psychoanaleesis

Doc: Was it me or were the dinner guests drinking absinthe before the pig came? Boy, if anything like that actually happened, we would have to change the definition of Man because here comes another rational animal!

The Cows... They Talk!!! “Greetings, carnivores! You people should be ashamed of yourselves! Your dinner was once a living, breathing organism! How can you dine on the flesh of your fellow mammal this way?!?” I’m not quite sure what they expected to come from that question, but no one answered. This angered the already peeved cow further. “This is utterly despicable! It is gross that you would eat animals this way! We should live in harmony with the other life forms on this planet! Meat is Murder!” ----This is the funniest defense of freedom I have ever read against "Animal Rights" activists!

David: I think the time has arrived. In fact, I think it arrived a while ago. The problem is that we have become immobilized by fear and the idea that it really can't happen here in America. It has. Adam Oh yeah, I meant to ask, is the US budget still on stalemate?

Of course IT IS ethical - especially if the situation warrants it and one has no other options left open. Does the government care what a dollar or $535 for that matter means to the survival and well-being of a person? I have posted something like this a couple of years back about the man who had a Philippine eagle (endangered specie) for dinner but was later arrested for it. It was his survival that was clearly at stake and yet the government thugs takes away his sustenance (even if it was just for a day)?!? In such cases, you bet he should resist. Gentlemen, I believe our governments want us to beg and be dependent on others/them for our basic necessities (including thinking) and let them have the final say about what we could or could not do according to our rational judgment. The last straw is on its way to the camel's back over here and I'm gonna have it kick and spit on the bastards once it reaches the breaking point... how about there?

Well, I believe it is stated in many literature such as this one (albeit that ain't technically a formal one) that it is NOT indeed safe to wear two condoms. Anyhow, male rape is possible. Here, I've heard on the news that a guy was allegedly raped by a couple of homosexuals who tied him to a chair and had him penetrate them or so as I remember. Now considering this, how much more if a woman is the perp? (regardless of attractiveness) and the legal system here considers such acts to be under sexual violations merely by the involvement of force into the act (as would any civilized country I suppose). Well guys, as long as you say NO and made reasonable efforts to get away from the situation, it should be considered as such if the advancement/harassment/threat continues

Is that the Song of Solomon or Aleister Crowley? Hmmm, I found this interesting enough to post here... quite absurd but hey, every cult has to have some messiah right? I found a connection of mystic origin to Rand's first name and her general attitude on this site while surfing the interwebs: VigilantCitizen and it quotes Aleister Crowley “[baphomet] is ‘The Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is Baphomet the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection … He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is ayin, the Eye, so that he is Light; and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty.” - Aleister Crowley, Magick Book 4 (emphasis mine) Now, I read on wiki about the possible origin of Rand's first name Ayn is suggestive of the word "Ayin" as it is said there (since she was of Jewish descent) and well, this was an "Ah, that makes a bit of sense..." moment - in the mythos context of Rand's life.

And I would agree to that Michael, Keen was ranting although it was if he was just simply reporting his observations of what has happened and the rants came in lines like "not a hell of hope in hagen..." which were fine by me. Watching it again, I may have missed a few lines when I first heard the clip he blames "bankers and not the government..." you're right, that ignores the basic facts of the case and that is, governments do tell what bankers should do with the money that they keep (at the point of a gun) in the present system. As for fundamental truths, I'd like to hear them out before I respond since I am not yet well versed with the economic and political system of the US. Do tell me though Michael, are there metaphysical "road signs" that say that a businessman is going the "wrong way"? Is simply "predicting the future" a definite key to success or is it all about having a vision of what one would like to see, studying the essential variables, gathering necessary resources (capital) and proceeding with rational confidence? Well heck, I can can predict future trends to some extent, but acting on that prediction is another thing altogether. Should every venture be successful? No. There are no guarantees in capitalism. Should an individual be forced to consider the impact his scheme would have on others (provided that he does not violate their rights i.e. without malice aforethought)? Never. If that is so the case, then one could choose to go into business while another can choose to compete with or oppose that using the aforementioned guidelines to reach success and still playing by the rules of NIOF or simply, the principles of rational self-interest.

Well, just goes to show that you can't get too complacent that ol' Stevie will take care of everything. It's simply that no one took interest in Apple till now. That apple's been rotting and in it, worms.

