anthony

This is a fascinating topic that rings a lot of my bells. There are so many byways that lead off it, I don't know where to start. On an objective level,it raises questions like how do we know what we see,what do we choose to see (how selective are we being with our "sight-consciousness"),the awareness (or otherwise) that things haven't ceased to exist just because we turned away etc.,etc.- all culminating in the Objectivist epistemology that object and subject are independent entities.

Personally, this all harks back to my introduction - almost simultaneously - to photography and Objectivism at age 21. No connection,one might think,but indeed there was! As an intensely 'inward' boy,I was aware that (a. I didn't SEE like other people did and (b.I was escaping reality,into a dream world.

Whatever the roots of my problem were - a childhood trauma,or suchlike,I guess - is not relevant here,but I had a strong sense that I was living behind a screen,one on which my own thoughts were projected, as well as my sight. This meant that vision was a deliberate act on my part - either on or off. Intensely focused,or not at all. As GS's posts invoke in me,the abstraction of image on the retina is probably not much different to the abstraction of thought.

Well,it was, and is still,to a lesser degree,for me. Not noticing friends in the street;having little visual memory compared to my wife who can 'see pictures in her head'from child-hood,right up to yesterday - are what I've got used to. Little wonder that I took to the camera so eagerly! And it became my career.

In the final analysis, it's all about reality, I think. The ability to see it without prejudice and fear - to experience life in full consciousness - to have trust in my own senses (such as they are),but especially in my mind. Little wonder I also took to Objectivism,too.

Well, I have certainly gone off-topic here, and better hold back other ideas on this subject for now. I would certainly appreciate more in this vein from GS,Christopher,and anyone.

Lovely ! Hi-tech meets Lo-tech, (or remote control by whistle).

Makes me realise how under-utilised my Border Collie, 'Xerox', is. (lazy sod)

Thanks Adam

Tony

mmmm... interesting;and amusing,Michael.

May I take this chance to post an email request sent out by Dr.Branden to his client mailing-list? I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere,and I think it's a great example of the man's good-will.(It fascinates me how often,at the very extreme reaches of rational selfishness - or of 'conscious Selfhood',as I sometimes paraphrase it - a thinker,producer,or creator, can come full circle to 'Other-ism.')

"....but I [N.B.] want you to know that I read (and re-read!)every letter you sent me,and felt deeply moved by the passion and the depth.

Now I want to extend an invitation to you all.Give me your answer to this question: "What would you like most to have Nathaniel Branden discuss?"

There are no guarantees,but I will do my best."

Well, any requests? I have a few,but I'd like to hear from all of you!

The Greek scholar and poet,Hesiod (ca.700B.C.)wrote:

"Seek not for words,seek only for fact and thought,and crowding in

will come the words,unsought."

He was also a grumpy old man:

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent

on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are

reckless beyond words.When I was young,we were taught to be discreet

and respectful of elders,but the present youth are exceedingly

direspectful and impatient of restraint."

So what's new?

Ba'al, "When we first see things we only partially grasp....[then]we see the things we missed the first time."

Oh yes. It's a process that's always brought the image to me of 'batting' something back and forth: observe,then absorb,digest,define - observe,absorb,etc,etc,. It's a habit which I've got into in photography - to look at a subject - and then go away for a while - and return with some fresh insight,and look again.Repeatedly,if possible. It works fine at a pre-conceptual level,when often one's aim is to present the viewer with a brand new vision of the object,untouched by any pre-conceived notions.

Through the eyes of a child,perhaps?

The material that Michael supplied by Shmurak and Tomkins,seems a valuable find. It answers, and fills in,those gaps that many of us,I'm positive,had to try to fill for ourselves in our early Objectivist days. (What came first,the seed or the tree..?)!!

Shmurak's argument for 'affects'(basic emotions)in an infant is convincing.

Michael's case, contra Ayn Rand's claim that one should be able to program ALL of one's emotions,inclusively, rings a bell with me. Thank you for that.

T.

I hesitate to add my 2 cents-worth since I am a lay-man in this complex field.

Certainly I do advise taking any form of depression very seriously - with combined therapy and psychiatry - and the earlier the better.

For as long as I remember,anxiety and slight depression was always present in me;the causal connection from these to reduced energy,to lowered productivity,and then to lowered self-efficacy,and confidence,is self-apparent.Also it plays havoc with relationships.

