News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 685
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I meant that Roland's writing passes a spell checker. Yours doesn't.

Merlin,

God, I can be thick at times...

Michael

I just went back and am just as amazed at how clear it was.

Perception is a wondrous aspect of being and living as a human. When we all "look" at the same blink of reality, it does not look the same to each of us, but it is still extant as itself.

Subjectively received, but the hard part is to reason out what it actually is.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael & Adam,

Don't be hard on yourselves. It's not that obvious pre-recognition, and he has posted only once on OL. I know because I used to participate on Atlantis II. I frankly don't remember if I discovered it on my own or somebody else said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I do see how Perigo would want to keep the information about the site's paltry traffic off the front page, then try to make it appear as much more than it is. His thing is manipulating public image to give false impressions.

Michael,

That's what I was wondering about.

Traffic is down at SOLOP and posting volume is way down since Jim Valliant returned.

It's turned into the Lindsay Perigo-Jim Valliant show, with increasing participation by the Bully-in-Training, Michael Moeller. I'm not even sure that Ellen Stuttle is going to be able to find a niche now.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Looks like it was just an error at SOLOP, and they put the ad on top of "Who's Online" and "Who's New." These are now back in their usual spot at top left, and the ad appears below them.

Posting frequency is still way down...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Looks like it was just an error at SOLOP, and they put the ad on top of "Who's Online" and "Who's New." These are now back in their usual spot at top left, and the ad appears below them.

Posting frequency is still way down...

Robert Campbell

In the last three months SP is down 12% and OL is up 50% according to Alexa.

--Brant

nothing to do with Ghs as OL is down 3% the last month

(another blow below the belt--a house specialty)

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger has issued a blast at Jennifer Burns' Harvard magazine article, on Ayn Rand's 1962 appearance at an aesthetics conference.

The item was reposted on one of his followers' sites, supposedly with his permission:

http://www.gatorcoun...997&postcount=1

Dr. Binswanger claims that all of the public hostility on that fateful day came from John Hospers, and none from Ayn Rand.

Well, as it happens, I was present at that talk. I was 18 years old,

had only been introduced to Objectivism 7 months earlier, and was

entirely unfamiliar with ideas about decorum and moral sanction.

Nonetheless, I was stunned by the hostile manner of Hospers'

comments. I remember, verbatim how he began one of his

"comments": "Surely," he said in a really sneering way, "Miss

Rand doesn't expect us to believe that a painting of a landscape can

[here I'm unsure of the exact wording] convey a view about man's

relation to existence."

Hospers concluded his attack, then stepped down from the dais,

and, as is the academic fashion, Ayn Rand went up to give her

response.

Robert Campbell

Robert, I just read the linked, quoted comments by Binswanger, and I simply don't believe him.

He totally destroyed his credibility (with me) about 10-15 years ago when he said, in the Q-A section of a recorded lecture, that if any information available that put Rand in a bad light, it should be suppressed or destroyed. (I forget the actual wording.) You see, Objectivism is such a fragile, hot-house flower, that the irrefutable public revelation of any character defects of its creator would fatally harm the philosophy -- so such information must NEVER be allowed to be made public. Or, at least, not for a century or so!

A corollary of this would reasonably be: if anyone's testimony puts Rand in a bad light, EVEN IF IT'S TRUE, it should be countered by someone who cares enough to lie and cast aspersions on the testifier.

I'm sorry I can't tell you the name of the lecture these comments were made after. If someone else knows, please chime in with the details. Otherwise, I will inquire from one or two of my friends who have the recorded lecture or session in question.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Binswanger quoted by Jeff Walker. The passage below is from The Ayn Rand Cult, p.86. The part spoken by Binswanger is from the Q&A to his lecture, "Ayn Rand's Life: Highlights and Sidelights."

