation, see:

http://www.litkicks.com/Topics/Jazz.html

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bias, if that is what it is, may be partially owing to the significant role that jazz played during 1950s. Jack Kerouac, for example, paired with the tenor sax players Al Cohn and Zoot Sims for his 1959 album, "Blues and Haikus," and he once called a SF-based tenor saxophonist (whose name I cannot recall offhand) the perfect embodiment of the Beat Generation.

The SF tenor saxophonist, whose name I could not recall, was Brew Moore, who didn't record very much. Here is a track that features Moore, from "The Kerouac Connection." This was recorded, with Harold Wylie playing the other tenor, live in a SF club in 1957. The interesting thing about this music is that embodies not the hard bop associated with New York, but the "cool" lyrical sound of West Coast Jazz. Today, even people who are not jazz fans might find this tune enjoyable.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Neil's "beatnik cap."

Always on the lookout for incidental segues, I would like to say that the Beat Generation of the 1950s was more cuturally significant and interesting than the "Hippie Counterculture" of the 1960s, much of which was an intellectual wasteland.

My bias, if that is what it is, may be partially owing to the significant role that jazz played during 1950s. Jack Kerouac, for example, paired with the tenor sax players Al Cohn and Zoot Sims for his 1959 album, "Blues and Haikus," and he once called a SF-based tenor saxophonist (whose name I cannot recall offhand) the perfect embodiment of the Beat movement.

For the huge influence of jazz on some leading writers and poets of the Beat Generation, see:

http://www.litkicks....opics/Jazz.html

Ghs

There is no doubt about what you say. Now, there were of course a great many things that came out around, but not always necessarily directly "from" the hippie movement, such as it was. It changed art and music around in a big bad way. Writing, not so much, I think. With few exceptions, the writers of note during that period were really more experiencing the psychedelic generation than making it--they were observing. These writers very, very often can have their influences traced back to the Beat writers. Hunter Thompson is a perfect example--he first came into large recognition by writing "Hell's Angel's," which was an investigative journalist piece and definitely not so much about hippies (although there are parts of it where he was with the Angel's at Kesey's house). It is difficult to find substantive stuff in the hippy lit world. I can't even barely stomach Ginsberg, and he was already established before it. Who do you read, Kesey? I'm not saying it was goose-eggs, just saying that most of it was already in motion. If anything, you could see the effects rendered in journalism, but journalists had a real hard time doing accurate portrayals.

I stand outside of a lot of conventional opinion on this though--for instance I think Bob Dylan sucked. He was not "The greatest poet of our Generation." Fuck's sake no.

One genre that continued to develop beautifully was folk. Even in spite of Dylan, if you're me. rolleyes.gif

Here, Ghs--you might find this a treat if you haven't run into it . . .this is a song the latter-day King Crimson (Adrian Belew, Robert Fripp, Tony Levin, Bill Bruford) did off an album called "Beat," which was part of a trilogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA4IAMlREcs

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt about what you say. Now, there were of course a great many things that came out around, but not always necessarily directly "from" the hippie movement, such as it was. It changed art and music around in a big bad way. Writing, not so much, I think. With few exceptions, the writers of note during that period were really more experiencing the psychedelic generation than making it--they were observing. These writers very, very often can have their influences traced back to the Beat writers. Hunter Thompson is a perfect example--he first came into large recognition by writing "Hell's Angel's," which was an investigative journalist piece and definitely not so much about hippies (although there are parts of it where he was with the Angel's at Kesey's house). It is difficult to find substantive stuff in the hippy lit world. I can't even barely stomach Ginsberg, and he was already established before it. Who do you read, Kesey? I'm not saying it was goose-eggs, just saying that most of it was already in motion. If anything, you could see the effects rendered in journalism, but journalists had a real hard time doing accurate portrayals....

If you have not read Jeff Riggenbach's book In Praise of Decadence, you should do so. It is a good defense of some aspects of the 1960s counterculture.

Note that I qualified my criticism of this movement. It did produce some worthwhile results, but on the whole I think the Beat movement produced more lasting bang for the buck. This may be owing to little more than the fact that the hippie counterculture became so widespread so as to attract an abundance of mediocrities and second-handers. In addition, and largely because of this, the 1960's counterculture was more diffuse than the Beat movement.

