A New Architecture, Couture,

[caroljane]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. .

It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom?

You wouldn't.

[MrBenjamatic]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. .

It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom?

You wouldn't.

So I am correct, then, in assuming that this court case is invalid?

[caroljane]

You say you'll be filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court. Does the legal system work that way? My understanding is that constitutional challenges are the business of appeals courts and that a plaintiff has to lose in trial court - has to be convicted of a crime, lose a lawsuit, etc. - in order to file an appeal. The plaintiff says, in effect, yes, I broke the law (or what have you), but the law is unconstitutional. Correct me if I'm wrong

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. .

It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom?

You wouldn't.

So I am correct, then, in assuming that this court case is invalid?

It seems so to me. But I am not a lawyer.

[MrBenjamatic]

Here we go...

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings.

Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others.

When a fighter enters the first round of a match, it is possible to "punch oneself out" by throwing too many punches, with too much energy, far too fast. When this happens, by the second or third round, the fighter has nothing left in terms of energy, and his arms are worn out.

The phrase has nothing to do with civility or being vulgar or disrespectful.

If you are still here posting in a month, or if this thread is still going strong, I promise to apologize. Fair enough?

If I remember correctly, you said you're an objectivist and Carol said you were a lawyer. Do you know if a suit can be filed against a government agency or sanctioned collective for merely enforcing laws which force the unforceful against their will? I haven't yet committed civil disobedience and been caught (calling myself an architect in public which is against the law if I don't serve those I'm suing). Can I, without yet being forced, file a suit against those who make unconstitutional laws which, by law, will force me if I break them?

[anthony]

As for forgiveness: I regard it as evil. Ask yourself if you've ever forgiven someone for being good. What then is forgiveness if not the sanction and support of evil.

Best,

PBH

*I looked up hyperfocus and this is what I found: Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind. As I accept the laws of logic as irrefutable axiomatic absolutes, as I accept reason as an objective absolute and as I know this is an objective reality, I thereby am not, by this description, experiencing hyperfocus. I think, however, that hyperfocus is experienced by such artists as Salvador Dali and David Lynch and perhaps even Profokiev: all are surreal.

Nope. That is not a Christian "forgiveness" I am advising. My version is closer to forebearance, as in *letting something

go". It's fully rationally selfish to move on from a wrong commited by someone else - the converse, holding on to the

effects of that wrong, will self-evidently do nobody but yourself harm. Also, essentially, you are giving that person

a continuing power over you. (I'd argue it is form of altruism. Anyhow, it certainly isn't a healthy egoism.)

At the rate I think your'e going, it looks like you are accumulating 'evils',left and right - to the point where you could

lose perspective. Some things are bad, some are wrong - but it's the big principles that are evil.

I kinda gather that some Objectivists do condemn too much, early on.

A last piece of advice is: get thee to Branden's books, soonest.

-----------

As for 'hyperfocus', you surely don't believe I'd recommend Holliwell's book if he used it as "separate from objective

reality" - do you? Not a chance! No, he meant it as it reads - a (periodical) highly concentrated state of

consciousness and cognition..

[MrBenjamatic]

As for forgiveness: I regard it as evil. Ask yourself if you've ever forgiven someone for being good. What then is forgiveness if not the sanction and support of evil.

Best,

PBH

*I looked up hyperfocus and this is what I found: Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind. As I accept the laws of logic as irrefutable axiomatic absolutes, as I accept reason as an objective absolute and as I know this is an objective reality, I thereby am not, by this description, experiencing hyperfocus. I think, however, that hyperfocus is experienced by such artists as Salvador Dali and David Lynch and perhaps even Profokiev: all are surreal.

Nope. That is not a Christian "forgiveness" I am advising. My version is closer to forebearance, as in *letting something

go". It's fully rationally selfish to move on from a wrong commited by someone else - the converse, holding on to the

effects of that wrong, will self-evidently do nobody but yourself harm. Also, essentially, you are giving that person

a continuing power over you. (I'd argue it is form of altruism. Anyhow, it certainly isn't a healthy egoism.)

At the rate I think your'e going, it looks like you are accumulating 'evils',left and right - to the point where you could

lose perspective. Some things are bad, some are wrong - but it's the big principles that are evil.

I kinda gather that some Objectivists do condemn too much, early on.

A last piece of advice is: get thee to Branden's books, soonest.