I believe the new generation drugs are great;effective,and non-intrusive.

Personally,I am pleased to have found a simple remedy for anxiety,which was my major problem - a daily supplement of magnesium. It usually comes combined with calcium to aid absorption,which in S.A.drug stores is labelled 'Dolomite.'

Incredibly effective at just taking the 'edge' off anxiety, I recommend it.

True enough,Philip,Jonathan, but to be more exact for me,it's not only the learning,it's the engaging. And on that score O.L. has already over-delivered on expectations.

Did you ever,as a child,toss pebbles down a deep well to hear or see the splash? Now that's the experience I've been having on another forum. Being double (3 times?)of the average age there,a foreigner,a bit 'eager-beaver',and with some rather individuated views on living with Objectivism - could have put them off. Whichever,I did get ignored a lot,even with what I thought were some worthwhile insights !

It is great to hear some splashes, gentlemen.

I think it was on a sugar packet,but I've treasured - and utilised - this little gem for years. It's from the English landscape artist,John CONSTABLE.(18th > 19th cent.)

"We see nothing,until we truly understand it."

It sounds almost ingenuous at first,until one thinks about it. It also has an un-O'ist reversal of the process of consciousness and existence, until one realises that in the context of art - creation and appreciation - this is exactly what happens.Whether one is painting (or photographing)a leaf on a tree,a complex machine,or the human form,'knowing how it works', and its internal components, is crucial.

btw,this stands in contrast to John Keats'poem 'Unweaving the Rainbow',in which he was snippy with Isaac Newton for taking the mystery out of Nature and beauty with his meddling science.[ Richard Dawkins wrote a strong defense for this in his book of the same title.]

Thanks Philip, and hello to you,Michael,and all. I had a tiny tantrum there,but am getting over it; eventually reality wins over disappointment and frustration.

My apologies to Donovan for my butting in here,however his topic did make me reconsider my own premises.

In my case,I was early on desperate for a system of morality to guide me - a minimal religious background - a relaxed Anglican father and Jewish mother - meant that I fell between those two stools,and was allowed to make my mind up for myself ages ago. So I was an 'unbeliever' (if not quite an Atheist)when I came across Ayn Rand's novels and essays. Right away I seized her system of ethics,as my own; it was that or nihilism for me! In other words,I had a more pressing need of'applied'Objectivism,than for the theoretical - although I loved the elegant simplicity of the theory.

Now the student in me is emerging again,and after many years of considering things (and with a fair share of mistakes)behind me,I am pleased to be back at school.

Thanks for showing me something I didn't know, Adam.

Lends a whole different meaning to hitting an eagle. (sorry)

Tony

Selene(Adam)relates his first experiences as shock at the 'visceral in-fighting'on forums; I go with that. After decades with no contact with Objectivists, and with no support but Ayn Rand's non-fiction collection, and (much)later, Nathaniel Branden's books to "keep me warm",I was excited to find all this action on internet forums, dedicated to Ayn Rand. Wow! [i was a late starter on the Internet.]

Well, I'm a bit older and wiser now- after 4 months of swimming or dabbling in these waters. I have learned a massive amount; some of it I didn't want to know. The internal politics of Objectivism was the major shock, and the sometime pettiness of what are undoubtedly often brilliant minds, another.

But,I kept asking myself,where is the grace,the goodwill,the sincerity, to go with this fine and powerful philosophy? Individualism, and Independence of mind, compose my deepest being, so I can understand differences of opinion.

So what's with all that 'intellectual machoism' I see on a few sites? Why all the rage.?

Barbara Branden's articles on O.L.'s portal say it all - here is someone who brings graciousness to Objectivism; so I reckon I'll dive in here !

Thanks,Tony

I am beginning to think America is going mad.

The only nation born from an idea- as Rand identified it - is slipping ever faster into the non-ideas of socialism/fascism.

I have always viewed the U.S. as my spiritual home because of that idea of proud individualism, but am horrified at recent developments in the last 10 years, in foreign and domestic policy.

In brief, other countries, of far lesser value , are being pandered to, or propped up, by your nation. The message we are receiving out in the world is 'Please don't blame us for being the greatest,the free-est,the richest,the most powerful,the most self respecting Nation of all time! We are not really like that. See, we can be just like you!

Your external politics are beginning to resemble a popularity contest.

