"In the beginning..." (Christology and Randology)

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot undercut Galt for the simple reason there's not enough there to begin with even if that were your motivation. In the context of the novel you can dress up his characterization a little more maybe to the benefit of the novel, if you were the author. Not much. There's not much that can be changed in AS without collapsing the whole structure because the structure is contrived--artificial--but by a master.

For instance, the conflict between Hank and Frisco over Dagny could have foreshadowed an incredible, climatic conflict between Frisco and John--over Dagny. But there'd be no logic to it in the novel unless the initial setup with Frisco giving her up to go on strike is changed. So what you have is essentially "Waiting for Dagny" to see and understand why she must give up working for the looters.

There is also, as an aside, gross but implicit sexism in the novel centered on her. Naturally enough, for she's the center of the novel, which is ironical. Frisco goes to college and meets Ragnar, John and two professors and shares none of that with her leaving her at ground zero with her passion for her work and her ignorance. Throw her into that mix and they all show up at the Taggart estate for a great get-together meeting Dagny and her seeing John and Ragnar and all engaged in a big gab-fest. Equals no novel, or at least a completely different one.

AR in writing AS simply bit off more than she could chew. She got it down by massive, grinding, self control and it left her a control freak eventually not even leavened by a sexual relationship with NB. That's my theory. Anyway, her work, her characters, she herself, are all properly objects of analysis and deconstruction even if the result is "bullshit." And even if what one thinks is bullshit is bullshit. Above all, it's the thinking about it. One could write a book. Otherwise, Ayn Rand, after you've read her, turns into intellectual and cultural lead and is forgotten.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Prefacing Letter - 4 (last)

===

[Allan had said that he'd concluded from his experience of seeing Objectivists as clients that the attempt to "be" an Objectivist exacerbated self-doubt, and that Objectivists tended "to live to be moral instead of to be happy."]

I think you're right, self-doubt is likely to be increased by trying to "be" an Objectivist. Whatever dissatisfactions or worries about the self a person has, Objectivism offers - ostensively - a way to change and achieve glory: "all" you have to do is be rational, as Objectivism defines the term. Which means: check your every premise for (Objectivist) consistency; think and act, constantly, according to the dictates of "logic"; engage in unremitting productive work (you're allowed some leisure, but be careful what you do with it); exercise moral judgmentalism in your relationships with friends and in regard to your aesthetic preferences (remember, you reveal your naked soul in what you respond to).

To me, stated like that, it sounds absurd. But I don't think I'm caricaturing Objectivism's message about how to live. And I think most Objectivists bought the message. They really believed (or believe) that through persistent effort to maintain constant "rationality" they could achieve - eventually - a state of inner joy and confidence.

The actual result has been the opposite. Instead of increasing self-confidence, the attempt at overcontrol increases self-doubt, since any stray unchecked impulse bodes danger. And the joy Objectivists thought to reach becomes an ever-receding future prospect.

[i went on to say that I'd like to write up some thoughts as to how one does achieve happiness. While I was working on the continuation, I thought of the book idea.]

===

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Frisco goes to college and meets Ragnar, John and two professors and shares none of that with her leaving her at ground zero with her passion for her work and her ignorance. Throw her into that mix and they all show up at the Taggart estate for a great get-together meeting Dagny and her seeing John and Ragnar and all engaged in a big gab-fest. Equals no novel, or at least a completely different one.

I remember thinking the first time I got to that place where Francisco says he's formed a couple friendships and the subject is discontinued, basically WTF?

I mean, what kind of a relationship is this? He doesn't say anything specific about the friends? She doesn't ask?

I realized that the friends must be Galt and Ragnar - and that the plot problem was large, since if Francisco had told Dagny who the friends were, Dagny wouldn't have been in the puzzlement situation she is in at the start of the novel.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Prefacing Letter - 4 (last)

===

[Allan had said that he'd concluded from his experience of seeing Objectivists as clients that the attempt to "be" an Objectivist exacerbated self-doubt, and that Objectivists tended "to live to be moral instead of to be happy."]