Binswanger doesn't think there were any negative elements in Rand's character. Well, "she spoke with an accent," but "that's not a moral issue. . . Hypothetically, if you have a great figure, whom the fate of the world depends on, and they have a few minor character flaws, and the world is against that person, I wouldn't put them into a biography until that person had, perhaps a hundred years later, gained the recognition that they deserved."

If someone has the tape of the lecture, maybe he or she can check the accuracy of Walker's transcription.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Binswanger quoted by Jeff Walker. The passage below is from The Ayn Rand Cult, p.86. The part spoken by Binswanger is from the Q&A to his lecture, "Ayn Rand's Life: Highlights and Sidelights."

Binswanger doesn't think there were any negative elements in Rand's character. Well, "she spoke with an accent," but "that's not a moral issue. . . Hypothetically, if you have a great figure, whom the fate of the world depends on, and they have a few minor character flaws, and the world is against that person, I wouldn't put them into a biography until that person had, perhaps a hundred years later, gained the recognition that they deserved."

If someone has the tape of the lecture, maybe he or she can check the accuracy of Walker's transcription.

Michael

Thanks, Michael. That is what I recall having read to me over the phone several years ago, by a friend who had copied down the comment from his copy of the Q&A.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, the self-styled "guardians of the faith," (in particular, Binswanger and Schwartz) have done more damage to Objectivism than all of the liberal/MSM media combined (who can reliably be counted on to to distort and smear). The enemies of Objectivism, looking for evidence of totalitarian tendencies and thought suppression, can easily find it in pronouncements from these two gentlemen.

Binswanger's "loyalty oath" for prospective subscribers to his internet forum, is one of the most blatant examples. He requires those who wish to subscribe to agree that they will not post any comments on any other site that he disapproves of (examples: sites critical of ARI policies, allied or sympathetic to David Kelley AND, of course!, the Brandens, including all libertarian sites)! Either he is not aware of the totalitarian implications of his statement, or does not care.

That ARI uses Binswanger as their primary faculty member (apparently, his only source of employment - I don't think he teaches any longer at any university) in their Objectivist Academic Center, says all that you need to know about ARI's policies toward its students and toward the rest of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many subscribers this position generates.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Binswanger would consider Rand's sex with Nathaniel Branden in Frank's bed a "minor character flaw."

:)

Michael,

Who knows what Harry Binswanger privately thinks about that?

But he will never publicly admit, even to the carefully screened and vetted members of HBL, that any character flaw was involved.

I think, in light of Dr. Binswanger's public statement of policy, it is distinctly possible that his statement about the Rand-Hospers exchange was an outright lie.

It's interesting that Lindsay Perigo, who usually calls him "Binswanker," seized upon this very statement as the gospel truth.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jerry noted that Dr. Binswanger is the top faculty member at OAC. Not only that, but Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Binswanger would consider Rand's sex with Nathaniel Branden in Frank's bed a "minor character flaw."

:)

Michael,

Who knows what Harry Binswanger privately thinks about that?

But he will never publicly admit, even to the carefully screened and vetted members of HBL, that any character flaw was involved.

I think, in light of Dr. Binswanger's public statement of policy, it is distinctly possible that his statement about the Rand-Hospers exchange was an outright lie.

It's interesting that Lindsay Perigo, who usually calls him "Binswanker," seized upon this very statement as the gospel truth.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jerry noted that Dr. Binswanger is the top faculty member at OAC. Not only that, but Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything.

Yes, her citings were the poor parts of her otherwise good book...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Binswanger would consider Rand's sex with Nathaniel Branden in Frank's bed a "minor character flaw."

:)

Michael,

Who knows what Harry Binswanger privately thinks about that?

But he will never publicly admit, even to the carefully screened and vetted members of HBL, that any character flaw was involved.

I think, in light of Dr. Binswanger's public statement of policy, it is distinctly possible that his statement about the Rand-Hospers exchange was an outright lie.

