anonrobt

Martin Gardner was always an interesting read, whether in Scientific American or elsewhere. Bill P Verily!

Passion, tho cast aside for erroneous information, has a way of coming back - especially if there remains the 'lust for life' of a normal person... for me, it came several years later, after being in a multitude of jobs, experiencing all manner of livings from helping surveying in Indian territory to working in a circus to playing Tarzan for three summers in a Y camp - then while being a cook asked what it was I really wanted to do with my life, what laser focus was it that would fuel my passion, instead of the light-bulb radiating everywhere... it was then I realize that being an artist was always what interested me most - but there was a catch... I never was interested in doing just scenes or portraits or studies of unrelated object flung together... it was then, on reading Rand's essays on aesthetics, that I discovered the importance of THEMES, and how that was the means of utilizing whatever was visualized to the greatest extent... I still kept a job cooking or baking, even doing display decorating for banquets [which always was for me a form of art, even if it not last long] - but my mind even then was always thinking of compositions which would be more than the usual, which would encourage thinking, which would be the kind of work which would be welcomed on a wall to look at and contemplate day after day after day, each time being able to garner something in the way of new insights... and when circumstances forced me to be disabled, to no longer be able to bake, to retire instead - it also gave me the means to spend all my time rendering, slowly trying to detail this theming idea, trying to take it to new directions in terms of visualizing universals... and so it has been ever since, all my other interests now channeled to serving my muses... An easy road - no... too many not recognize that an artist is in some respects never a capitalist, that while there is certainly nothing wrong, and indeed a moral joyfulness in the selling of a merchandise [the works of art], that does not mean the work was done for the pandering to the buyer, but instead from the vision of the artist.... or worse, that it is a nice thing as a hobby, but other things in life are or ought to be much more important... I lost both wives to those notions - the first for refusing to prostitute my art, for refusing to do any form, from window decorating to portraits or flowers or dogs or horses in order to sell my 'craft' of artistic ability [not that there is anything as such wrong in doing these, just that it was not how I wanted to do art] - the second for finding out there was not a caring of my works, that in doing them, as was with my library, 'out of sight, out of mind'[in other words, out of loneliness, poor choosing in a companion]... An easy road - no... many deride realism, claiming falsely it merely 'copies' [even as most came from my head, far less that there is a difference between imitating and re-presenting], or were 'pollyannaish' [as if the dung and crippled and decayed [mentally as well as physically] were the essence of existence, and overcoming resistance was the real fantasy], or more absurdly, that grasping reality thru the human means of concepts founded on percepts was an evasion of 'seeing'[translation - 'feeling'] the essence of the world [as if mere sensations of colors or blobs of amorphously melding shapes created those 'feelings']... yet, there were many who did/do see and enjoy what I had/have to show, giving the psychological visibility that helps refuel and keeps the passion going - and it is enough that every so often am told my works 'make one think', which is why show in the first place...

I found it very interesting... parts have questions over, but in general think it a fine 'look into the future' kind of projection of how Rand's ideas may well end up influencing the world...

Unlike you respondents, I loved school - from the get-go... as I was also a military brat, that meant many many schools in many states, and two years in Japan... as I was also a military brat, that also meant a growing [and, to me, healthy, dislike of authority]... my school problem, however, came from a slightly different way - while being smart was ok, it was so only up to a point, something I learned in the early years which began yes in a little red-brick one room school where grades one thru six or so were lined up in rows... that point meant to me that, from seeing how the openly brainy kids were treated, 'playing dumb', at least to the extent I fumblingly could [while, sort of on the sly, devoured books after books on all sundry subjects]... whether this was a good thing depends on how one perceives defensive measures - in later years, high school especially, it became a Pagliacci effect because of the psychological browbeating I had to take from my authoritarian father, and the consequence was that it took me many many years to finally overcome that 'protective cover' I had thrown over me... there was one other effect which influenced my life from an early age - I was, in a manner of speaking, a 'child of Rand' in that had seen the The Fountainhead movie when young, and over and over over the years on TV - where, of all the movies [and had seen loads back then, both in the theater and on TV], the courtroom speech remained 'engraved' in my memory like nothing else from any other movie... of course, living in an authoritarian household with that as my mindset explains the Pagliacci effect [and that it was a subconscious defensive reaction, why it took so many years to successfully pry off the mask]... Passion? I was interested in everything, an intellectual omnivorous being, like a light bulb whose rays went everywhere seeking to soak up information like a never quenched sponge... in the sense of being an artist, my earliest recorded was of the owl clock my parents had, done in crayon on yellow construction paper... appreciated, well my memory does not record a negative of it - but at the same time not record a positive of it than it 'was nice'... in high school, I took art as a guaranteed 'A', not to learn anything, as knew more than the teachers [sadly, as would had loved being more familiar with certain techniques and compositional understandings] - and certainly had no interest in the 'remedial therapy' works they'd thrust on us in the name of 'diversifying'... and when learned from those sage ones that other than being a commercial artist, there was no making a living as an artist unless very 'lucky' [eg - knew someone to be a patron], I stopped doing art when finished high school, thus stifling for a time the closest to passion I had on any one subject... [more later, maybe...]