Counterculture movements in general can lose much of their value after they become a fad and harden into their own type of orthodoxy. One thing I admire about jazz musicians from the 1950s is that many were serious students of classical music. Charlie Parker, for example, would often play classical music for his musician friends, and then discuss the significance of certain classical composers in the development of jazz. Parker was a serious intellectual in such matters, which is one reason I and many other jazz fans don't care for the Clint Eastwood movie "Bird," which gives too much stress to his drug addiction. In addition, the role of Parker was terribly miscast. Forest Whitaker is a fine actor, but he didn't understand the character he was playing.

In any case, the Beat movement attracted its fair share of second-handers. While I was growing up, this type of character was beautifully portrayed by Bob Denver (of "Gilligan's Island" fame) in the role of Maynard G. Krebs, in the popular sitcom "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis." As the Wiki article says of Krebs:

The Krebs character, portrayed by actor Bob Denver, began as a stereotypical beatnik, with a goatee, "hip" (slang) usage, and a generally unkempt, bohemian appearance. His abhorrence of conventional social forms was signified by comical reactions to the three words: "work", "marriage", and "police". For example, whenever the word "work" was mentioned, even in passing, he would yelp "Work?!" and jump with fear or even faint.

Even though it was clear that Krebs was high most of the time (hence his reaction to the word "police"), I don't think this was ever brought up explicitly.

Here is a clip that I selected more-or-less at random:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMthBpaXi14&feature=related

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Kesey, what a writer, I think I never found a just-okay book by him. Rich, Hunter S. never grabbed me that much, but for originality you had to read everything he wrote.

Only the other week I found an early work "The Rum Diaries" set in P.Rico: this was good'un.

As for the Beat Generation, yes, short-lived weren't they? But influential.

Don't know enough to say for certain, but I've a feeling I would have fitted like a hand in glove!

They seemed to have a strongly individualist sense of life.

We had our own 'thing' in the infamous Rockey Street in Jo'burg. That was 10 years, 70's to 80's, one of the few spots in the country blacks and whites mixed freely without the Law coming down. In that string of clubs is where I was introduced to jazz as a steady diet. To now, we have many killer jazz musicians in SA. Youngsters, I can hardly believe, of all ethnicities. And often a visiting American staying on, playing, and marrying a local lass.

Horn player, Bruce Cassidy, I came to know and listen to regularly with his Hotfoot Symphony Orchestra. Oops, Canadian, wasn't he? B)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even barely stomach Ginsberg....

I wouldn't characterize myself as a fan of Ginsberg, by any means, but "Howl" struck a chord when I first read it in a literature course at the University of Arizona during the late 1960s. I still like the poem.

As a good O'ist, I knew I wasn't supposed to like such things -- but rather than engage in what I call "the psycho-epistemological twist," according to which I should have examined the flawed premises that caused my flawed reaction, I had enough confidence in myself to ask another question, namely: What of value did I discern in "Howl" that caused me to like it?

I won't go into how I answered this question, but my favorable reaction to "Howl" and other literature that O'ists were not supposed to like solidified my nascent quasi-"subjectivism" -- I prefer to call it "contextualism" :rolleyes: -- in matters of art. Specifically, I began to question Rand's notion of a "sense of life" and the role it supposedly plays in art. Some years ago, JR and I had a blistering flamewar on A2 over this topic, and, though I am not anxious to repeat that experience, I would be willing to discuss it again, should anyone be interested.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize myself as a fan of Ginsberg, by any means, but "Howl" struck a chord when I first read it in a literature course at the University of Arizona during the late 1960s. I still like the poem.

As a good O'ist, I knew I wasn't supposed to like such things -- but rather than engage in what I call "the psycho-epistemological twist," according to which I should have examined the flawed premises that caused my flawed reaction, I had enough confidence in myself to ask another question, namely: What of value did I discern in "Howl" that caused me to like it?

I won't go into how I answered this question, but my favorable reaction to "Howl" and other literature that O'ists were not supposed to like solidified my nascent quasi-"subjectivism" -- I prefer to call it "contextualism" :rolleyes: -- in matters of art. Specifically, I began to question Rand's notion of a "sense of life" and the role it supposedly plays in art. Some years ago, JR and I had a blistering flamewar on A2 over this topic, and, though I am not anxious to repeat that experience, I would be willing to discuss it again, should anyone be interested.

I'm very interested.