It's interesting that Lindsay Perigo, who usually calls him "Binswanker," seized upon this very statement as the gospel truth.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jerry noted that Dr. Binswanger is the top faculty member at OAC. Not only that, but Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything.

"...Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything."

Omigawd!...Now that is depressing!

Also, curious. Why would she do that? You don't think that Tara and Harry had anything.....Nahhhh! :unsure:

They wouldn't do anything their idol would not .... Hey,...wait a minute! :blink:

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger has issued a blast at Jennifer Burns' Harvard magazine article, on Ayn Rand's 1962 appearance at an aesthetics conference.

The item was reposted on one of his followers' sites, supposedly with his permission:

http://www.gatorcoun...997&postcount=1

"Well, as it happens, I was present at that talk. I was 18 years old, had only been introduced to Objectivism 7 months earlier..."

So we've got the testimony of a Randian zealot about an event that he witnessed when he was a newly converted Objectivist Pup (and perhaps filled with the corresponding smugness and hair-triggered eagerness to take offense), at an age when he would have had practically no adult life experiences and very little exposure to the study and discourse of ideas outside of Rand's, on a subject (the aesthetics of the visual arts) about which he was, and still is, far from being informed, and on a subject about which Rand herself could have been called an "ignoramus" (to borrow the term that Pigero likes to apply to her in regard to her lack of knowledge of music), versus the testimony of someone who, at the time, was an experienced, practicing professional intellectual whose area of expertise was the topic under discussion?

Hmmm, I guess I'm inclined to think that Hospers' memories of the event would probably be much less biased, distorted, ignorant or emotionally influenced than Binswanger's.

Too bad there isn't a tape of the event. It would be interesting to hear whose testimony was actually closest to the truth.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad there isn't a tape of the event. It would be interesting to hear whose testimony was actually closest to the truth.

There’s certainly material that’ll be interesting to finally see/hear, like the Ellis/Branden debate, which supposedly was recorded. I’d really like to see those legendary Johnny Carson appearances.

It’s hard to believe Binswanger would say such idiotic things, that permanently blow his credibility, and on a tape for sale to the public, no less. Ever heard the term sub rosa Harry? Actually, nevermind.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Napoleon Bonaparte

P.S. I shudder to think what he does say when sub rosa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Binswanger would consider Rand's sex with Nathaniel Branden in Frank's bed a "minor character flaw."

:)

Michael,

Who knows what Harry Binswanger privately thinks about that?

But he will never publicly admit, even to the carefully screened and vetted members of HBL, that any character flaw was involved.

I think, in light of Dr. Binswanger's public statement of policy, it is distinctly possible that his statement about the Rand-Hospers exchange was an outright lie.

It's interesting that Lindsay Perigo, who usually calls him "Binswanker," seized upon this very statement as the gospel truth.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jerry noted that Dr. Binswanger is the top faculty member at OAC. Not only that, but Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything.

"...Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything."

Omigawd!...Now that is depressing!

Also, curious. Why would she do that? You don't think that Tara and Harry had anything.....Nahhhh! :unsure:

They wouldn't do anything their idol would not .... Hey,...wait a minute! :blink:

As for why Tara Smith cited Binswanger on topics about which he had never published, I do not know. But I would rule out the idea that they had anything romantic going on between them--at least, if the reports I have received are correct. Smith is a lesbian. Nothing against lesbians, except that they tend not to engage in heterosexual relationships outside of marriage! :grin:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger has issued a blast at Jennifer Burns' Harvard magazine article, on Ayn Rand's 1962 appearance at an aesthetics conference.

The item was reposted on one of his followers' sites, supposedly with his permission:

http://www.gatorcoun...997&postcount=1

"Well, as it happens, I was present at that talk. I was 18 years old, had only been introduced to Objectivism 7 months earlier..."

