HERESY!!!

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's not a question of mind reading [...].

Yes, it is; and in my opinion not very good mind reading which, given the twists and curlicues you've progressively added to it, has every appearance of your being set on insisting that Rand held a particular theory of the relationship between certain genetic characteristics and character which you're the one who has devised and put into her thoughts. You thus have to say "it's therefore logical that she doesn't try to present them as scientific theories,", as if "really" she thought these supposed theories were scientific, and that she "realized" "she couldn't get away with" proclaming such theories, which is why she didn't proclaim them. I think you're doing to her a similar job (on a different scale of course) to the one she did on Kant.

The photos you posted of Kay are posed to be flattering.

I found Barbara Weiss's appearance unappetizing, Brant. I'll leave it there.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

It's not a question of mind reading [...].

Yes, it is;

No it isn't.

and in my opinion not very good mind reading which, given the twists and curlicues you've progressively added to it, has every appearance of your being set on insisting that Rand held a particular theory of the relationship between certain genetic characteristics and character which you're the one who has devised and put into her thoughts. You thus have to say "it's therefore logical that she doesn't try to present them as scientific theories,", as if "really" she thought these supposed theories were scientific, and that she "realized" "she couldn't get away with" proclaming such theories, which is why she didn't proclaim them. I think you're doing to her a similar job (on a different scale of course) to the one she did on Kant.

Not at all. At least I have read everything she wrote (what she didn't do with Kant, to put it mildly) and I write about one particular aspect of her ideas, without making sweeping generalizations about her total philosophy. Rand's prejudices are not "theories", unless you call any arbitrary opinion a theory. A good example is her distrust of people with a beard. We know that she had a "theory" that someone with a beard is trying to hide something, and we also know that she acted on her aversion. But she never wrote about her "theory" in an official publication. She wasn't dumb, she must have realized that she didn't have any evidence for her theory. I think that is much more likely than to assume that she thought she could present it as a valid theory and she just didn't get to it. That's no rocket science nor mind reading.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand's prejudices are not "theories", unless you call any arbitrary opinion a theory. A good example is her distrust of people with a beard. We know that she had a "theory" that someone with a beard is trying to hide something, and we also know that she acted on her aversion. But she never wrote about her "theory" in an official publication. She wasn't dumb, she must have realized that she didn't have any evidence for her theory. I think that is much more likely than to assume that she thought she could present it as a valid theory and she just didn't get to it. That's no rocket science nor mind reading.

Huh? You are the one who claimed that she had a theory about the relationship of eye color to character. I did not claim that. You did. You also claimed that she didn't present this theory because she knew she couldn't get away with it. But it's you who assumed that she had such a theory to begin with, and thus that there was any need of explaining why she kept quiet about having said theory. Now you're claiming that her belief that people who wore beards were trying to hide something somehow does what? Supports your thesis that she had the thesis that nondescript eye color means bad character?

La-da-da-da-da. Logic anyone?

And it is so mind-reading to think that you know her motives for not saying something you can't even demonstrate she thought.

You are providing me with a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland hilarity.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Huh? You are the one who claimed that she had a theory about the relationship of eye color to character. I did not claim that. You did.

No, I didn't. I only said that she made a link between color of the iris and character.

You also claimed that she didn't present this theory because she knew she couldn't get away with it.

No, I didn't write that, you are distorting my words. I wrote "she doesn't present a theoretical treatise about the connection between color of the iris and character". "A theoretical treatise" is not the same as "this theory", I didn't refer to any theory. My point was of course that it wasn't a theory, but just an unsupported opinion or prejudice and that she therefore didn't present it as a theory. As I wrote in another post: "These are of course no objective theories but subjective feelings on her part, and it's therefore logical that she doesn't try to present them as scientific theories (she wouldn't be able to make up such a theory)". Seems quite clear to me.

Now you're claiming that her belief that people who wore beards were trying to hide something somehow does what? Supports your thesis that she had the thesis that nondescript eye color means bad character?

Is it really that difficult? It's just another example of one of her prejudices about appearance, and in this case there is no excuse at all of a "literary device", but something she obviously believed.

And it is so mind-reading to think that you know her motives for not saying something you can't even demonstrate she thought.

It's no mind-reading but simple logic. Either she thought it was a valid theory for which evidence exists or she knew that it was a subjective notion that could not be rationally defended. Now I don't think she was a dumbass, but that she was intelligent enough to realize that didn't exist a rational argument for her idea.