I think you're right, self-doubt is likely to be increased by trying to "be" an Objectivist. Whatever dissatisfactions or worries about the self a person has, Objectivism offers - ostensively - a way to change and achieve glory: "all" you have to do is be rational, as Objectivism defines the term. Which means: check your every premise for (Objectivist) consistency; think and act, constantly, according to the dictates of "logic"; engage in unremitting productive work (you're allowed some leisure, but be careful what you do with it); exercise moral judgmentalism in your relationships with friends and in regard to your aesthetic preferences (remember, you reveal your naked soul in what you respond to).

To me, stated like that, it sounds absurd. But I don't think I'm caricaturing Objectivism's message about how to live. And I think most Objectivists bought the message. They really believed (or believe) that through persistent effort to maintain constant "rationality" they could achieve - eventually - a state of inner joy and confidence.

The actual result has been the opposite. Instead of increasing self-confidence, the attempt at overcontrol increases self-doubt, since any stray unchecked impulse bodes danger. And the joy Objectivists thought to reach becomes an ever-receding future prospect.

[i went on to say that I'd like to write up some thoughts as to how one does achieve happiness. While I was working on the continuation, I thought of the book idea.]

===

Ellen

The problem is there is simply no way "to be an Objectivist"--at least not in the way Objectivism was presented. While I don't claim to be an Objectivist any longer so I don't have to keep saying 'I'm not that kind of Objectivist', the kind I really am is reality plus reason plus rational self interest plus individual rights qua philosophy and critical thinking and continuing education qua all else. If you want to argue about reality and reason I don't care to give you my time for that; you're arguing with science itself. Go argue with one of them thar scientists. Scopes trial: "Are you one of them thar scientists? If so, you best git." Rational self-interest? Shall I debate "rational" vs "irrational" qua morality yes or no? Altruism? What is that? Is that--whatever that is--rational? Can rational self-interest encompass altruism? If so, that would make altruism a sub-category to self-interest. "Rational altruism?" What is that? Self-interest, yes or no? Freedom? From whence comes freedom? What is it? What makes it possible? Is freedom desirable? Is it rational (self-interest)? We are talking about individual (natural) rights, aren't we?

--Brant

now Rand's philosophy is larded up with much, much more than this; that's the one one needs to study for 40 years to get close to her understanding and competence in (is that rational?) if you are Leonard Peikoff

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

The problem is there is simply no way "to be an Objectivist"--at least not in the way Objectivism was presented.

By contrast, do you think it's possible "to be a Christian"?

Ellen

[caroljane]

I think it is way easier to "be a |Christian:" not that I have tried. But I know people who definitely are, who live full lives within that framework.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think it is way easier to "be a |Christian:" [....]

"Easier" in what sense, Carol? If I understand Brant correctly, he's saying "in the way Objectivism was presented," being an Objectivist can't be done.

Ellen

[caroljane]

Easier, because as I said there is a framework in every variant of Xtianity (local church etc), and despite the myriad theological differences, there is only one "First and Great Commandment." Love one another. How to do that is up to the individual with guidance or not from priest or community.

[caroljane]

Comment misposted on "Bad Art" thread sorry.

[Brant Gaede]

The problem is there is simply no way "to be an Objectivist"--at least not in the way Objectivism was presented.

By contrast, do you think it's possible "to be a Christian"?

Ellen

Oh sure. That's easy. Little or no thinking involved. People are taken as they are and manipulated from childhood into church. Objectivism has no good idea about how people really are. That's why it was created--out of AS--to serve fictional, heroic characters. It centers on an incomplete ethics while inside of everybody is already a complete if not inchoate ethics with which Objectivism competes, losing almost all the time after the sundry efforts are exhausted. The younger one is the more vulnerable to being sucked into this artificiality. You simply cannot run one set of ethics out of a person and run another in.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Comment misposted on "Bad Art" thread sorry.

The misposted comment:

Randology says, "Love yourself,act so that you deserve your own respect, only thus will you deserve the love of others."

[Ellen Stuttle]

Something odd has happened on SOLO.

I know how little interest SOLO doings hold for many of the regulars here. However, recently there's been material on SOLO relevant to this thread, especially in a discussion of moralism started by a poster, real name Brian Wright, who was using the screen name RationalMan.

Of "RationalMan" in a moment.

First a link to a thread started by Walter Donway on September 11.

