regi

Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

Recommended Posts

Hello Sports Fans. It's that silly time of year again wherein mid-term election campaigns are increasing activity. With the caveat in mind that one's own self is the most easy person to fool, I find myself faced with choosing the lesser evil. Should I vote for the lefty collectivists who will legislate for higher taxes, more regulations, more government controls over my life while virtue signaling to their SJW supporters, or should I vote for the conservatives who are equally delusional as their lefty adversaries but who will legislate for lower taxes and less government control of my life and the lives of the citizens even though the later politicians bloviate to appease fanboys-and-girls of religious mythology? Would I be sacrificing and living for those fan-smucks if I press the button for their preferred candidate? And if I did that would I be not loving myself?

 

Would an Objectivist philosopher think they would require a suprelative analogy to infer to a process of self-inflicted sacrifice by compromising to vote for the lesser evil or would an O.P. decide to err on the side of caution and boycott an election between a scientism leaning collectivist statist lefty control freak vs a primacy of consciousness religious mystic neo-tribalist and corporatism fan? What's a kitty to do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Hello Sports Fans. It's that silly time of year again wherein mid-term election campaigns are increasing activity. With the caveat in mind that one's own self is the most easy person to fool, I find myself faced with choosing the lesser evil. Should I vote for the lefty collectivists who will legislate for higher taxes, more regulations, more government controls over my life while virtue signaling to their SJW supporters, or should I vote for the conservatives who are equally delusional as their lefty adversaries but who will legislate for lower taxes and less government control of my life and the lives of the citizens even though the later politicians bloviate to appease fanboys-and-girls of religious mythology? Would I be sacrificing and living for those fan-smucks if I press the button for their preferred candidate? And if I did that would I be not loving myself?

 

Would an Objectivist philosopher think they would require a suprelative analogy to infer to a process of self-inflicted sacrifice by compromising to vote for the lesser evil or would an O.P. decide to err on the side of caution and boycott an election between a scientism leaning collectivist statist lefty control freak vs a primacy of consciousness religious mystic neo-tribalist and corporatism fan? What's a kitty to do? 

If I were a cat in your situation, I would go back in my bag until somebody let me out,  preferably in 2020.

Sympathetically, Carol

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the value vote.  And what to do when the lesser of two evils contracts one's values.  The problem I had in 2016, so I didn't vote.  Couldn't bring myself to do it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could get into a way-back machine would you vote for President Trump in 2016 and in 2020? Who are the democrats going to come up with? Who wants to waste a vote on a loser? The only people who will run against Trump are jockeying for position.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

If you could get into a way-back machine would you vote for President Trump in 2016 and in 2020? Who are the democrats going to come up with? Who wants to waste a vote on a loser? The only people who will run against Trump are jockeying for position.   

Hi Pete. Yeah. I voted for Trump for two reasons. I thought he was the lesser evil by virtue of his seeming incompetence and because Hillary is a crook guilty of thousands of counts of the espionage law that BTW disqualifies an offender from holding elected office.   Surprisingly, Trump is doing pretty well despite the silly rhetoric and speech snafus. Love the tax cut, the deregulatory  regime, the wall, a strong military, cancelling the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuke Deal. Love the hard line on the Norks. Don't like the kow towing to religious mystics, but I do love the booming economy. Jesus H Christ, I'm busier than an one legged man in a sack hopping race. Love how Trump backs the Blue. Cops need help crushing violent felons, but I wish he'd stay off Twitter. 

Time to mow the lawn. Chat ya later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Hi Pete. Yeah. I voted for Trump for two reasons. I thought he was the lesser evil by virtue of his seeming incompetence and because Hillary is a crook guilty of thousands of counts of the espionage law that BTW disqualifies an offender from holding elected office.   Surprisingly, Trump is doing pretty well despite the silly rhetoric and speech snafus. Love the tax cut, the deregulatory  regime, the wall, a strong military, cancelling the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuke Deal. Love the hard line on the Norks. Don't like the kow towing to religious mystics, but I do love the booming economy. Jesus H Christ, I'm busier than an one legged man in a sack hopping race. Love how Trump backs the Blue. Cops need help crushing violent felons, but I wish he'd stay off Twitter. 

Time to mow the lawn. Chat ya later.

I voted for Trump to use him as my very own personal  political I.E.D.  I think of our Donald as a Stink Bomb  which I helped to toss into the midst of government.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been further reading AS. Currently at part 3 chapter 4 that section where after Cheryl and James Taggert have a discussion of fundamental values about what makes one be what they are that results in James throwing a hissy fit and slamming the door on Cheryl and that she then goes to visit Dagny  and apologize for insulting her at the wedding. That dialog speaks to me and makes me cringe at how much my life has been in some ways like the fictional James Taggert. Oh crap. I have dishonored all rational persons by going along with the "rotter" and "moucher" ideology absorbed when I was a child, so now all these years later I find I need to work on my mind to get rational. The audio book of that section is linked. Cool.On to the next deal where I've an opportunity to earn a bit of being worthy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I voted for Trump to use him as my very own personal  political I.E.D.  I think of our Donald as a Stink Bomb  which I helped to toss into the midst of government.