I guess I've always thought that Rand's concept of the role that "sense of life" plays (or at least can play) in art has a lot of merit, but that her attempts to claim to know others' senses of life based on the art that they liked or created were ridiculous, not to mention in conflict with her statements that one cannot know something as complex and personal as another's sense of life based on such limited information.

So, do you really have an issue with the concept of "sense of life" itself as it can pertain to art, or with Rand and her followers' "psychologizings" and other abuses of the concept?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize myself as a fan of Ginsberg, by any means, but "Howl" struck a chord when I first read it in a literature course at the University of Arizona during the late 1960s. I still like the poem.

As a good O'ist, I knew I wasn't supposed to like such things -- but rather than engage in what I call "the psycho-epistemological twist," according to which I should have examined the flawed premises that caused my flawed reaction, I had enough confidence in myself to ask another question, namely: What of value did I discern in "Howl" that caused me to like it?

I won't go into how I answered this question, but my favorable reaction to "Howl" and other literature that O'ists were not supposed to like solidified my nascent quasi-"subjectivism" -- I prefer to call it "contextualism" :rolleyes: -- in matters of art. Specifically, I began to question Rand's notion of a "sense of life" and the role it supposedly plays in art. Some years ago, JR and I had a blistering flamewar on A2 over this topic, and, though I am not anxious to repeat that experience, I would be willing to discuss it again, should anyone be interested.

I'm very interested.

I guess I've always thought that Rand's concept of the role that "sense of life" plays (or at least can play) in art has a lot of merit, but that her attempts to claim to know others' senses of life based on the art that they liked or created were ridiculous, not to mention in conflict with her statements that one cannot know something as complex and personal as another's sense of life based on such limited information.

So, do you really have an issue with the concept of "sense of life" itself as it can pertain to art, or with Rand and her followers' "psychologizings" and other abuses of the concept?

J

I actually agree with your analysis. I would add a couple points.

I'm not sure exactly what I think about Rand's notion of a "sense of life." A given work of art might express a passing mood more than one's fundamental "metaphysical" values per se.

Or the art we happen to like might be largely owing to our knowledge of a given type of art or its creator. There is little doubt in my mind that I happen to be a jazz fan because it was the first type of music that I took seriously enough during my childhood to study; and because, as a sax player (with more ambition than talent) it was something I could relate to on a very personal level.

When someone says that a given work of art (in whatever genre) "speaks to him," this, in my opinion, cuts to the heart of the matter better than ponderous moral judgments about a "sense of life." If I am feeling blue about a past romantic relationship, then, like many people, I will sometimes have a couple drinks while listening to, say, a torch song by Frank Sinatra. At other times I might find the same tunes annoying.

This can prove very cathartic. One reason for this is because art enables us connect with the common experiences of other people. It makes us realize, in a very concrete way, that what we feel at a given time, whether pleasant or unpleasant, is part of the human condition. The same feelings can be evoked in different ways in different people, depending on their individual tastes and cultural backgrounds. The same feelings I get from listening to a melancholy jazz tune might be the same feelings as other people get from listening to classical music, rock, etc. A good analogy here is the fact that the same ideas can be expressed in different languages. I don't know German, but I would never tout the supposed superiority of the English language over the German language, based on the fact that I happen to have been born in an English-speaking country.

Thus, even though I might not appreciate or like certain styles of music, I would never automatically assume that my response is owing to a "metaphysical" deficiency in the music itself. I would need to add some qualifications here, such as the ability of a given genre of music to express a wide range of emotions and subtle variations. It is on this basis that I would criticize "rap" (for the most part) as a primitive form of music.

One last thing for now: I think our personal enjoyment of art should be a "moral-free zone." We should feel free to enjoy a work of art spontaneously and at the moment, rather than burdening ourselves with all kinds of moral self-doubts if we happen to enjoy the "wrong" kind of art, by O'ist standards, and thereby tie ourselves in knots of guilt and self-doubt. This is no exaggeration, as I first learned during my UA Students of Objectivism days. (Again, some qualifications are in order, but I won't go into those here.)

I am reminded of an incident that happened during my college years, one that got me seriously thinking about the bad effects that some aspects of O'ism had on young people. (This eventually caused me to write the original version of "Objectivism as a Religion," which I delivered as a talk in 1970 for the UA Students of Objectivism.) This incident did not involve art, but the principles were similar.

One of my best friends at the time, who became enthusiastic about Rand at the same time I did, once told me that he would like to have a discussion about a "serious" problem he had. We had the discussion while sitting in my car at the parking lot of a 7-11 just a few blocks from my home (near Broadway and Swan, for the benefit of Brant).