-----------

As for 'hyperfocus', you surely don't believe I'd recommend Holliwell's book if he used it as "separate from objective

reality" - do you? Not a chance! No, he meant it as it reads - a (periodical) highly concentrated state of

consciousness and cognition..

If someone is immoral (evil), I merely don't deal with them if I don't want to and the only reason I deal with those with whom I diagree is to have philosophical discussion as I enjoy understanding epistemology. Otherwise, I guess you could call my ignorance of evil which does not affect me (my life, my rights) ignorance and forbearance.

I'm interested in who you think I'm allowing to hold power over me and how?

I hold I do not lose perspective so long as I hold reason as an objective absolute, act on reason, purpose and self-esteem (which requires that I be virtuous in accordance to objective ethics).

What evils do you think I'm aquiring, why do you think they're evil and how am I aquiring them?

Cognitive is a words defined as being concerned with acquisition of knowledge: relating to the process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception. I am always, not periodically, cognitive. If I gave up my pursuit of knowlege, whether it be philosophical or the metaphysics my architecture presupposes, I'd fall into an unbearable depression and knowledge would be my only practical antidote. As for consciousness, were I to attempt non-thinking, non-focus, I'd fall into a depression as well and consciousnes would be the antidote. The flaw in that theory of hyperfocus is that its not periodical. Yes, sometimes I'm more busy and passionate and inspired than other times but never have I ever lost my passion or my purpose. Sometimes I lose inspiration. Inspiration is periodical, I know. Sometimes I can't think of any big ideas or any ideas at all and my work will either be not original as opposed to my older which already exists or my work will be ugly. But, I can't stop drawing because its incredibly habitual and I'm in love with it.

[anthony]

The licensing laws of a country, controlled by Associations, and backed by the weight of government

are irrational and immoral. As I think you indicated, they are tantamount to asking permission to work and produce.

Do you think though that the officials concerned know they are "slave drivers"?

I haven't followed this thread closely, but it seems you want to challenge the principle in court - and I say:

more power to you. Who knows what may come of it.

But the fundamental reality is that you are swinging at one twig on one branch of a massive tree. The tree of collectivist-statism is evil. The "Altruist Architectural Collective" as you call it, isn't evil in itself - it just IS. It's composed of people who are not philosophers, who accepted from their predecessors that this is the status quo, of how architects, and all professions work. They are unknowing innocents who blindly accepted the system as an automatic, a 'given'. It's a matter partly of perspective and degree: if they are evil "slave drivers", which term does one reserve for the true evil - evil-er, more evil?

Anyway, my drift throughout is less on this, and more on how it affects you: how much can you do before your cause becomes a self-sacrifice? do you want to create, or do you want to fight? is there a way you get around the system, or subvert it to your ends? Those are for you alone to estimate.

A is A, and there are many aspects of Statist force over life and work - everywhere - today that obstruct liberty, and destroy dreams.

You might know this favorite of Rand's: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

[caroljane]

Anyway, my drift throughout is less on this, and more on how it affects you: how much can you do before your cause becomes a self-sacrifice? do you want to create, or do you want to fight? is there a way you get around the system, or subvert it to your ends? Those are for you alone to estimate.

A is A, and there are many aspects of Statist force over life and work - everywhere - today that obstruct liberty, and destroy dreams.

You might know this favorite of Rand's: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Wise words.

[caroljane]

Tony, I cannot help thinking that discovering Rand and swallowing her whole, for the young and psychologically vulnerable, seems to often cause more harm than good for them. The agonizing mistakes, failures and losses of youth, which can only be survived if they teach us to better learn our own limitations and interact productively with others, appear to fuel many of these young people to deny that they have limitations, and attribute their pain solely to enemy "others".

[anthony]

I can only guess what other Objectivists go through, Carol. But I have observed a number by now, and I have my own experiences to go by; and broadly, there is some truth to what you say.

I try to be careful though not to dampen any youngster's passionate spirit for learning (and as a deeply involved teacher, you're certainly of the same mind.)

However one does (don't you?) want to tell a young person: go easy, learn to walk before you run.

Since I read of AR's advice to swallow Objectivism in one gulp, I several times grumbled to myself "Sure, lady, easy for you to say!" Mainly, it is not that easy, and could cause indigestion...

Fact is, O'ism has a simple structure at the top level, which can be grasped quite quickly.