 

Hi BC. Good one. The USG is far from what the founders and framers intended, so any Prez who deregulates to lessens the scope of Uncle's power is doing right by me. The Federal Reserve thing makes us all slaves to and addicts for the dollar, so there can't be, as Wolf pointed out, a Galt's Gulch. Nevertheless, O-ism is mostly about getting one's own head screwed on straight, so that on balance the pros outweigh the cons makes me think I don't have to go eat a bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

ARI's The Atlas Project panel discussion or AS Part 3 chapter 4 with the passage I was referring to above makes good listening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:33 AM, Robert_Bumbalough said:

 I was making a literary allusion to one of the themes used by Ayn Rand in her famous novel.  Your incredulity speaks to my motivation in asking for a diagnosis of constipation, but my hobby has no bearing.  Stop evading. Tell me the truth. Are we slaves because we use US Dollars? If so, to where can one escape?  Would that be avoidable if they stopped using USD and switched entirely to crypto. 

Auto audio sucks. I won't be back here.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Auto audio sucks. I won't be back here.

--Brant

Hi Brant. Thanks for the comment. I apologize for offending you; I suck at cycling and can barely crank for 20 miles. On the other hand, the ARI guys are thoroughly smeared over at SoloPassion in context of orthodox Randian O-ism, so maybe Pete's take is more proper. Hell,  after all these years I'm still trying to get through the books. Jesus; I must be some kind of kooky rotter. Wolf told the truth. Gold and Crypto baby. That's the ticket.  Okay then, back to work and put your backs into it.

 

Happy Memorial :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh Gee Whiz. What was she thinking? Why did Rand make Dagny go and have a sex break with John Galt in the friggin train tunnel on burlap sand bags? In Part 3 chapter 5, Rand has Dagny get to the terminal pronto from the fancy dinner in the smoke filled back room with the Looter Bosses and brother James. The rail road comes to a halt because the interlocking signal system breaks down, and there's Dagny dressed in formal evening attire giving orders to send out the men with lanterns to be the signals. Then she sees Galt among the workers in his greasy overalls, so she takes off into an unused tunnel. Galt follows, they do it. Rand's graphic detail of their sex would be at home in a classy skin mag, but meanwhile Traggert Transcontinental is going to hell in a hand basket. Dagny would rather bang Galt than TCB even though Galt's CV is way weaker than Rearden's! ** So why did Rand make Dagny love Galt more than Rearden even though Galt was mouthing Hugh Aston instead of inventing his own philosophy and had walked away from 20th Century instead of commercializing his invention like Rearden did his metal and instead of how Dagny stayed with Taggert Transcontinental despite that it was de facto owned by the looters and controlled by her "viscious moocher" brother James?  Given directive 10-289, that state of affairs couldn't hardly be dissimilar to what happened at 20th Century Motors with Ivy Starnes and "The Plan". **  What was Rand getting at by making Dagny abandon her values to take Galt as her lover? Did this have anything to do with Rand's affair with Branden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Ahh Gee Whiz. What was she thinking? Why did Rand make Dagny go and have a sex break with John Galt in the friggin train tunnel on burlap sand bags? In Part 3 chapter 5, Rand has Dagny get to the terminal pronto from the fancy dinner in the smoke filled back room with the Looter Bosses and brother James. The rail road comes to a halt because the interlocking signal system breaks down, and there's Dagny dressed in formal evening attire giving orders to send out the men with lanterns to be the signals. Then she sees Galt among the workers in his greasy overalls, so she takes off into an unused tunnel. Galt follows, they do it. Rand's graphic detail of their sex would be at home in a classy skin mag, but meanwhile Traggert Transcontinental is going to hell in a hand basket. Dagny would rather bang Galt than TCB even though Galt's CV is way weaker than Rearden's! ** So why did Rand make Dagny love Galt more than Rearden even though Galt was mouthing Hugh Aston instead of inventing his own philosophy and had walked away from 20th Century instead of commercializing his invention like Rearden did his metal and instead of how Dagny stayed with Taggert Transcontinental despite that it was de facto owned by the looters and controlled by her "viscious moocher" brother James?  Given directive 10-289, that state of affairs couldn't hardly be dissimilar to what happened at 20th Century Motors with Ivy Starnes and "The Plan". **  What was Rand getting at by making Dagny abandon her values to take Galt as her lover? Did this have anything to do with Rand's affair with Branden?