That's a well-informed opinion. How keen of Steve Keen. Strangely, I find myself agreeing to what he is saying since capitalism IS founded on the ethics of rational selfishness or egoism that it is rather deaf when it comes to feedback from other social forces e.g. government, pressure groups et al. Steve Keen was also saying that it is rather late for simple capitalism to come into the picture and save everyone from ruin (economic or otherwise) because the world has been run into the ground by second-rate economists (adding to what he said). Remember, if it's only the political climate you want to alter, Objectivists should simply side with Conservative Republicans. It is more than capitalism that would save man, this will require that he check his premises and see whether it is his way of understanding and treating his surroundings and himself or even what are the given that must be considered to command it he should change to reach his glory. In this case however, the facts about global warming due to the intervention or impact of man is still debatable. Until a direct and significant causal relationship is established, I shall remain on guard and against forced regulation of activities undertaken by an enterprise or individual(s) except when such violates the rights of others. The way I see it, only a few questions remain for businessmen in a free market economy: How far can you project? How will you do it? These depend on their capabilities and I shan't care what they stand to gain or lose in their enterprise since they do not work or produce for my happiness, but theirs. That said, I would still be grateful for their contribution in making life better.

That is only likely to happen if the government would a. increase taxes b. keep on stealing through social security c. the grams on that video was a horrible wretch who had never worked for all her life and tries to hitchhike her remaining days through her...(republican) son? I suppose anyone would be fed up at one point or another. Ask Hank Rearden. BTW, since when did they replace the theme music for "Psycho" with "America the Beautiful"? Is that supposed to be the democrat's crazy way of implying that a republican administration would make sure that you all kill your elderly? Sick bastards.

That's funny Peter. Where'd you get that impression? from Pacquiao? Unfortunately, yes we do have SS here. Goddamn SS, stealing from folks like me and getting a loan - with the money I EARNED?!? I don't like the idea of begging or asking anyone to return what is MINE. I abhor the idea of having anyone else think for me and decide what is best for me. Oh, for all the right reasons, how I would love if the Philippines is a US territory but I think the US is better off without the burden of this culture. BTW how to keep cats away I did think of catnip too but they might just poop on your yard anyway after getting high - to keep the catnip area clean. D.

Peter, Nicely done. Long and winding but very informative. What you are trying to accomplish will be applicable when another renaissance comes in i.e. a revolution or something like the strike in AS. Rand, time and time again, left the details to the science of law to discuss the details and applications of such issues. It's only in a rational society that an article such as this would be of great relevance and concern. Would you like to build a "Galt's Gulch" somewhere, anytime soon? ;)

Well, you said it yourself, Rhett takes advantage of his surroundings. I quote you, "he arranged himself quite well with the reality around him, trying to use it to his advantage." He's a guy who knows what he wants and gets what he wants. In this aspect, he's more like Gail Wynand. I remember in TF, what he said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both. This is the same selfish passion and sense of ownership, complete ownership that is his philosophy. Essentially, the "world" is his for the taking. I don't see Rhett Butler as a possessive character at all who would claim complete ownership, neither toward persons, nor toward the world. And unlike the Randian heroes, he does not have any moral ideals to defend. Imo Rhett is basically a (very un-Randian) 'player' type. Both Rhett and Scarlett are ruthless (he saw her as kindred spirit here), but as opposed to Scarlett, Rhett is capable of feeling empathy. But Scarlett is completely devoid of it. This is why the viewers' sympathies lie far more with Rhett than with Scarlett. Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections. If you would point out what you see as a "serious error" if Rand had written this. And what exactly do you mean by "methaphysical projections"? Given the right circumstances, Roark would have said it. Something like: Dominique: ...but Howard, they'd murder you out there! Roark: Frankly Dom, I don't give a f**k. But I've no right speaking for Rand's character. I don't think Rand would, in her fiction, have let her heroes speak vulgar language. Exactly my point.

