Rodney

This never puzzled me. After all, the distinguishing characteristics are a subset of measurements (see p. 15 of the Expanded Edition)--though on the higher levels this may be harder to grasp. Remember too that "0" (zero) is a measurement. I hesitate to post this, as I have no time or wish for online discussions at present. So if I don't continue on this, I apologize and may return later.

I like the Rearden one as a book illustration. In fact, this is almost exactly how I imagined the scene from the book, down to the colors and the angle of the face. However, as fine art, I find most Objectivism-inspired paintings to lack depth in the sense implied by Marsha Enright above. Depth for me is conveyed by focus on a theme right down to the smallest details, by means of the highest command of artistic devices and techniques. It is not enough to render well some correct philosophical theme. AR once said something similar regarding music, that the issue is not just the thematic intention, but the specifically artistic means used, and how. That said, I don't know much about the art of painting, and am speaking only of my reaction as a viewer of art. I like the Rearden picture very much, as I said above.

Points taken, Barbara. I remember those passages in your book, and also the fact that her relatives in Chicago did indeed help her crucially despite her statement that no one did. Those facts are truly "noodlefood" (food for thought) on this topic. (Pardon the reference--I sling words as others sling hash.) To me it is the same issue as calling someone evil. One who, say, tells a lie is doing something that is, in principle, anti-life--which is the essence of evil--but that doesn't make the person anti-life and thus evil. Much more evidence is needed for such an accusation. One might of course call the effects of the lie evil. But this takes the perspective of those who suffer from the wrong. I am sure that the victim of an alligator attack perceives the animal as the very embodiment of evil--even though the alligator is totally innocent in that sense. The upshot seems to be that while AR was not fundamentally dishonest, her laser focus on her principles (such as never demanding help as a right, and always taking full responsibility for her career), led her to ignore and (eventually, especially in romantic matters touching on her concept of the ideal man) evade facts that did not easily fit in to her view of herself as a clear example of those truths. Thus, she gradually became dishonest in many contexts--for example, in ignoring the signals that her view of romance cannot be translated so literally into reality. (By the way, I think you and NB have been labelled "fundamentally dishonest" just so the accusers will not have to confront and integrate into their view of AR any fact that they cannot otherwise dismiss.)

I would go so far as to say that honesty is almost a defining characteristic of Ayn Rand, and one of her most inspiring aspects. But that doesn't preclude the self-induced unrealism that is part and parcel of any artist's lifelong dedication to his vision. Why unrealism? Because all thinkers and all artists sooner or later reach the limit of their global capacity to learn and achieve. So they wilfully (albeit subconsciously) ignore the signs that all is not well and take the implied attitude that if they simply follow their inclinations it will have to turn out right.

Perhaps a better adjective would be "OOfy"--nOOdlefOOd. It does sound non-intellectual, evoking the sweet homebody type of woman with horn-rimmed glasses who likes knitting and needlepoint and tea parties (and gossip?). I would never use such a goofy-sounding name for anything I wrote, that's for sure.

Thanks! I'll be sure to visit and find out who I am. 8-[

By the way, "LOLOLOL" now has a retroactive significance: "laughing out loud Objectivist Living online"

"Noodlefood" I parse as: noodle = brain ("Use your noodle!") brain food = food for thought Which is clever.

I have two books written by an autistic, Donna Williams: Nobody Nowhere and its sequel, Somebody Somewhere. Moving and fascinating. One very surprising thing is that she was partially helped by, of all things, special colored glasses! Has anyone ever heard of this elsewhere? In any case, reading these books gave me some insight into the nature of autism. Williams says autism "is not a form of madness. Autism is an extreme example of a mechanism that acts to protect sanity" in the face of what she calls "emotional overload."

I suspect the "The" in the title was a mistake, and when they noticed it (as they surely would have) they did not have the money or inclination to correct it--it being only a school assignment.

Many years ago I came across an article assessing the various theories about this, and decided (as did the author, I believe) that the following is the correct explanation (I don't remember who the article said first thought of it): When you look up at the sky, you automatically envision it as bowl-shaped, the sky directly above your head seeming closer than the sky near the horizon. This is because the earthly objects at the horizon "push" the sky away from you visually, forcing you to see it as it is--something that is really miles away at least. This effect is absent above your head, unless some skyscraper is included in your visual field when you look up. (Somewhere, Ayn Rand mentions this: she refers to buildings "pushing the sky up" for one of her characters.) Thus, when you see the moon against the bare sky above you, you think it is closer than when it is near the horizon, and since it occupies the same area in your visual field in both cases, the effect is that the moon is bigger on the horizon. EDIT: Oh, I see this is the aforementioned "Ponzo illusion," but anyway I think it is correct. I'll leave this in, in case it might sway any remaining doubters.

I'm posting this neither for nor against CS's thesis (off the top of my head I think I would be against its major elements, but here is a case where I would prefer to read the book first!): Nathaniel Branden was asked on one of his Academic Associates Seminar recordings whether he had been influenced by any other thinker than Ayn Rand to any important extent. His reply was something like (this is not verbatim, but I think it is close): "No, no thinker that I can name, no figure or figures I can think of that had any sort of major or significant impact." Couching "No" in such lengthy terms seemed to me to mean that he was reluctant to admit the fact. And, really, I believe it was true that he had no other big intellectual influences on his work. (I tend to believe it was true of Ayn Rand also, but as I say I want to read CS's book before coming out on the issue.) The Academic Associates recordings were issued in the 1970s. I have one other very interesting quote from them that might be appropriate for the Sticky threads. It concerns the last lines of "In Answer to Ayn Rand," and provides a final answer, if any were needed, to PARC's silly animadversions on the passage.

To clarify, I wish to revise one sentence as follows: --to dispel the impression that I was talking about shortcomings in the Branden books (which in my opinion do exist, but which do not have the significances being alleged).

I corresponded with him a while back, to obtain some information for use in an essay I am planning about the epistemology of math. He did strike me as a bit overly defensive about Rand's views, or about his own interpretation of them.

Thank you for the compliment. Of course, that sort of word play has no intellectual content. But at least it serves to counteract any unfair positive effect generated by the word "val(l)iant." I have read enough on all the voluminous and exhaustive threads about the book in question to know its reasoning and to see the errors. Years ago, I came across a website devoted to pointing out false statements and contradictions in and between the Brandens' books; I saw the same shortcomings in thinking I see now on all those threads. Now I gather that was the website that served as some sort of germ of the book. I still plan to read the book (for me it's a question of money and situation). If, when I do, I see anything that sways me in its favor, I will admit it. However, this would mean that the book is reasoned differently than all those posts made by its author and editor. Many of the criticisms of the book were trivial or not valid, and the authors most intelligently shot those down. My main concern is not with their motives or morality, but with the simple fact that they are not being objective.

I wanted to come to this board just to register my opposition to the various insanities now occurring--and I will, on an appropriate thread--but I first wish to say that I too noted the onanistic implications of "solo passion," and intentionally titled my bookmark to the site as "SLOP," weeks ago! In truth, there is also a lot of good material posted there, but the user interface is confusing, sluggish, and nonorgonomic, especially in comparison to RoR. And then there are those insanities, that militant non-objectivity ...