At this level are the basic principles, formed (as I see it)like a group of strongly interlinked pyramids. But one can't stop there, it's essential that one learns to deduce each 'pyramid' down to its concrete, factual level, where they originate - see how they connect with the others

- and then rebuild them with one's own perceptions and inductive input up to the final principle, once again.

Such processes take time, observations, experience and hard thinking. (Years worth, I reckon.)

Rand meticulously showed the way, but it cannot be complete until one does it independently.

Initially, the principles themselves are hugely powerful tools. As any young man will do with a beautiful, complex machine, he must put it to work right away.

When applied to general situations, the results are instantly rewarding for a beginner O'ist.

For me, the sudden grasp of things I'd struggled with was quite an epiphany.

But: The danger of his quick, blanket applications of principle, is in not yet putting in the effort of having derived the abstractions himself - and rationalism (ideas divorced from reality and humanity, and often - from the self) can set in, with negative results. Then great principles become mere, unthinking Rules.

The faults lie not in the philosophy - but in the mistaken practice of it.

O'ism is all based really on learning walking, before you can run,imo.

Only one element of your concerns, but that's it for now.

[Selene]

Hmm, this must be where the Old Oists meet to lecture those young whippersnappers about grabbing for the golden ring on life's spinning merry go round:

Now remember to buckle your seat belt on the horsey...

Put on your bike helmet...

Don't reach too far for your dream...

Walk don't run and never with the scissors...

Bull!!!

Go for it!

Carpe Diem

[anthony]

Ah, well:

You get old O'ists -

and you get bold O'ists -

but you never get old,

bold O'ists.

Carpe Noctum.

[MrBenjamatic]

The licensing laws of a country, controlled by Associations, and backed by the weight of government

are irrational and immoral. As I think you indicated, they are tantamount to asking permission to work and produce.

Do you think though that the officials concerned know they are "slave drivers"?

I haven't followed this thread closely, but it seems you want to challenge the principle in court - and I say:

more power to you. Who knows what may come of it.

But the fundamental reality is that you are swinging at one twig on one branch of a massive tree. The tree of collectivist-statism is evil. The "Altruist Architectural Collective" as you call it, isn't evil in itself - it just IS. It's composed of people who are not philosophers, who accepted from their predecessors that this is the status quo, of how architects, and all professions work. They are unknowing innocents who blindly accepted the system as an automatic, a 'given'. It's a matter partly of perspective and degree: if they are evil "slave drivers", which term does one reserve for the true evil - evil-er, more evil?

Anyway, my drift throughout is less on this, and more on how it affects you: how much can you do before your cause becomes a self-sacrifice? do you want to create, or do you want to fight? is there a way you get around the system, or subvert it to your ends? Those are for you alone to estimate.

A is A, and there are many aspects of Statist force over life and work - everywhere - today that obstruct liberty, and destroy dreams.

You might know this favorite of Rand's: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

The despots know, to the degree they are able ignore it, that they are despots. They know they're liers as they can't avoid that fact no matter how hard they try to (and they violently try to). They passionatly try to convince themselves and others that they are working for a good cause because they're afraid of knowing they're evil (unfit for existence). They feel like they're running from a monster and they're too terrified to know that that monster is theirself. They're what Rand called parasites of lunacy. A mere lunatic has a mind which he divorced from reality; he doesn't care whether others believe in the non-reality he imagined which he holds as reality. A parasite of lunacy believes that if others believe in the non-reality they attempt to create, those who believe in it will create it by believing in it. For example, say the parasite of lunacy wishes the sky was orange; they believe if they get the majority of people or a certain number of people to believe that the sky is orange, it will turn orange for the mere reason that a certain number of people believed it was orange. Thas why they're called parasites of lunacy; they parasitically depend on others lunacy. Only a lunatic would take on faith that the sky is orange, that is the lunacy the parasites of lunacy depend on. The despots have a wildly insane epistemology. Its so wildly insane I'm interested by it.

I want to create; that is the reason I'm fighting. The liberty to accept commissions (when and if they're offered) is a precondition of my architecture. How can I build when I'd be fined and arrested, and, if I, before getting arrested, constructed architecture, it would be torn down by the government after they found out how to tear it down. My means of construction are different and much more strong than modern architecture.

And Ayn Rand was a bold O'ist. Don't you agree?