The title post is a poem by Walter, "Try to Remember." I wanted to pay compliments to the poem, and while I was at it, to ask if Walter remembered a car ride conversation re Fountainhead Objectivists and Atlas Objectivists. See the thread. It's short. (The question I'm wondering about is if, on average, Fountainhead Objectivists are less prone to the sort of problems I described in my Prefacing Letter.)

Walter's appearance isn't the "odd" happening. Instead, it's Brian Wright's disappearance.

Brian, screen name RationalMan, had been posting a lot. On about September 5, a lengthy thread he'd started pertaining to moralism disappeared:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9773

Another poster mentioned the vanished thread, and Linz reported:

link

For the record ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2013-09-05 07:36

I have no idea at this point how/why the original thread has disappeared. Investigating.

I figured then that there'd been a software glitch, but with time going on and the thread not reappearing, I looked further and discovered that all of the RationalMan threads have disappeared. Also that on the user screen - link - the "real name" has been changed to "John Liam Galt."

Looks like there was a falling out, though I haven't a guess over what, since Brian had been rather fulsomely praising Linz, including starting a thread about Linz's new book.

Anyway, I'd been interested by things Brian had been saying. He's an old-timer and had recollections of NBI days.

So I searched to see if I could find other material of his.

He has a website called "thecoffercoaster.com." The link is to the home page.

One of the entries is a review of the Passion of Ayn Rand movie - link.

Along with a lot else, he says:

The Passion captures the incredible stiltedness and stark social fear that infused meetings of the faithful - so many of us wanted to be Howard Roark or John Galt or Dagny Taggart, and those who didnt aspire to such peaks were desperately afraid of being found wanting.

Ellen

[caroljane]

That is so weird, Ellen. Have others been "disappeared" like that on Solo before? Anyone else have any theories on the transfiguration of a Rational Man into a John Galt? LP does not even ban much, let alone obliterate... or does he?

[caroljane]

Or maybe Brian was an admin and took down his own threads for some reason?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brian evidently disappeared himself, since Linz didn't know why the thread was gone. The interchange between Brian and Linz was looking like a mutual-admiration fest, and then poof.

I recall that once Stephen Boydstun started taking down his threads, and one of the admins noticed and blocked him from proceeding. With the "blog" set-up, maybe a poster can just delete a thread he or she has started.

I wish the moralism thread were restored. There was some material on it which I thought was worthwhile and wanted to refer to here.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

First a link to a thread started by Walter Donway on September 11.

The title post is a poem by Walter, "Try to Remember." I wanted to pay compliments to the poem, and while I was at it, to ask if Walter remembered a car ride conversation re Fountainhead Objectivists and Atlas Objectivists. See the thread. It's short. (The question I'm wondering about is if, on average, Fountainhead Objectivists are less prone to the sort of problems I described in my Prefacing Letter.)

You should invite Walter to post here. I've only read a little of his work, but he seems to be refreshingly open-minded, and I think he'd probably fit in well here.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

You should invite Walter to post here.

Did you read his SOLO user page?

An important part of his history which isn't mentioned is his work at the Dana Foundation and his eight years' editorship of Cerebrum. He knows a great deal about brain research.

I think that I'd be enticing him into dual headaches to invite him here.

I gave links to this thread in my replies to him on SOLO. Up to him if he has any interest in joining OL.

Ellen

[caroljane]

Is he related to eDonway? Impressive Oist pedigree if so!

[caroljane]

Roger Donway. Damn editor. computer, not the Donways.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Carol, see his User Page, to which a link was provided.

Ellen

PS: For that matter, see the linked SOLO thread. Several references to Roger, in one of which Walter says "brother Roger."

Yes, he's related to Roger Donway.

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels isn't the Jesus of John. In the latter, there's been an elevation of Jesus to being God.

But even in the Synoptics there are hints of Jesus' divinity. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . . " This "rewriting" of God's commandments implies a divine like power.

