ThatGuy

This is reminiscent of an old sci-fi novel called THE NEW ADAM by Stanley Weinbaum. In that book, there's a Nietzschean "ubermensch" of sorts who literally has two brains, and there are several passages depicting his mental dual-brained interactions with himself in a similar manner. "Edmund Hall, born a mutant with too many joints in his fingers and a double mind, tries to find a purpose in a society of humans. This superman is no caped crusader fighting for justice though. Rather, he is a dual-brained super-intellect with an IQ so far off the charts that normal human beings appear as Neanderthals next to him. In this story, our evolved human is born into modern society without anyone knowing his nature. While pondering whether he's a superman or the devil, he explores pleasure, power, and passion. Slowly he realizes the differences between himself and contemporary humans, and therein lies a fascinating story. "

Oh, I realize that, that's why I said "similar". Just offered it up as an example of how she abstractly approached the overall subject of people using or associating with her work.

I don't remember ever hearing of Rand expressing such annoyance, but I'd be interesting in learning of any evidence that she did so. This particular letter in THE LETTERS OF AYN RAND addressed one similar incident, and her overall attitude towards other people using her ideas, artistically or otherwise: pg. 585-586: To George Boardman, a fan May 19, 1961 "Dr. Mr. Boardman: I appreciate your interest in my philosophy. But I object most emphatically to your use of the name "John Galt" or of a title such as "J. Galt Associates" or of any names, characters, or events from my novel Atlas Shrugged. The abstract, philosophical ideas expressed in my novel may be used by all those who agree with them. The specific, literary, fictional elements of my novel are my personal, private property and are not to be used by anyone but me. If you associate yourselves publicly with the characters of my novel, it means and implies that you act as my philosophical representatives. It is an intellectual blank check which I never have or will grant to anyone. You state: "If you feel that such an action might imply a sanction which would be incompatible to you, we will drop the idea without further discussion." Any use of my fiction characters does imply a sanction which is most incompatible to me. I appreciate your statement and I shall take you at your word: I shall expect to receive from you the assurance that you have discontinued the use of the title "J. Galt Associates" and any other attempt, direct or indirect, to use the characters or any fiction elements of my novel."

duplicate deleted

Sort of. There's a claim that Rand considered a lawsuit against the rock band Rush. Their album 2112 was based on ANTHEM, and the liner notes contained the line "Dedicated to the genius of Ayn Rand."

“Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.” Ayn Rand; Nathaniel Branden. The virtue of selfishness: a new concept of egoism (Kindle Location 2287). Signet/New American Library.

Veritas is ready to reveal more CNN news today, this time about the sexual harrassment scandal. The accused had already locked their Twitter account, but now, Twitter is DOWN; "over capacity", it's saying... Probably just a coincidence, I'm sure... (Edit, 10/22/19: It's back up, now...for now...)

"Easier said than done"? Perhaps it's what Chris Matthew Sciabarra was getting at in his chapter discussing Nathaniel Branden and integration in Russian Radical...or Ronald Merrill, in The Ideas of Ayn Rand: "From Theory to How-To" "Nathaniel Branden has pointed out the need for something beyond ethics as traditionally conceived. It is not enough, he suggests, to develop a set of rules for action, to tell people WHAT they ought to do. Ethics is not complete until it provides rules or prescriptions to advise people HOW to be moral. …Traditionally [psychologists] have have been prone to understand that if the patient only understands the roots of his behavior he will change it. As Arthur Koestler pointed out in Arrival and Departure, this theory doesn’t work. Branden…deserves credit for not only raising this issue, but making an effort to develop some useful techniques.”

Hmm...point taken.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, especially the point about context. While I didn't mention it, I take the issue of context as a given to those familiar with Objectivism. (I can't remember the exact quote, and it may have been Rand or Peikoff, but it was something about Objectivism being about absolutes in context.) (Edit: Ah, I found the quote I was thinking of, in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Peikoff, pgs. 173-175, writing about context and absolutes. "Conceptual knowledge rests on logic within a context, not on omniscience. If an idea has been logically proved, then it is valid and it is an absolute- contextually." This last term, indeed, does not introduce a factor distinct from logic and should not have to be stressed: to adduce evidence for a conclusion is to place it within a context and thereby to define precisely the conditions of its applicability.")

I think this stands out so much to me, when it comes to Objectivists, because of the Objectivist emphasis on integration of words and deeds.

Hmmm. Yes, there's that aspect, and I knew it would come up, sooner or later. On that note, those Objectivists who are criticizing Trump for his China "orders" were Trump were upset when he praised Kim Jong Un...well, so did the parents of Otto Warmbier, so there's something to be said for the morality of it. But it almost seems like a Catch 22 for Trump... Not that the topic is unimportant, of course it is. I'm just personally stuck on, at the moment, just how "all over the place" (regarding consistence and application of princinples) this topic seems to be within the Objectivist community. That seems to be a phenomenon in itself worth looking at, philosophically speaking.

Rand's article "How To Demoralize a Nation" (where she criticizes Kennedy for going to the Russian ballet during the Cuban Missile Crisis) keeps coming to my mind, in regards to Trump's "orders" re China. This passage, particularly: If that was her argument about dealing with Russia during the missile crisis was valid, wouldn't the same apply to dealing with China today, regarding Hong Kong?

Well, it's to your credit, Michael, that I don't suffer from "Trump Derangement Syndrome" myself. I did read The Art of the Deal upon your earliest suggestions. And it's the reason I'm even having this discussion, today.

That was the other thing about this that bugged me. People like Amy Peikoff were calling out Trump and Pence for not being strong enough on China in favor of Hong Kong. But now that he's "ordering" companies not to deal with China, he's a "fascist." Hmmm...