And as for your saying "it has to be done independently" I completely agree. I studied Objectivism by learning the basics first: reason. I learned about reason and orinally thought it was the same as thinking. Anyway, I merely accepted reason and the laws of logic as objective absolutes, made my own conclusions then compared them to Rand's. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith.

To all who say I will wear myself out, I won't ask you to take me on faith that I won't. Only time can convince you. I'm as passionate about Objectivism as I have been about architecture since I was five. That's a long time. I have a great abilty and I know it and I would rot if I didn't exersize it; if I slowed down and tonned down my passionate pursuit, I'd rot. I'm sure others would tire out if they attempted my passionate pursuit of philosophy (which I pursue for the sole sake of my architecture (and life but my life would be worthless without my architecture)). Again, I've been this passionate about my architecture since age five and my work is the reason I found and studied Objectivism; I studied it for the sake of understanding better the reality in which I will build and to gain and keep the liberty to accept commissions when they're offered. Were philosophy unrelated to my work, I'd not be passionate about or interested in it whatsoever. But philosophy pertains to everything that exists including politics (liberty). What good is being the greatest architect in the history of mankind (which I've held as truth since at most age 16 and I'm 22) without the liberty to accept commissions? Had I had the liberty to accept commissions, I would by no means be this passionate about philosophy and I would not have discovered Ayn Rand.

[caroljane]

Ayn Rand was indeed bold. But she developed her philosophical ideas along with her creative work, and was a successful author before she formulated Objectivism.

Carol

Old and Timid

[anthony]

I was being facetious. Hell, I reckon I am old and bold.

The despots. Do you appreciate the distinction between ignorance

and evasion? These faceless little bureaucrats are hardly gas chamber

operators.

[MrBenjamatic]

I was being facetious. Hell, I reckon I am old and bold.

The despots. Do you appreciate the distinction between ignorance

and evasion? These faceless little bureaucrats are hardly gas chamber

operators.

The despots evade, they may be ignorant, but the point is they refuse to think and believe they have the right to enslave others and act on that premise. They're worse than gas chamber operators. Gas chamber operaters sentence instant death. Modern despots, toddlers in Washington sentence, by law, death by slow torture: a slow, tortously unbearable metaphorical choking on red tape

Carol: Did you miss that I'm studying and developing my philosophy (that which guides my life objectively in accordance to Objectivism) along with my pursuit of creative work? I don't ask this as an insult but I thought I was clear and I only found out about Rand a year and a half ago and I'd been in a passionate pursuit of architecture since age 5. Gaining and keeping my architecture, since five, has always been a matter of life and death; and I've always, since five, been that passionate about sustaining my work and life. I think a great many think I found out about Rand and increased my speed and passion. I haven't, it's the same as it's always been. I make myself clear and my intentions clear as it would be just to remove hyper pretentious people from this website and I think if I don't prove I'm not pretentious I'll be removed and I like this website

[caroljane]

I never thought you were pretentious, I know you are 100% sincere. I was implying though, that the speed and passion with which we pursue our prevailing interests in childhood and adolescence, change rhythm as we enter young adulthood and are balanced with other things that we must deal with. We cannot live an adult life without transcending our younger selves.

[caroljane]

Since age 5, Ayn Rand was a writer and she wrote all her life. In her 20s she decided she wanted to be a writer in America. The requirement was, she had to learn English. Considering her talents, it was an irrational requirement, as she could surely have expressed herself better in her native language. But she was prevented from selling her writing in America, until she learned English.

[MrBenjamatic]

Since age 5, Ayn Rand was a writer and she wrote all her life. In her 20s she decided she wanted to be a writer in America. The requirement was, she had to learn English. Considering her talents, it was an irrational requirement, as she could surely have expressed herself better in her native language. But she was prevented from selling her writing in America, until she learned English.

I think it is no coincidence that Rand, Mozy, Lionel Yu (my favorite composer) and I all started our pursuits at age 5. I wonder why she had Roark know he wanted to be an architect at the late age of 10 (or 11 I don't remember, but it's either or). Perhaps she pictured Henry Cameron as starting at a younger age as he created a new architecture which presupposed new means of construction whereas Roark took Cameron's work as material and originated the next step following, I think, Camerons means of construction (which he created and which his architecture presupposed). I would compare myself with Cameron, professionally, more than I would with Roark; just as I would compare myself more to Louis Sullivan more than Frank Lloyd Wright. Sullivan and the fictional Cameron did, in fact, take historic and already existing architecture as material, but the steps they originated went further from those historical styles than Roarks furtherance of Cameron's work and Wrights furtherance of Sullivan's work. When I say furtherance, I mean, of course, taking existing creations as material, using them, and originating the next step.