I only skimmed this essay but it looks good:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-3/JETS_37-3_333-350_Doriani.pdf

-Neil

[caroljane]

Re Rand's "adolescent sex-hero romantic fixations" (see Brant's post next above), it was the presentation of sexual relationships which I think more than anything else gave me a feeling of weird puzzlement as I read Atlas for the first time, a feeling of disparity between the accomplished brilliance and the naivety of the author - and I was all of eighteen and a half. (I include the "a half" because some important developments occurred in my Freshman year of college which had bearing on my reactions. I've many times wondered how I would have reacted if I'd read Atlas while I was still in high school.)

Ellen

"Weeping Eros is the builder of cities". What cities she built in her novels!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Continuing with my once-upon-a-time book idea.

The next two parts prefaced the sketch itself:

Introductory Comments to AB - 1

===

You asked, "So who's going to write the book about Objectivism, any interest?" That idea has been simmering for the last year or so, but I didn't have a handle to hang it on (a handle to grab it with, the mental pot that was simmering? A peg to hang the simmering idea on?)

It came to me one morning that the religious analogy I've played with in some letters to you would work to organize what I want to say. Especially since one of my theses would be that Rand is the culmination of Judaeo-Christianity, as well as the beginning of a new ethics opposed to that tradition.

I.e., she's only possible in a Judaeo-Christian context, she needs the ideas she opposes as the springboard to hers. And in some respects she's strongly in the tradition of those "opposing" ideas:

There's a heavy streak of Old Testament God in her: "The God who watches over Israel is a jealous god; thou shalt have no other god before him." Also a remorseless god: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." (The New Testament God is much softer, more concerned with compassion a la Christ - Rand isn't big on compassion. She, like the God of Israel, loathes sinners and exacts strict behavior from devotees.)

Also, a very heavy streak of the Protestant work ethic - only you're allowed to enjoy sex, nay obligated to "enjoy" it, in an intensely meaning-oriented way, and with a properly noble partner (you can't just relax and sensualize; sleep with the wrong person, you've betrayed your soul). In other words, for all her talk of "the man who belonged on earth," she's as puritanical as our stern New England forbears, much more concerned with the way to heaven ("good works" and avoiding sin) than with enjoying life.

===

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Introductory Comments to AB - 2

===

Further, there's her self-image of being against 2000 years - the voice crying in the wilderness. I contend that, instead, she's talking in the middle of a highly civilized city, and she's only possible in that city. She says, for instance, that her philosophy is the one our country should have been founded on, it was the inconsistencies in our founding philosophy that headed us for "destruction." I think there's truth in this, as there is in much she says. But, as is typical of her, oversimplified truth.

Also anachronistic "truth." The intellectual zeitgeist two hundred years ago wouldn't have allowed her ideas to be formulated. She sees herself as if she were outside a cultural context. She talks as if her ideas sprang, like Athena, full-grown from the forehead of Zeus, with no birth and maturation process intervening.

But that isn't the way philosophies form. They have to be born and nurtured - in a context. And Rand, like other thinkers, is partly the result of her context; though, like other seminal thinkers, she's radically altered it: she did something unique with it, but she didn't think up her philosophy whole cloth out of rationality, as the Objectivist press would have it.

Anyway, the religious analogy would work to organize a book.

So, a question for you as an "informed reader," would a book with the following title and table of contents arouse any interest?

===

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Repeating the

Table of Contents

The paragraph at the bottom was on the contents page in the material I showed to Allan Blumenthal, and was addressed to him.

The number of chapters - 7 - was meant to allude to "the seven days of creation."

The Woman Who Became God

[subtitle pending]. [[i needed a subtitle identifying Rand as "the woman."]]

1. The Woman Who Became God

2. The Burning Bush, the Promised Land, the Tablets of Stone

3. The Chosen People

4. Sanctity and the Life Force

5. Heaven and Earth

6. "In the Beginning Was the Word"

7. Is Objectivism a Religion?

The implication is that I'll answer the "religion" question in the affirmative (I want to sell the book to non-Objectivists). In fact my answer will be yes and no: it became "a religion," it doesn't have to be that - it started as one of the greatest and most important ideas ever, which is what it can be, viewed right way about, and what I think it will be in its impact on future history. We, the "chosen people," were the experimental generation. And now that the pitfalls are becoming known, and revisioning has started, the central worth of the ideas will shine forth even more clearly than before. Or that's what I think will happen.

====

Ellen