And yet I should add that the movie version is enjoyable, and have seen it several times, from its initial theatrical release to owning VHS and DVD copies...

That's the same thing as blaming Einstein for using the phrase "God doesn't play dice" by taking it literally, while it was obviously a metaphor. When Conway writes about the universe making decisions he means of course just that what happens in the universe at a certain event in space-time, whether that depends on the information of the past light cone of that event. Such anthropomorphizing terms are quite common in science, like particles that "see" something or atoms that "want" something, etc. Nothing to get excited about. And that is precisely what is wrong, the cry to not get excited over anthropomorphizing - because it too quickly turns to being taken more than as 'colorful' speech, to say nothing of the fact it has no business in science writing... that it is considered 'quite common' betrays the science in which it appears...

If the government had followed Van Braun's notion of the space station FIRST, then the rockets outward from it, those views of the 50's may well had come to pass - but the politics demanded a show, so it was a blast-off to the moon, no midway between, with the current result...

Indeed - Happy Birthday, and many more healthy ones...

I think it's kinda cute as well. Bloomington is full of elderly, church-going ladies, but flirting with them somehow doesn't quite cut it. And I'm not enthusiastic about going to church together on a first date. Ghs afraid the roof will fall in??

I think aesthetic arrogance is a contributing factor. I've seen white Objectivists tell black Objectivists that their tastes in music are uncultured, unsophisticated and objectively inferior. There's sometimes an attitude conveyed of "you're music is that of filthy, mindless savages" directed at people who enjoy music that isn't based in white/European traditions and preferences. Which is too bad because when Rand wasn't saying similar things, there were times when she recognized that different cultures seem to speak different musical "languages" that won't be appreciated by those who don't speak them. J Would have to say this depends on whether speaking of jazz or rap...

Heh, being a fast reader, too bad ye not live nearby - with a nice library of some 5000 or so, there'd be plenty to come sit and breeze thru, most covering near all of the desired books, plus a number of the lesser, even non-desired... but I imagine there're others here much like me in this department, investing in so many of the worthwhile books, while the neighborhood seems rampant with illiterates...

Yes, Jean - welcome... You'll find plenty enriched fuel for your mind here, in all its diversity - And much to integrate to the whole of your being an individual... Robert

BINGO, nailed that on the head if I ever saw it!!!! That is a great point. But isn't this true of so many thinkers in history: a checklist of their positions gets recorded and their followers (and many of their critics) latch on to the list overlooking the method. I finally get an enthusiastic response from a woman on OL, and you have to go and spoil it! Seriously, you are right of course. The thinker I admire most in this respect is Adam Smith, a genius of the highest caliber who had one of the most complex and fascinating minds in the history of western thought. I have read Smith's Wealth of Nations many times -- I even wrote a 180 page manuscript about it for Knowledge Products back in the 1980s -- and I never fail to be amazed by the intricate texture of its arguments. Over the years, I have drawn up various top-10 lists of the greatest books on liberty ever written; and despite some variations here and there, the Wealth of Nations has always occupied the top position. Ghs I wholeheartedly agree with every quoted level of this post I have a copy of Wealth of Nations that I am about to begin. It's daunting to be sure, but worth it I think. Though, I have to admit the title has me concerned from the beginning as to whether Smith was really more of a statist. The issue, in context of its time. wasn't statism as it was refuting the mercantilist position and positing an alternative - and why that was better...