[BaalChatzaf]

It's no mind-reading but simple logic. Either she thought it was a valid theory for which evidence exists or she knew that it was a subjective notion that could not be rationally defended. Now I don't think she was a dumbass, but that she was intelligent enough to realize that didn't exist a rational argument for her idea.

I have a simpler hypotheis. Rand uses unattractive physical features to evoke antipathy toward the flawed character of her "bad guys". He likens John Deans jaw to the shape of a rat face for the purpose of implying John Dean was a "rat", one who betrayed his boss and showed contemptible disloyalty. In short the implication is that Dean is/was a rat bastard.

A skillful writer could use descriptions in various context to evoke antipathy or approval.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

It's no mind-reading but simple logic. Either she thought it was a valid theory for which evidence exists or she knew that it was a subjective notion that could not be rationally defended. Now I don't think she was a dumbass, but that she was intelligent enough to realize that didn't exist a rational argument for her idea.

I have a simpler hypotheis. Rand uses unattractive physical features to evoke antipathy toward the flawed character of her "bad guys". He likens John Deans jaw to the shape of a rat face for the purpose of implying John Dean was a "rat", one who betrayed his boss and showed contemptible disloyalty. In short the implication is that Dean is/was a rat bastard.

A skillful writer could use descriptions in various context to evoke antipathy or approval.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I find Monsieur Chatzaf's "hypotheis" most clarifying and a sufficient explanation of Rand's literary method of relating character to physiognomy, though I do find the gotcha marathon between Madame Stuttle and Monsieur Dragonfly to have some modest entertainment value.

Gotta run!

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

A skillful writer could use descriptions in various context to evoke antipathy or approval.

If I may amplify on my prior posting: One of my grandsons, my daughter's son, is a genuine professional artist (and he is not even 16!). He once showed me a trick. He drew pictures of an elderly man in two ways, varying only the pattern of wrinkles on the man's face. One pattern made the old fellow look kindly and wise. A cheerful good old fellow. A very slightly altered pattern made the old codger look sinister and sardonic. Objectively, there was very little difference in the wrinkle layout but the impressions conveyed were opposite. I suddenly realized what the difference was. The two sets of wrinkles were mirror images or very nearly so. Clever lad.

A good photographer using light levels and shadows can use the same object to convey cheer or gloom.

The same sort of thing can be done by a skillful word smith and Ayn Rand was surely that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

I have a simpler hypotheis. Rand uses unattractive physical features to evoke antipathy toward the flawed character of her "bad guys". He likens John Deans jaw to the shape of a rat face for the purpose of implying John Dean was a "rat", one who betrayed his boss and showed contemptible disloyalty. In short the implication is that Dean is/was a rat bastard.

I agree with your explanation. I don't see evidence that Rand actually believed that physical "unattractiveness" implied bad character- though obviously in the stylized universe of her novels there is strong alignment of many dimensions. In the stylized universe, information about physical attributes becomes a way to suggest the bad character which will soon be made evident as one gets to know the character. But that doesn't imply a belief in the correlation in the actual world.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Newberry]

I find Monsieur Chatzaf's "hypotheis" most clarifying and a sufficient explanation of Rand's literary method of relating character to physiognomy, though I do find the gotcha marathon between Madame Stuttle and Monsieur Dragonfly to have some modest entertainment value.

Oh my gosh! The last four posts were on target and refreshing to read. Like Roger, I enjoyed and was amused by Ellen's cat to Dragonfly's mouse.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I do find the gotcha marathon between Madame Stuttle and Monsieur Dragonfly to have some modest entertainment value. [Roger]

Geez, I sure hope this thread is not winding down.

I was hoping for at least thirty more posts before the day is done so I can focus in greater detail on who was a fatty and who was short in Rand's inner circle. We need to have that list elaborated on further or at least debated. Also, more photographic evidence of lip size from different angles. And then the accuracy of the photos themselves can be debated. . . .

And then a new lease on life for the thread can be an excursion in pointing out how this post shows I'm a control freak and only want people to talk about a short list of my favorite topics. That oversimplification should be worth a few posts at least.

Please, give us more. Much more.

(It's not as if the main points about stylization and selection of details for emphasis in literature could have been or were clearly made in the first few posts.)

[Jonathan]

> I do find the gotcha marathon between Madame Stuttle and Monsieur Dragonfly to have some modest entertainment value. [Roger]

Geez, I sure hope this thread is not winding down.