Objection, Your Honor, compound questions! Okay, one item at a time. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with money, philosophy, or steel alloys. Funnily enough, Al Ruddy said to me in his Century City office, regarding the sexual spark between Dagny and Hank in the diesel electric engine compartment of the John Galt Line: "That's the whole story right there, Alphonse!" I hated it that he called me Alphonse, but we both spent a decade wooing Rand for the film rights while she was still alive.

Next question: Why so hot for Galt? Broadly speaking, hot water seeks its own level. Good old Hank was older and spiritually constipated, however upright and industrious. Galt picked her up in his arms when she gate crashed, refused to let Francisco have Dagny because Galt wanted her, and she knew it. Why did she run into a dark tunnel? Well, duh.

None of this had anything to do with a charming and cunning Canadian. Dramatic necessity spawns action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Objection, Your Honor, compound questions! Okay, one item at a time. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with money, philosophy, or steel alloys. Funnily enough, Al Ruddy said to me in his Century City office, regarding the sex spark between Dagny and Hank in the diesel electric engine compartment of the John Galt Line: "That's the whole story right there, Alphonse!" I hated it that he called me Alphonse, but we both spent a decade wooing Rand for the film rights while she was still alive. Ruddy produced The Godfather, had eight figures to gamble on Atlas in 1980, close friend Roger Moore lined up to star.

Next question: Why so hot for Galt? Broadly speaking, hot water seeks its own level. Rearden was older and spiritually constipated, however upright, manly, and industrious. Galt picked Dagny up in his arms when she gate crashed, refused to let Francisco have her because Galt wanted her, and she knew it. Why did Dagny run into a dark tunnel? Well, duh.

None of this had anything to do with a charming and cunning Canadian. Dramatic necessity spawns fictional action.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Ahh Gee Whiz. What was she thinking? Why did Rand make Dagny go and have a sex break with John Galt in the friggin train tunnel on burlap sand bags? In Part 3 chapter 5, Rand has Dagny get to the terminal pronto from the fancy dinner in the smoke filled back room with the Looter Bosses and brother James. The rail road comes to a halt because the interlocking signal system breaks down, and there's Dagny dressed in formal evening attire giving orders to send out the men with lanterns to be the signals. Then she sees Galt among the workers in his greasy overalls, so she takes off into an unused tunnel. Galt follows, they do it. Rand's graphic detail of their sex would be at home in a classy skin mag, but meanwhile Traggert Transcontinental is going to hell in a hand basket. Dagny would rather bang Galt than TCB even though Galt's CV is way weaker than Rearden's! ** So why did Rand make Dagny love Galt more than Rearden even though Galt was mouthing Hugh Aston instead of inventing his own philosophy and had walked away from 20th Century instead of commercializing his invention like Rearden did his metal and instead of how Dagny stayed with Taggert Transcontinental despite that it was de facto owned by the looters and controlled by her "viscious moocher" brother James?  Given directive 10-289, that state of affairs couldn't hardly be dissimilar to what happened at 20th Century Motors with Ivy Starnes and "The Plan". **  What was Rand getting at by making Dagny abandon her values to take Galt as her lover? Did this have anything to do with Rand's affair with Branden?

Dazed and confused. Look at what Rand has done to you.

--Brant

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

 but we both spent a decade wooing Rand for the film rights while she was still alive.

Good Morning. Thanks for taking time. Those are good points. Having lived my little life in a low sexual energy condition, I'd forgotten what it feels like to let go and feel pride for having slept in the wet spot; so yeah, the sexual energy attraction thing drives the Atlas story like Birds and the Bees drove Rand's genotype, but did Rand intend for the reader to  understand Dagny and Galt were helpless victims of their phenotype as if they were controlled by their sexual passions? Kudos, nonetheless, would, if Dag and John were real, be rightfully showered on Galt for a groovy touchdown celebration dance after doing Dagny on sand bags in the tunnel. For crying out loud, she'd have been digging on having his greasy handprints on her boobs.

 

I'm still reading the Galt Speech in c.7 and am wondering if later on  Rand has her go full on 'Patty Hurst' for whatever John says as if she has Stockholm Syndrome for some BGC. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Dazed and confused. Look at what Rand has done to you.

--Brant

Good morning. Thanks, I hope you have a nice day. ?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

I'm still reading the Galt Speech in c.7 and am wondering if later on  Rand has her go full on 'Patty Hurst' for whatever John says as if she has Stockholm Syndrome for some BGC.  

 

 

That is a grossly misunderstood interpretation of that scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 12:11 PM, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Ahh Gee Whiz. What was she thinking?