I thought you and others might, as I did, laugh with (of course not at) this FLW quote I found. I don't remember it exactly and I can't find it online so it may not be word for word accurate but I'll capture the gist. Upon being asked whether he was a bit immodest in referring to himself (in a court trial) as the world's greatest architect, Frank Lloyd Wright replied, "Well I was under oath wasn't I?"

[anthony]

MrBen,

In "it has to be done independently" my context was the necessity of unpacking

all the Objectivist principles, (and the principles O'ism opposes, too, btw)

and re-building them oneself, independently.

Making them your own. So to speak.

You are still at the stage of applying the finished principles as formulated by Rand,

but without ownership of them - I believe. This is rationalistic.

It's evident you have a very good, independent mind, and are catching on fast..

You also have an excellent "sense of life"! As AR named it.

Until you've studied and grasped her key essays in VoS and ItOE, and understood

her metaphysics and epistemology, you are taking the morality on faith.

Rational egoism is preceded by, and based on those two.

(Also, individual rights are founded on rational egoism, not directly on logic as

I think you've said.) The Lexicon is terrific for 'potted' answers, but not nearly

enough: the full explanations and proofs are in the books.

Good reading...

[Reidy]

Actually she picked her career at nine, according to a letter she printed up to answer fan mail for The Fountainhead.

The Wright quote is amply available online, but nobody gives a source. I doubt its accuracy. Rand talked about it in The Objectivist once, in 1967. Someone wrote in, citing this story as one case in point and asking why the magazine never published good news or examples of admirable behavior. AR replied that the magazine was interested in historical trends or milestones, not in isolated, anecdotal examples. The story is charming, she said, and FLlW was the greatest architect of modern times, perhaps of all time, but "philosophically he was anything but an Objectivist."

[MrBenjamatic]

MrBen,

In "it has to be done independently" my context was the necessity of unpacking

all the Objectivist principles, (and the principles O'ism opposes, too, btw)

and re-building them oneself, independently.

Making them your own. So to speak.

You are still at the stage of applying the finished principles as formulated by Rand,

but without ownership of them - I believe. This is rationalistic.

It's evident you have a very good, independent mind, and are catching on fast..

You also have an excellent "sense of life"! As AR named it.

Until you've studied and grasped her key essays in VoS and ItOE, and understood

her metaphysics and epistemology, you are taking the morality on faith.

Rational egoism is preceded by, and based on those two.

(Also, individual rights are founded on rational egoism, not directly on logic as

I think you've said.) The Lexicon is terrific for 'potted' answers, but not nearly

enough: the full explanations and proofs are in the books.

Good reading...

You're absolutely right that morality is based on metaphysics and epistemology. I've always held her basic premises regarding metaphysics. I didn't even have to study her metaphysics that much. So long as the laws of logic and the law of Causality is valid, metaphysics is understandable to me. In fact, I remember, the first question I ever asked about architecture (that I can remember) which I think began my pursuit, I asked when I was five in the car with dad; I asked Dad (but was really asking of myself), "Building a house shouldn't be hard. All I have to do is glue bricks togather -right?" No architect could be an architect without grasping metaphysics so far as his work is concerned and I made a point to do so. That being said, it was the epistemology that was a little bit of trouble. I took altruist morality on faith and accepted the unearned guilt of being evil (and my view of evil consitered it to be good to be evil; my view of the evil was pretty close to Rands view of the good). I did, incidentally, try to grasp and understand her morality before understanding a bit about Rands epistemology, and it was difficult so I realized that morality must be based on it. So, yes, I had to grasp her epistemology before grasping her morality. Though I didn't completely catch on to the fact that morality is based absolutely on epistemology and metaphysics, I did learn morality while not completely understand the basics of epistemology to the degree I did understanding the basics of epistemology. My pursuit of philosophy must be very odd as compared to others. I took what I thought to be the that upon which Objectivism is based and further it myself then compare my views to its creator, Ayn Rand, to check my premises and correct my contradictions. Because my pursuit is what it is, I was able to reach conclusions that Rand didn't reach that don't contradict Objectivist principles; as evidence I give you the end of this post and my political post. Many have said I've been bold and I think its fair to say that I have as I've come to different conclusions. But I've made a point to constantly check my premises and correct my contradictions. Like I said, I've been, since I began my conscious pursuit of philosophy, comparing my independent conclusions (which I reached by furthering the basic axioms and principles of Objectivism) to Ayn Rand using Ayn Rand Lexicon. That is why my premises are my own. How could they not be? In what specific section of my philosophy do you think I reached by rationalization? I'm interested.