I was hoping for at least thirty more posts before the day is done so I can focus in greater detail on who was a fatty and who was short in Rand's inner circle. We need to have that list elaborated on further or at least debated. Also, more photographic evidence of lip size from different angles. And then the accuracy of the photos themselves can be debated. . . .

And then a new lease on life for the thread can be an excursion in pointing out how this post shows I'm a control freak and only want people to talk about a short list of my favorite topics. That oversimplification should be worth a few posts at least.

Please, give us more. Much more.

(It's not as if the main points about stylization and selection of details for emphasis in literature could have been or were clearly made in the first few posts.)

Phil,

Would you mind not cluttering up my thread with off-topic rants about personality issues? Take your junior high pissing contest elsewhere, please.

Thanks,

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Next round in the marathon.

Advice to Phil: Just don't read it if it bores you.

And it is so mind-reading to think that you know her motives for not saying something you can't even demonstrate she thought.

It's no mind-reading but simple logic. Either she thought it was a valid theory for which evidence exists or she knew that it was a subjective notion that could not be rationally defended. Now I don't think she was a dumbass, but that she was intelligent enough to realize that didn't exist a rational argument for her idea.

We're back to square one. What idea? An idea which you've attributed to her on the basis of descriptions of characters in a novel. You need to provide extra-literary evidence in order to support a contention that she actually believed that the color of a person's irises is diagnostic of the person's character.

Good luck. ;-)

Btw, while I'm at it: What do you claim that she thought about persons with monochromatic brown irises?

You earlier wrote:

Her examples are telling enough: heroes have monochromatic irises (cool blue, metallic green, gunmetal grey) while villains have irises with pale brownish, muddy colors.

Do dark brownish eyes qualify as being those of heroes? (If so, this would mean that a high percentage of the world's populace are born heroes.)

Also, what of all the Scandinavians with cool blue eyes? Are all of them heroes? Or is your claim that monochromatic irises are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Randian herodom?

Ellen

___

Edited June 15, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have long held a speculatioin (and a good one) that Rand's sense of physical beauty was highly influenced by Hollywood standards from around the time she was starting out.

Look at her favorite hairdo.

Does anyone else see Tarzan, Zorro, Greta Garbo, etc.? in here descriptions of heroes? Take a look at Mexican bandits and you can see some of her villains.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

We're back to square one. What idea? An idea which you've attributed to her on the basis of descriptions of characters in a novel. You need to provide extra-literary evidence in order to support a contention that she actually believed that the color of a person's irises is diagnostic of the person's character.

It would only make sense in a novel if there were a link between eye color and character, certainly while her descriptions are not accidental or random and her aversion shows clearly by her using loaded terms (like smeared yolks of eggs) for something neutral as a certain color, otherwise she would be guilty of silly symbolism: muddy colored eyes stand for muddied thinking, eyes with "cool" colors stand for cool, rational thinking. I still don't think that Rand was that bad a writer. I see here the Valliant effect at work: the more you defend Rand, the worse she looks.

It's funny that objectivists think that her stereotyping is a "literary device". I wonder what they mean by "literary", such crude stereotyping doesn't belong in literature, it belongs to the domain of propaganda with its racist overtones, especially when it concerns characterizations that are purely hereditary, like eye color, pendulous lips or a specific jaw structure. But apparently Objectivists think that such stereotyping is great literature, which is rather revealing.

Do dark brownish eyes qualify as being those of heroes? (If so, this would mean that a high percentage of the world's populace are born heroes.)

As nothing in AS is accidental, it is no coincidence that none of her heroes are described with brown eyes, not even Francisco.

Also, what of all the Scandanaians with cool blue eyes? Are all of them heroes? Or is your claim that monochromatic irises are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Randian herodom?

Of course necessary but not sufficient, that is elementary logic. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

BTW, Objectivists are rather silent about her "theory" about beards. I wonder why...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

BTW, Objectivists are rather silent about her "theory" about beards. I wonder why...

Dragonfly,

Because beards are evil.

So are moustaches.

Sideburns are worse. They are outright social metaphysics because they push the line without being obvious. Slimy little suckers showing slimy little souls.

We don't discuss any of this because everyone knows it.

(Don't get me started on women with moustaches...)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

We're back to square one. What idea? An idea which you've attributed to her on the basis of descriptions of characters in a novel. You need to provide extra-literary evidence in order to support a contention that she actually believed that the color of a person's irises is diagnostic of the person's character.