Yes, even Rand recognized this issue. That's a general problem that I believe all societies face. I believe anarchists ones have a leg up since any authority is respected (or, following Brant, submitted to) mostly consensually because individual consent can be removed at any time by everyone. (Of course, in some situations, you might point out, this doesn't matter -- say, when a particular individual is being coerced by a widely respected authority -- but it's at the margin where individuals have more power.) I don't think one needs any more reasonability or sanity than is normally seen. In other words, I don't think some sort of general reform of humanity is necessary to get along without government. There will still be social conflicts and problems of all sorts, but there will just be one less problem: that of statism. Also, the argument you're using is similar, unintentionally I'm sure, than arguments against setting slaves free. I've read somewhere that some believed the slaves shouldn't be freed immediately or, for some, ever -- that giving them freedom without adequate preparation or some radical change in the slaves' natures would lead to social chaos or, at least, personal failure as slaves unaccustomed to choosely freely wouldn't know what to do. Besides, there is a difference between being rational and being reasonable... one can be rational and yet unreasonable [sane? or insane]

Yes, even Rand recognized this issue. That's a general problem that I believe all societies face. I believe anarchists ones have a leg up since any authority is respected (or, following Brant, submitted to) mostly consensually because individual consent can be removed at any time by everyone. (Of course, in some situations, you might point out, this doesn't matter -- say, when a particular individual is being coerced by a widely respected authority -- but it's at the margin where individuals have more power.) I don't think one needs any more reasonability or sanity than is normally seen. In other words, I don't think some sort of general reform of humanity is necessary to get along without government. There will still be social conflicts and problems of all sorts, but there will just be one less problem: that of statism. Also, the argument you're using is similar, unintentionally I'm sure, than arguments against setting slaves free. I've read somewhere that some believed the slaves shouldn't be freed immediately or, for some, ever -- that giving them freedom without adequate preparation or some radical change in the slaves' natures would lead to social chaos or, at least, personal failure as slaves unaccustomed to choosely freely wouldn't know what to do. Besides, there is a difference between being rational and being reasonable...

Maybe this is where came the phrase - all property is theft, huh...

This aside, aren't there certain aspects of this form of art that are mere entertainment and have little or no bearing on character beyond that? One would not think someone a bad person because they liked Thai cuisine over, say, Cajun cuisine. Does the same apply to tastes in art, at least some of the time? It is possible that the "optional" could apply here as it does in some aspects of ethics and epistemology. [5] ......................... This makes for the questions - what comprises mere entertainment?, if it is of value, what is the value in a negative like horror? if mere entertainment, could not also boiling dogs? if not, what makes it different from choosing different cuisines [is it really a 'matter of tastes'?]? and if of tastes, are tastes then a-moral?

Let me put this another way. If you state, "X is the case," is it not valid and reasonable for others to ask, "Why do you believe X?" Dannie, mein Freund, wenn ich mich klar und deutlich besprechen muss, dann schreibe ich auf Englisch because I once told a German than her Website was "schraeg" as in cool and she complained to my boss that I called her a crook as "schraeg" does mean oblique or diagonal. So, if that is what you wanted to know, you could have saved me about an hour of work. Did you think that I had all those sources in a single file on my hard drive just waiting for someone to ask, maybe under "Objectivists/Ust/Replies"? I spoke from what I considered common knowledge among criminologists to highlight what most other people do not know, for instance that if you are victimized chances are better than 8 in 10 that you knew the perpetrator. It was not hard to find the sources, but I did search for the best ones. I put some work into it. Now, you ask another question. WHY DO I BELIEVE THOSE THINGS? What is that supposed to mean? What are you asking? Are you asking for the facts behind the facts or for my mental state? In addition to the page of citations, I also provided you with my academic credentials and a link to my website which has my professional credentials on it. You failed to acknowledge anything I have done for you. Perhaps because there is not wanted an acknowledgment of the truth, as it conflicts with certain beliefs that proclaim otherwise...