Robert,

Ayn Rand believed in love at first sight. She said so describing when she first set eyes on Frank.

(Apropos, her characters often read the intentions of others through their eyes. Nobody discusses this much, but it's a fact that her characters do this. Someday it might be interesting to put together a list of quotes. This is a power I'm not sure exists in reality. :) )

You seem to NOT resonate with her character Dagny. Or her affair with NB. In your comments, do I detect a predilection for monogamy? 

:) 

(I, for on, have this prediction. Although, I seem to be more of live and let live type than you in judging other people's happiness.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

I'm still reading the Galt Speech in c.7 and am wondering if later on  Rand has her go full on 'Patty Hurst' for whatever John says as if she has Stockholm Syndrome for some BGC. 

Robert,

LOL...

If, by Stockholm Syndrome, you mean a mighty attraction to Galt, Dagny had the Stockholm Syndrome before the novel even started. Recall the scenes where she is alone and asking herself with longing about the who is out there, does he exist?, and so on. (I'm paraphrasing, but that is the essence.)

If you mean Dagny being brainwashed into thinking things she did not formerly believe like Patty Hearst was, that's not her nature. Galt did not convince Dagny of anything. All he did was give words to what she already believed in. The dramatic tension comes from her believing in contradictory things and demanding moral consistency of herself. Galt would not let her fudge her commitment to that consistency except when the power of love--love for the highest--overwhelmed them both and they had to seize the moment.

Like it or dislike it, agree or disagree with it, that is what she was portraying. 

btw - I have no idea what a BGC is. I tried to look it up but the things I came up with don't make any sense re your comment (bad girls club, bong gym chill, global brokerage company, etc.).

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Ayn Rand believed in love at first sight. She said so when describing her meeting Frank.

You seem to not resonate with her character Dagny. In your comments, do I detect a predilection for monogamy? 

:) 

(I, for on, have this prediction. Although, I seem to be more of live and let live type than you in judging other people's happiness.)

Michael

Hi Mike. Well I really like the Dagny Character. My surprise was in that Rand has Dagny disregard her love for the rail road and Hank Rearden and productivity to have hot greasy sex in a dank tunnel on burlap sandbags with a stinky grease monkey Galt as if reasoned evaluations of values were trumped by genetic determinism. Rand could have at least had them go on a date and have John buy her dinner first.  How many guys have you ever known who scored when they were stinky and dirty and on the job with a super hot engineering babe wearing formal evening attire? Yeah literary license: and it does move the story. Character dramas are that way; plot is driven by character reactions to situations.  On the philosophy end of the scene, how does an Objectivism scholar reconcile Rand's Love-At-First-Sight belief with her stand against psychological determinism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

That is a grossly misunderstood interpretation of that scene.

Hello TG. Thanks for leaving a comment. Yeah, I'm wrong about most stuff, so no surprise. Nonetheless, I still don't get it despite having read Bernstein's Cliffnotes on AS; he doesn't discuss the sex scene in p3c5. What was Rand wanting the reader to understand from having Dagny and Galt, who are characters with definite senses of self pride do it like animals in a dank dirty tunnel on burlap sand bags while Dagny's all dressed up and Galt is filthy in his greasy monkey coveralls instead of having them go out so Galt could buy her a drink first. Was she saying animal sex attraction via the Birds and Bees trumps reasoning as Wolf suggested with the hot water seeks it's own level remark, or was she meaning the contrast between this sex scene and the lack of sex in the month at Galt's house in the Valley was to be understood as Dagny's way of converting over to the Striker faction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

LOL...

If, by Stockholm Syndrome, you mean a mighty attraction to Galt, Dagny had the Stockholm Syndrome before the novel even started. Recall the scenes where she is alone and asking herself with longing about the who is out there, does he exist?, and so on. (I'm paraphrasing, but that is the essence.)

If you mean Dagny being brainwashed into thinking things she did not formerly believe like Patty Hearst was, that's not her nature. Galt did not convince Dagny of anything. All he did was give words to what she already believed in. The dramatic tension comes from her believing in contradictory things and demanding moral consistency of herself. Galt would not let her fudge her commitment to that consistency except when the power of love--love for the highest--overwhelmed them both and they had to seize the moment.

Like it or dislike it, agree or disagree with it, that is what she was portraying. 

btw - I have no idea what a BGC is. I tried to look it up but the things I came up with don't make any sense re your comment (bad girls club, bong gym chill, global brokerage company, etc.).

Michael

Hi Mike. Thanks. Now I get it. (BGC = big galt cock ) Been reading too much 4chan pol lately. I love the arguments between the capitalists, the commies, the anarcho-libertarians, and the statists-moocher-looters. Funny the capitalist guys never mention Reisman or any ideas from his book "Capitalism".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...