Internally, it's even worse,it seems. You are showing all the hallmarks of a nanny state, [ co-ercion, interference,paternalism ] that is so familiar to a South African.

I do agree that the most important way to combat this is via reason, and the New Intellectuals of the various Objectivist bodies are doing some fine work. But is it enough?

I find it amazing that I should ever be even considering this, since I have a personal distaste for anything collective. I recall the newsreels of the 60's and 70's of Americans converging on Washington in protest of their Government.

Mass action is possibly the last resort of a populace that is fed up.

However,if all divisions between the concerned groups- Objectivists,Libertarians,Conservatives [gasp], were suspended with this common purpose, an avalanche of citizens could be organized to descend on your capital city.

Their message to the U.S. and the world would send shivers down the spines of all those who hate true freedom-and your nation for being its last bastion- and would uplift those of us who loathe totalitarianism.

I can see the placards " LAISSEZ NOUS FAIRE !"

Or am I just dreaming :>)

Tony

First,to give some context to what must seem an inflammatry,naive,or just ill-informed,question.

I personally felt close to the pain and anger that all Americans felt on that September day,and all the years since. Despite being South African,the attack was levelled at me,and mine. My freedom,my sense of the world,has been damaged. But this has been extensively and far more eloquently written about than I could.

I have been often accused by colleagues as being incredibly innocent when I argue that the U.S. went into Iraq,not just as a knee-jerk,hit back,reaction,but also out of altruism. A massive reprisal,but following in its wake a genuine desire to export democracy to a confused and backward country.

"You fool,it's the oil they're after" was the common response; and that got me seething. The fact that altruism is a value to such people,and that America was so completely misunderstood even when she was trying to 'do good',has frustrated the hell out of me. The fact that the cost to the American tax-payer of invasion and occupation,and worse,the fatalities of soldiers,completely escapes these cynics.

An other nation I am deeply interested in is Israel, and during the recent conflict, I had an article published locally defending its right to survive,and its desire for ongoing peace. I titled the article "An imbalance of Values".

There are parallels in the two situations - especially with the latest news coming from Pakistan and Afghanistan involving 'collateral damage' to Taliban civilians. I am no military or international affairs expert, but the essence of these conflicts seems to be Tribalism against Individualism ; the value of a single life, against pure contempt for all life.

How can such a war be winnable? And would it be worth it,if it were only a Pyrrhic victory?

Evening Tony Garland or your good morning:

This is a fine place to be "shy" with. I prefer reserved or wise to describe "shy".

I have always been intrigued by the entire "South African history".

Did you ever read Allan Drury's - A Very Strange Society?

Welcome aboard.

Adam

Hi again people,and thank you.

Yes Selene,there's an 8 hour difference between us,so I'll say 'good day'.

And yes, Allen Drury novels were a favourite of mine.Now, I don't think he was the greatest writer,but I had just [early 70,s] been devouring Rand's fiction and nonfiction, and Drury gave me added insight into that unique and wonderful entity - the U.S.Constitution,as well as it's Government.

I remember two titles Advise and Consent, and Preserve and Protect. A Very Strange Society { I'll say!} was of course a non fiction work about the RSA in the 60's,and I think it was banned for a while here for being critical of apartheid policies.

As for S.A. history,well it seems to be unfolding every day. Blink,and you've missed something. I n more positive moments I feel the country is going through growth pangs;but mostly, I realise it has always been an unhappy place, and will be for a long time. Oh for a rational,stable,free Nation!

I have got to pick my words more carefully,especially here.

I'm now going to ALWAYS be that 'shy guy'. Damn.

Galtgulch has a far better selection,all of which I relate to.

I drink to naivete forever !!

TonyG

I

Tony,

Welcome aboard. Glad to see you here.

Shy is cool...

Michael

Hi Michael,

Mypleasure.

May I say that I enjoy the sense of life of this forum,and it's owner.

Tony

Hello all,

I think it's about time I introduced myself [ I feel a little like a voyeur ].

I am a fairly shy 58 year old Objectivist - photographer living in South Africa, name of Tony Garland.

Shy O'ist, is that a contradiction in terms? In fact, I don't know why I mentioned it!!

However, I can become a tiger when confronting irrationality,untruth, and injustice. And in this country that happens a lot.

Icame upon Ayn Rand in my early 20's, and with huge input from Nathaniel Branden, have never,as they say,looked back. Hope to talk to you again Thanks