Will have to remember my Harris tweed next time, then [already have a calabash ]

There we have it. If we ever need a 50 dollar term for Rand's fiction speeches to put down snobbish Rand-critics when they start name-dropping and using their own 50 dollar terms, we can lay "epideictic rhetoric" on them like a ton of bricks. For example: Rand Critic (scornfully): My dear sir, surely you have heard of Edmund McBlowhard's differentiating character developments in programmatic storylines. Rand's speeches simply don't pass the muster. Hoh ho ho ho ho ho... Me: For a man of your erudition, I marvel at your ignorance of Rand's evolutionary use of epideictic oratory, especially in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I mean, it's all over her work. Rand's famous plot and character development through epideictic oratory is obvious even to the most limited intelligence. And you didn't see it. Hmmmm... Pity... (walks off in triumph...) Joking aside, that was a helluva nice little essay... Nice little site for that matter... Michael Good find...

It's the only meaning I've ever encountered. JR One would have had a 'classical' education even if all was read in translation... [reading The Great Books collection would have constituted having a classical education, for instance]

I don't know anything about the details of your situation, but I can fill in the blanks in a general sort of way. Sounds like you have been put through hell. Ghs That is an understatement. Please no offense or disrespect taken but I don't want to bring up what happened and I am sure Mike would also not want this to be brought back up because it will give reason or an opportunity for continued problems now. There's other things I want to say but will not do so in public. George, you are familiar indirectly with some of it as I am sure a few here on OL may discuss it briefly on this thread now and this may trigger a memory for you. But for me, it's done and over with. It is in the past and I and hopefully others have moved on. I would be most interested to see the O'ist porn and what was being said in these comic books. Sounds like it would or may be a great laugh. I have those - there were three of them... wonder how much they're worth now...

Excuses, excuses - y'all sound like ye didn't even get half... [but, then, perhaps only half of y'all were given a classical education...]

Dan, I'd read your article back when Full Context was still going. Thank you for re-posting it. A few thoughts about the effort described in the book: Paul Thagard does a lot of interesting work. There's a big difference, however, between using a computer program like ECHO to size up theories on which the relevant scientific community has had plenty of time to return a verdict, and theories that are in live contention today. One reason is contained in that little phrase "to code up." ECHO doesn't study books and journal articles and such, in order to extract or infer from them what the tenets of each theory were. A programmer (Thagard himself, or someone working with him) has to analyze the theories and predigest them for the program. Robert Campbell I agree. Of course, I wasn't hoping that use of ECHO or similar programs would completely mechanize the process here, but I do think it might illuminate some important differences and help to focus debates over rival theories. And, yes, someone or some group would have to whittle out the supposed concepts and relations of a given theory. But my guess is such an undertaking would be open and could be transparent. This would allow for people to debate whether the models of the various theories were correct. And there's no reason to think, say, that different individuals or groups might encode theories in different ways. However, this should be no problem if the approach is to examine each one to see if one or more (or none) are relevant and accurate. Also, I wouldn't make Thagard's TEC or a particular application of it sacrosanct. I wouldn't want to end up with people substituting one of these for thinking. Finally, I wouldn't want to have something like the alleged Euler-Diderot incident become the norm -- where someone declares a theory is right or wrong based on something no one else understands and that is, in fact, invalid to determining this. Yes - wouldn't want this turning into a 'climategate'

Tastes, perhaps - but there is also how one approaches music conducting... Bernstein was a romantic, and it shows [it flows more], just as Von K was Germanic and more like 'old school' in his approach [indeed, one could almost set a metronome to the pace - much as Beethoven himself indicated on the sheet], similar to Furtwrangler... there is also, as in this case, the issue of repeats - Bernstein used all of them as Beethoven had written, whereas Von K, like most others, omitted some, making getting thru it a faster seeming pace... a better set of illustrations would had been different recordings of, say, Toscanini, who varied a fair bit depending on the mood he was in at the time - and it very much shows, even as same guy, same music, same orchestra even... As for Schickele - heh, that is a more glorified version of ol 'BeetleBaum' of Spike Jones' fame... both, btw, very funny and great to listen to...