David, This has happened to me in reading fiction before. If I get really, really involved, I read quite fast, have very good memory of what I read, but once in a while one of these clunkers will happen. I totally remember something occurring in the book and it didn't. The first time this happened to me was at the end of 1984 by George Orwell. Winston is sitting in a pub and grows to love Big Brother as his brainwashing becomes complete. In my mind's eye, I was sure he heard news on something like a background radio, took a drink of gin with tears in his eyes and burped as he looked up at a poster of Big Brother and realized his love. One day someone challenged me on this and I checked. I was astonished to read that there was no radio, no burp and no poster. but there was gin and there were tears. Instead of a radio and poster, there was a TV-like screen. I don't know where the hell the burp came from. I have recently been studying speed-reading and advanced learning methods and I believe this explains it somewhat. When I read fiction very fast, this is "right-brain" reading. The inner images are just as powerful as the words, maybe even more so since I don't stop to take in each word. I read whole chunks of text at one whack instead. It's weird that as I have become more precise in my verbal thinking and more interested in writing, my fiction reading speed has slowed down drastically and I can't seem to get back into that former flow. Actually, I suspect I haven't tried. Nowadays, when I read fiction, I find myself busy analyzing style, plot, dialogue, etc. instead of just giving myself over to the story. Anyway, the right brain is where the world is creative, emotional and less precise. If you are doing right-brain reading, that would explain a remembered impression that was not in the book. Something extra in your mind jumped in and went along for the ride as you read. Whereas the logical part of the brain would reject it, the holistic part says, "Cool," and goes on with the story. The good news is that once you later correct the wrong impression, the original impact of the scene stays the same, only now it has the correct facts. The importance doesn't go away. Some in our subculture would call this process "reading out of focus," but it actually isn't. It's a kind of super-fucus where you allow the words in your mind to access a whole lot more conceptual referents that are stored in memory than you usually do. (There are techniques to encourage this in some of the speed-reading and advanced learning materials I am studying.) These referents are sensory (images, sounds, feelings, etc.), not word-like. There's a trade-off, that's all. You gain in intensity of image, idea and emotions, and you gain in reading speed, but you lose a little in precision. I need to get back to that kind of reading when I read fiction. I used to enjoy it immensely. When a work is really good, you usually read it a second time (or more), so the few extra mental hitchhikers aboard can be let off on that go around. That's the best explanation I have found so far to explain this reading illusion. Michael Wow. That explains a lot. BTW Michael, have you ever read Mission by Patrick Tilley? I've lost the book but when I read it the first time, I clearly remember Jesus saying the F-word there... I read it twice and thrice (and I think a fourth time) IT WASN'T THERE ANYMORE! *gasp* Yes! Indeed I have heard of that "out-of-focus" description and I emphatically reject it because it was all too vivid and bright and real to "not be in focus" or control of your faculties. Every time I read fiction, it is if I am an observer and the author is my guide to his/her world. Whenever I had to make a critique, analysis or such, I leave the emotional content out and approach it surgically. But here at OL, seldom do I see the need to do that and just reply or write on the fly. Thanks! PS I never thought that Synthia's comment was hinting at something like plagiarism. I chuckled when I read your comment about it. I'd love to have a go with the author of that article sometime but I have to read the book GWTW first.

Yes, that's one of the reason I was so curious to watch/read it. I've heard it was good from some my of my peers and I came to see for myself. I'm through with criticizing GWTW, I still think it's good because of the vividness of the descriptions and characters - based on the movie still.

Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections. I don’t know why you say that. It’s pretty similar to a Rand sex scene, and the female psychology is, well, what’s different about it? You tell me. The main difference I see is that Scarlett has had earlier, unsatisfying sexual experiences before this, with men she was able to dominate. Kind of like Dominique with Peter Keating, but for Scarlett this comes as a revelation. "He was like death, carrying her away in arms that hurt. She screamed, stifled against him and he stopped suddenly on the landing and, turning her swiftly in his arms, bent over her and kissed her with a savagery and a completeness that wiped out everything from her mind but the dark into which she was sinking and the lips on hers. He was shaking, as though he stood in a strong wind, and his lips, traveling from her mouth downward to where the wrapper had fallen from her body, fell on her soft flesh. He was muttering things she did not hear, his lips were evoking feelings never felt before. She was darkness and he was darkness and there had never been anything before this time, only darkness and his lips upon her." Emphasis mine. I never got the impression where Rand would describe something utterly gratifying and life giving such as sexual ecstasy like this. This is why I think that Mitchell and Rand were complete opposites when it comes to their view of life. Oh, this also answers for Xray's Q "If you would point out what you see as a "serious error" if Rand had written this. And what exactly do you mean by "methaphysical projections"?" Well, for metaphysical projections I was thinking along the lines of what she would consider "essential elements" to describe what was happening based on how I read the book. I seriously have to re-read TF though.