It would only make sense in a novel if there were a link between eye color and character, certainly while her descriptions are not accidental or random and her aversion shows clearly by her using loaded terms (like smeared yolks of eggs) for something neutral as a certain color, otherwise she would be guilty of silly symbolism: muddy colored eyes stand for muddied thinking, eyes with "cool" colors stand for cool, rational thinking. I still don't think that Rand was that bad a writer. I see here the Valliant effect at work: the more you defend Rand, the worse she looks.

I see here the "Oedipus Complex" effect at work: i.e., an excellent specimen of an unfalsifiable theory -- your theory, I mean, as to Rand's "idea."

How's this for a possibility?: She gave her lead heroic characters certain eye colors because she liked those eye colors.

Do dark brownish eyes qualify as being those of heroes? (If so, this would mean that a high percentage of the world's populace are born heroes.)

As nothing in AS is accidental, it is no coincidence that none of her heroes are described with brown eyes, not even Francisco.

So then she was contradicting herself -- by your theory of what was in her mind -- when she indicated that she was the sort of heroic person she wrote about. (And there is abundant evidence for her thus viewing herself.)

Also, what of all the Scandanaians with cool blue eyes? Are all of them heroes? Or is your claim that monochromatic irises are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Randian herodom?

Of course necessary but not sufficient, that is elementary logic. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Yes, since it's your theory.

BTW, Objectivists are rather silent about her "theory" about beards. I wonder why...

You'll have to ask them. I wonder of what relevance her "theory" about beards is to your theory about her theory -- excuse me, "idea" -- of the link between eye color and character.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have long held a speculatioin (and a good one) that Rand's sense of physical beauty was highly influenced by Hollywood standards from around the time she was starting out.

Look at her favorite hairdo.

Does anyone else see Tarzan, Zorro, Greta Garbo, etc.? in here descriptions of heroes? Take a look at Mexican bandits and you can see some of her villains.

Michael

Oh, sure, Michael, she was very influenced by Hollywood standards, from before she moved to the U.S. Remember Barbara's talking in Passion about how the movies and the operettas Ayn scrimped to have the admission fee to attend were a lifeline for her when she was still in Russia. She wrote a book, a small one, which was published there, about Hollywood films; she kept a journal of what films she'd seen.

Descriptions even in her earliest writing are Hollywood in style, including the "stage set" visuals. A place where this is strikingly so -- IMO, to tremendous potential cinematic effect -- is in the film script she did for "Red Pawn." Um. Some fantastic scenes in there -- like the description of the room with the Russian icons mixed with Marxist symbolism. The fortress prison -- reminiscent of early movies of "The Man in the Iron Mask," "The Count of Monte Cristo," etc. The heroine in her heels and silk nylons. The Commandant -- who becomes part of a triangle.

I recommend reading it if you haven't.

Ellen

___

[J. D. Johnson]

BTW, Objectivists are rather silent about her "theory" about beards. I wonder why...

Dragonfly,

Because beards are evil.

So are moustaches.

Sideburns are worse. They are outright social metaphysics because they push the line without being obvious. Slimy little suckers showing slimy little souls.

We don't discuss any of this because everyone knows it.

(Don't get me started on women with moustaches...)

Michael

Uh-oh! I'm in big trouble!!!

A moustache

A goatee

And (gasp!) long hair!!!!

[Brant Gaede]

Uh-oh! I'm in big trouble!!!

A moustache

A goatee

And (gasp!) long hair!!!!

And under moderation. Right, Michael?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, sure, Michael, she was very influenced by Hollywood standards, from before she moved to the U.S.

Ellen,

I know all that and probably should have mentioned it. (Time... time...)

Still, I am glad you made that post for the sake of readers. It is a very good post and gives an angle of looking at Rand's visual values that is not often discussed.

Sometimes when I read examples of overkill on deifying or demonizing Rand, I daydream about writing a book called, Ayn Rand: Human Being, but then I remember that Barbara already did.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I've been banned or put on moderation at ObjectivismOnline in the name of protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism.

Ahh yes, ObjectivismOnline...

Better known as Rationalist Randroid Central. Its unfortunate that some people treat Objectivism as a religion, they give the real Objectivists a bad name.

The folks on OO even have a god: Odden

One David Odden who is equipped with both lightning bolts and a hammer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

How's this for a possibility?: She gave her lead heroic characters certain eye colors because she liked those eye colors.