It was clear that my friend viewed his problem as sexual in nature, and he made it sound very serious indeed. I didn't know what to expect, and it took a while for my friend to get the nerve to say outright what he was worried about. I finally said, "Look, just blurt it out in one sentence. Just say "I like..." and then fill in the blank. (This was long before I knew NB or anything about sentence completion. It just seemed a commonsensical approach.)

My friend took a deep breath and said, "I like wigs. Women's wigs -- they turn me on. I fantasize about them sometimes, when I am jacking off."

I laughed and said, "That's it? That's what you are feeling so guilty about?" It turns out that my friend's mother often wore wigs, and he sometimes tried them on as a child. I explained what I regarded as obvious, namely that minor sexual fetishes of this sort, which frequently develop in our early years of sexual development, are of no consequence. My friend, of course, had convinced himself that a fetish of any kind, however minor, was incompatible with Rand's theory of sex -- as if Rand didn't have her own fetish, i.e., the S/M implicit in some of her sex scenes. My friend was therefore convinced that he needed to purge himself of such responses, if he wished to become fully rational.

I don't wish to blame Rand herself for this sort of thing, but similar pseudo-psychological problems, including supposedly irrational reactions to art, were fairly common in those days. I recall arguing with a number of O'ist types about some favorable comments I made in 1969 about the movie "Midnight Cowboy." I was asked how I could have possibly enjoyed the movie, since it expressed a malevolent sense of life. I replied, No, the movie was a brilliant character study of a friendship between two men from widely different backgrounds. One was innocent and healthy, and the other was world-weary and sick. There is nothing inherently "malevolent" about such a study, nor is there any reason why this theme should repulse rational people.

Around a year later, my friend told me that our brief discussion worked wonders for him. In fact, my casual attitude greatly diminished the intensity of his fetish.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing...

It has been years since I read The Romantic Manifeso , but I think Rand speaks of two fundamentally different types of metaphysical value judgments that constitute the foundation of a "benevolent" sense of life versus a "malevolent" sense of life.

To be honest, this typology has never made much sense to me. A metaphysical value judgment entails the evaluation of existence per se, and I don't think such judgments are appropriate here. From an atheistic perspective, existence, including the existence of human life, is neither benevolent nor malevolent. Existence simply is. The universe was not created by a benevolent God, and most of what exists in the universe would be judged malevolent, if judged by its incompatibility with human existence.

I do think that we can reasonably speak of other types of fundamental values (though I would not call these "metaphysical") that are often expressed in art. Creativity, born of an active imagination, is one. The willingness to reveal oneself, down to the core of one's being, is another. I would characterize such values with words like courage, honesty, and the like. Didactic art, whereby the artist is primarily motivated by a desire teach moral lessons, typically bores me to tears. This doesn't mean that art cannot or should not convey moral principles, but the mix of art and morality is a tricky and difficult challenge. I think Rand would agree with me here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than pontificating any more on the relationship between art and a "sense of life," I would rather illustrate my approach with a specific example that is as near-perfect as examples can get.

I just now uploaded a remarkable tune to YouTube, since no one else has done so. Appropriately titled "Self-Image," this is from the 1961 album "Sounds of Synanon." This title reflects the fact that all the musicians were then participating in the Synanon drug rehab program. This includes the legendary guitarist Joe Pass. This was his first album.

By far the most interesting thing about this tune is that it was composed by trumpet player and heroin addict Dave Allen. I am posting this not only because of the melancholy nature of the tune itself, but also -- and primarily -- because of the trumpet solos by Dave Allen, which outshine those by everyone else, including Pass.

Allen is an obscure figure, even to jazz buffs, and he certainly isn't regarded as a top-tier player. But here he plays from the heart, expressing the deep despair common among people who are attempting to kick addiction to heroin. The tremendous toll this can take on one's self-esteem is brilliantly expressed in Allen's writing and playing.

So how would an orthodox O'ist evaluate the "sense of life" exhibited in this tune? It certainly is not joyous or optimistic; on the contrary, it is depressing as hell. But it can "speak" to me in a way that few tunes can; in fact, it can bring tears to my eyes. So does this mean that I should engage in a psycho-epistemological analysis and examine my premises? Nope, not at all.

I will have more to say about this later, especially if others have comments to make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9A04wuNdmk

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now