So we've got the testimony of a Randian zealot about an event that he witnessed when he was a newly converted Objectivist Pup (and perhaps filled with the corresponding smugness and hair-triggered eagerness to take offense), at an age when he would have had practically no adult life experiences and very little exposure to the study and discourse of ideas outside of Rand's, on a subject (the aesthetics of the visual arts) about which he was, and still is, far from being informed, and on a subject about which Rand herself could have been called an "ignoramus" (to borrow the term that Pigero likes to apply to her in regard to her lack of knowledge of music), versus the testimony of someone who, at the time, was an experienced, practicing professional intellectual whose area of expertise was the topic under discussion?

Hmmm, I guess I'm inclined to think that Hospers' memories of the event would probably be much less biased, distorted, ignorant or emotionally influenced than Binswanger's.

Too bad there isn't a tape of the event. It would be interesting to hear whose testimony was actually closest to the truth.

J

I have some personal experience with Dr. Hospers to contribute to the discussion.

About 7 years ago, I made a presentation on the nature of art to a TOC advanced seminar at UCLA, and Hospers was one of the two people giving formal comments. He was, as he is reputed always to have been, a very gentle, mild-mannered, non-sneering commenter -- but, in his own low-key manner, he made some remarks that would have been devastating if delivered by a typical Objectivist, or enraging if I had been carrying a chip on my shoulder. Instead, they were merely perplexing and thought-provoking, because of the attitude/manner of his delivery, and the fact that I was welcoming the stoutest rational challenges that could be made to my arguments.

I also didn't regard Hospers as my personal friend at the time, so I didn't expect him to go gentle on me, and thus I did not feel that his remarks were any kind of betrayal in order to look good to his peers--or, in this case, to the powers-that-be at The Objectivist Center.

As for his long-standing reputation as a gentle, civil disputant and speaker, I can recall as far back as the mid-70s having heard him speak at libertarian functions, and he has always been inspirational and gentlemanly, not rude or back-stabbing. If Rand and her minions interpreted his comments that (latter) way back in 1962, it is my best guess that they were simply outraged that he didn't roll over and surrender his objectivity in the interest of shielding her from the disdain of the mainstream prof's who attended her talk.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 7 years ago, I made a presentation on the nature of art to a TOC advanced seminar at UCLA, and Hospers was one of the two people giving formal comments. He was, as he is reputed always to have been, a very gentle, mild-mannered, non-sneering commenter...

Yeah, from what I've seen and heard of the general dispositions of Hospers, Rand and Binswanger, I suspect that Binswanger's statement is like hearing a warthog describe a situation in which a cuddly slow loris...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLdQ3UhLoD4

...steps between a mamma bear and her cubs. The warthog identifies with mamma bear in interpreting the action as a ferocious attack on her cubs, and is therefore surprised that she didn't lash out more than she did, and feels that her swipes were "gentle and earnest" in comparison to what he was expecting (or hoping for).

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2010 issue, Will Thomas reviews Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns. The review appears on pp. 54-59 and an interview with Dr. Burns is on pp. 60-61.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Interesting.

O'Reilly's being his usual overbearing self. Burns waits for him to stop bloviating and then speaks in measured tones.

Beyond the "internment" of the Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, there was war propaganda against the Japanese that I think you could fairly call racist. (Dr. Seuss was one of many who drew it, for a Left-wing publication no less.)

But for Tom Hanks to attribute the bloodiness of Tarawa or Iwo Jima to American racism toward the Japanese is breathtakingly detached fron reality.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

I will tell you that Ms. Burns needs to decided whether she is going to dress for the part because she looked poor to middlin as they say in the hills.

Moreover, someone needs to discuss eye contact on television because she kept looking predominantly right and then up and left on certain questions.

I wonder if she is ambidextrous.

However, the eye contact was virtually non existent.

In terms of the "racism," I don't know if anyone noticed, but they are a different race.

The war propaganda relied on the image as a sneaky, crafty, vicious animals who were like robots. This was war propaganda.

Hell, dachshunds were beaten in the streets in WWI with the anti German propaganda!

Adam

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