Again it seems that I'm the only one who takes Rand seriously. I don't think she used such descriptions just while she "liked them", in particular while she was quite emphatic in those descriptions. You see the same thing with the shooting of the guard scene. Objectivists claim that she just shoots him to save Galt, while it's obvious to an objective reader that this is merely a prop to present her philosophical view that a person who cannot make a choice has forfeited his right to life. Objectivists treat AS like modern christians the bible. They pick the parts they like and put importance on the philosophical implications while the less palatable parts are neutralized as literary devices or explained away as literal descriptions without any philosophical significance, while I think that she meant it when she wrote "and I mean it".

So then she was contradicting herself -- by your theory of what was in her mind -- when she indicated that she was the sort of heroic person she wrote about. (And there is abundant evidence for her thus viewing herself.)

Who said that she was consistent in her ideas and behavior? In AS her heroes also excel in everything outside their official capacities, whether it is driving speedboats, making the best hamburgers in the world or flying a plane, while Rand herself couldn't even drive a car and was rather clumsy in performing simple tasks. Of course there was a mismatch between that what she described as heroes and what she herself really was. Now I'm going to speculate, but I think that there was an element of self-hatred in her which she tried to repress by her exaggerated claims about herself and that this also contributed to her long bouts of depression.

Also, what of all the Scandanaians with cool blue eyes? Are all of them heroes? Or is your claim that monochromatic irises are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Randian herodom?

Of course necessary but not sufficient, that is elementary logic. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Yes, since it's your theory.

All the heroes of which she described the eyes had monochromatic irises, so we may make the inference that this is a necessary condition for herodom. However, to claim that it is a sufficient condition we must also have data about the non-heroes. We have only data about the villains, but not about the large category of neither heroes nor villains. Without any such data we cannot make any inference, and we'll have to accept the null hypothesis that eye color doesn't make you automatically a hero. It's like the famous example of white swans. As long as we only observe white swans, we may infer that whiteness is a necessary condition for being a swan (even if this conclusion may be falsified later). But we cannot conclude that a white bird automatically must be a swan if we have no data about other birds. (Never mind that it would of course be absurd to claim that one single physical attribute is sufficient to make you a hero.)

You'll have to ask them. I wonder of what relevance her "theory" about beards is to your theory about her theory -- excuse me, "idea" -- of the link between eye color and character.

My question was of course rhetorical. It is another example of a weird idea about the link between appearance and character. In this case it cannot be denied or explained away or even accepted as a personal opinion that doesn't belong to her philosophy (as is her view about a woman as president, in the words of Nathaniel Branden "one of Rand's more embarrassing lapses"), so it is ignored.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You see the same thing with the shooting of the guard scene. Objectivists claim that she just shoots him to save Galt, while it's obvious to an objective reader that this is merely a prop to present her philosophical view that a person who cannot make a choice has forfeited his right to life.

Dragonfly,

Woah theah!!!

Forfeited his right to life to whom?

The way reality works is that a person who cannot make a choice when he needs to actually does "forfeit his right to life." For example, the guy who can't decide if he needs to get out of the way of a speeding train or not, the person who needs a life-saving operation but cannot decide to go through with it, etc. They all die much sooner than they would have had they made a choice.

Just because the source of the threat in the situation of Atlas Shrugged was a person, not a non-human threat, this does not alter the reality of needing to make that choice. A person who refuses to make a choice in the face of a clear and present danger takes what he gets, and it usually means he dies.

In the face of danger, the only means of increasing the chance of survival available to any of us is making a choice (the choice to get out of the way), or someone making it for us. If that someone is not available and we refuse to choose, it's, "Goodbye Charlie!"

Where on earth does that fact ever break down?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

So if someone can't decide whether he has to obey me when I threaten him with a gun, I have the right to kill him, as he has only to blame himself if he's killed?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So if someone can't decide whether he has to obey me when I threaten him with a gun, I have the right to kill him, as he has only to blame himself if he's killed?

Dragonfly,

Whoever said anyone has a right to kill? That's your projection of the message and it is based on a fallacy of forcing one perspective (Dagny's) on the other (the guard's).

Shit happens when you are angry and under extreme urgency. That is not the same thing as a right to kill.

As for the guard who refused to choose, once he was dead, he had no more rights. He forfeited them all.

I got a chuckle out of your statement: "... as he has only to blame himself if he's killed." How is a guy going to blame anything once he's dead? (There goes that perspective bouncing around again.)

Michael