• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by seymourblogger

  1. Yes I am this person. I have been more explicit and detailed here: And at as DeLillo's Cosmoolis can be read through Rand. I have some more scattered among other blogs if you want the links. Probably this comment does not belong in this thread. I am new here and haven't learned my way around yet. Can you suggest a better thread or should I start one?
  2. I believe my source was in one of the two biographies I read but can't remember which one. The Journal is crubbed of Nietzsche and so are her letters. Branden also is scrubbed out. And of course I always leave the possibility that I am wrong. But no matter. It is not really important anyway unless you are preparing a career in Trivial Pursuit. Leaves and trees and forest and woods? Her statements about things like this were often subject to revisionism. As her excuses for the change in We the Living's later edition due to her problems with English. She had no problems in English in that first edition nor with NIetzsche. The important quotes that Merrill quotes and Sciabarra also are very adroit in the way she changes them. She simply inverts Nietzsche as she used him in the first edition and the inversion has a toning down effect. If you want to dig out the quotes we can discuss them. As Baudriolard says about his love affair with Nietzsche, Nietzsche was in him, influencing him always, but underground, and not as any direct reference. IMO this is true for Rand also as she read Nietzsche outside of class assignments, on her own, and a friend told her that Nietzsche had taken all her ideas first and beat her to it. This is the way she felt about Nietzsche, so it seems his thinking was in the air, eh? IMO Rand cannot be properly understood without reading her through Nietzsche. I am only, - again only - talking about her fiction.
  3. (NOTE FROM MSK: I peeled this off from a different thread.) I don't know if this thread is dead or not. I pay no attention to Objectivism as a formal philosophy. It is quite different from Rand's fiction. And the two are in different orders. Her fiction is in the Order of Seduction and her non-fiction is in the Order of Production. I am taking this from the work of Jean Baudrillard. Fountainhead is permeated with Nietzsche. Her writing style in it is aphoristic, seductive, suggestive and while not all things Nietzsche, certainly so much of him is revealed and concealed that if Fountainhead is read through Nietzsche, all the psychological drivel of the Superman/Overman vanishes. We see Roark and Wynand trying to embody the growth towards that experience of existence. Dominique has been portrayed as a psychological masochist seeking her own self-destruction. And this view has been solidified by Rand's own words which we can read in her published Journal. The context of it was that Patricia Neal was having difficulty with her portrayal of the character of dominique and Rand was explaining it for her. Well, Rand certainly had to explain within the Dominating Discourse of psychological interpretation so Dominique was doomed forever to be seen in this way. Fountainhead was printed on wartime paper. Rand wrote it with Nietzsche at the helm. Every chapter was to be prefaced with a quote from Nietzsche and a tribute to him for the book. alas Hitler had embraced Nietzsche and doomed him for the time being. No publisher would have allowed Nietzsche to be named in print as Rand intended. Kiss of Death! Lest anyone blame Rand for her lack of courage even Foucault, as intellectually powerful as he was, said toward the end of his life, that he regretted not acknowledging Nietzsche earlier in his career for his great debt to him. Foucault expanded on Nietzsche's genealogical method to make the method the preferred was of thinking about human behavior. Psychology, history, language, etc. Both of these titans were wise to follow Galileo, eh. Dominique can be read as a Nietzschean strategist, choosing the "worst" excess possible. This is the same strategy Eric Packer uses in Cosmopolis to implode the global currency market. Rand took everything to excess, to the edge of the abyss where it topples over into the chasm. This is Nietzsche folks.
  4. Are there others who wish to explore this topic with me. Ron Merrill in his book was so close with his uncovering of Rand's first edition of We the Living, comparing it with her revised edition, and her rationalization that her English was wavery at the time she wrote it. Barbara Branden in her book describes Rand as buying Zarathustra as her first book in English when she got here and underlining all her favorite passages. So we know she perfected her English by reading Nietzsche. As William Burroughs says, a good way to learn a working knowledge of a foreign language is to take a book in that language that is one of your favorites and the same book in your native language. By the time you finish you will have a decent command of the language. I don't know if you have experienced how a favorite writer, at an early impressionable age, can take over your imagination, your thinking, your language, etc. But I guess many of you do as Rand has done that for many readers. There are other parallels with Nietzsche that we could discuss. Rand's linguistic gifts received from Nietzsche and his unique way of thinking and writing. Yes? No?
  5. Thanks for reporting this here. Reminds me of Greene's work in the 70's at the famous psychoanalytic treatment center at Topeka Kansas, where through meditation by a yogi, the yogi was able to isolate tumors, deprive them of the nourishment they required, and dissolve them. Chinese adepts practice all kinds of things like this. Of course this one is western medicine in action, very powerful and a very lucrative way. But it will not change the person internally so that the person can feel illness and change their predisposition for it. all of which requires a full focussed energy.
  6. I have about finished with solopassion so I'll try here. I see Rand as a great post modern philosopher, solely and only from her fiction. I completely ignore all her non-fiction, Objectivism, the Brandens etc. Once upon a time I was an Objectivist, went to NBL in Philadelphia before it became NBI during the years of 1960-62. Yes it totally influenced my life. I am grateful that the Brandens presented Objectivism formally as I was incapable of learning it any other way at that time. And I "needed" it very badly. Right now I blog about post modern thinking through the media on a number of blogs:film; books; Events; etc. I also include my ongoing thinking about Rand and Nietzsche. Whitewashed out of her letters and journals as much as possible, but no matter. And I like your software here.