HUH?? Quote please. Ellen There is no hospital scene with GW and D in TF. --Brant Oh sorry. p616 TF Centennial edition. It was actually a bedroom of GW's penthouse: "She knew she had been brought here after many days in a hospital." and p618 D: "Yes, I want to see him. Gail, if I decide to make him my lover?" GW: "I'll kill you both. Now, don't move..." Perhaps, I remembered kill as strangle because it is usually the method preferred by those who commit crimes of passion. Up close and personal.

Yeah, but at the very least Jesus could have made it clearer by declaring that there is no God and that it was his philosophy he was teaching. He would have been killed either way. If at all, I see this guy as a philosopher who has solid ethics but shaky metaphysics and didn't explain his epistemology (in parables perhaps?) Same argument can be done for he pope, dalai lama and other religious leaders who enslave rather than liberate the human spirit by subjugating it under the presumption of a God. How did Rand call this in ITOE? sui generis/a class of its own. That's a problem that I find when confronting a priest, you can't challenge their foundation because they do not know/can't explain what they are standing on either. Going back, you're right. You can keep it. That is, assuming that you turn a blind eye and be a walking contradiction. PS Good point Tony. Thanks.

Woah. Quite a mouthful for me there Michael. How do you propose to tackle this question? I believe the guy was simply asking if you can keep the ethics when you abandon/reject the metaphysics. I think the question could be clearer when you put it this way: Can one still believe in the teachings of "Jesus Christ, son of God" when you believe that there is no God at all? -Now, ain't that a contradiction? I also think that when you use the methods as "prescribed", you merely use the process of deduction. More child-like in manner rather than inductive reasoning. Religion's purpose has already expired and the institutions that uphold it will merely resort to force like in the renaissance period right before the dark ages. I was only laying the parameters of this issue. The technicalities can be dealt with later. Unless there are some essentials that I overlooked. PS I just read the article. Haha. Just barged in based on the question. We have similar points but the author's style is rather blunt.

Yup. Rhett's a bit more closer and attainable for those who lack the philosophical vocabulary and clarity of Rand.

How odd that you would post this thread. A day before you posted there appeared a blog post on Daughter of Ayn (http://daughterofayn.com/ayn-would-have-loved-scarlet-ohara/) which suggests similarities. Before that, I had never read ANY comparisons of Gone With the Wind to Ayn Rand. That post, at the bottom, also notes the rape and roughness similarities. It also compares Rhett to Wynand and Scarlett to Ayn's heroines. How odd that two people would consider this within a day of one another. Hmmm, sure, that's quite a coincidence.

I got it by the way he talks to Scarlett, revealing her true self like a full body mirror or an Xray film of her perhaps? You're kinda right in that comment about Francisco, if you heard about those undercover stories, agents really had to get their hands very dirty (like agents who try crack to gain the trust of the bad guys) but still, I think Francisco could have afforded to avoid those by creating a very effective smokescreen e.g. extravagant parties, rumors that he let circulate, etcetera. Well, for one thing, Francisco, Galt and the other heroes have one thing in common, whether they died eventually or succeeded: Resolve. They stuck to their philosophy and never compromised their values. For GWTW, I don't hate the characters per se, I hate the author for impeding their "growth" (at least in the movie).

Given the right circumstances, Roark would have said it. Something like: Dominique: ...but Howard, they'd murder you out there! Roark: Frankly Dom, I don't give a f**k. But I've no right speaking for Rand's character.

Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections. I was comparing TF book with GWTW movie. In the TF movie though, the acting was stiff and I saw fear in Dominique rather passion. NOT how it was presented and I visualized it in the book.

Well, you said it yourself, Rhett takes advantage of his surroundings. I quote you, "he arranged himself quite well with the reality around him, trying to use it to his advantage." He's a guy who knows what he wants and gets what he wants. In this aspect, he's more like Gail Wynand. I remember in TF, what he said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both. This is the same selfish passion and sense of ownership, complete ownership that is his philosophy. Essentially, the "world" is his for the taking.