I completely agree with you. I do have a sense of life. J'aime la vie! J'aime la vie!

Do you now understand why I only needed the "potted answers" of ARL because I did my own thinking based on Objectivist principles and axioms? Can you see how thats possible. I find my conclusions don't, at all, contradict Objectism; I'm reading Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal right now and I agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand all that I've been reading. Rand and I agree and reach similiar non-contradictory conclusions because truth is truth and the true never contradicts the true. Not a single thing of Rand that I've read has contradicted me, to the extent of my knowlege.

*New: I said, in the first question, that my question might have began my pursuit of architecture. I thought for a second and realized I wouldn't have asked that question had I not yet been interested in architecture. I don't ask questions which I don't care about the answer to

[PDS]

Since age 5, Ayn Rand was a writer and she wrote all her life. In her 20s she decided she wanted to be a writer in America. The requirement was, she had to learn English. Considering her talents, it was an irrational requirement, as she could surely have expressed herself better in her native language. But she was prevented from selling her writing in America, until she learned English.

I think it is no coincidence that Rand, Mozy, Lionel Yu (my favorite composer) and I all started our pursuits at age 5. I wonder why she had Roark know he wanted to be an architect at the late age of 10 (or 11 I don't remember, but it's either or). Perhaps she pictured Henry Cameron as starting at a younger age as he created a new architecture which presupposed new means of construction whereas Roark took Cameron's work as material and originated the next step following, I think, Camerons means of construction (which he created and which his architecture presupposed). I would compare myself with Cameron, professionally, more than I would with Roark; just as I would compare myself more to Louis Sullivan more than Frank Lloyd Wright. Sullivan and the fictional Cameron did, in fact, take historic and already existing architecture as material, but the steps they originated went further from those historical styles than Roarks furtherance of Cameron's work and Wrights furtherance of Sullivan's work. When I say furtherance, I mean, of course, taking existing creations as material, using them, and originating the next step.

I thought you and others might, as I did, laugh with (of course not at) this FLW quote I found. I don't remember it exactly and I can't find it online so it may not be word for word accurate but I'll capture the gist. Upon being asked whether he was a bit immodest in referring to himself (in a court trial) as the world's greatest architect, Frank Lloyd Wright replied, "Well I was under oath wasn't I?"

Before I became a lawyer, I was inclined to compare myself to either Clarence Darrow or a young Abraham Lincoln, with a dash of Johnie Cochran thrown in somewhere. Oliver Wendell Holmes too. So, yeah, I do know how you feel.

[MrBenjamatic]

Actually she picked her career at nine, according to a letter she printed up to answer fan mail for The Fountainhead.

The Wright quote is amply available online, but nobody gives a source. I doubt its accuracy. Rand talked about it in The Objectivist once, in 1967. Someone wrote in, citing this story as one case in point and asking why the magazine never published good news or examples of admirable behavior. AR replied that the magazine was interested in historical trends or milestones, not in isolated, anecdotal examples. The story is charming, she said, and FLlW was the greatest architect of modern times, perhaps of all time, but "philosophically he was anything but an Objectivist."

Whoops! Took someone on faith. Where is your evidence that she started at that age. That makes more sense that she started at that age as she had Roark start at 10.

I remember it being in a newspaper article published online. Why do you doubt its accuracy? I do agree about his philosophy. How far that man was from Roark. I've thought his sense of life is vulgar. Have you seen a video of that man? His early work is genius but looking at his later work, I think he was swallowed by mediocrity. He must have lost his sense of self. I don't like his work but I most definently know its great. His Guggenheim is, however, not. But, then again, I haven't studied him at all and I haven't studied modern architecture except for in college during which I couldn't bring myself to study what I was told. Had Frank been an Objectivist, I'm sure his work would be better. Objectivism furthered my work immensely. I wonder, sometimes, if Profokiev had agreed with and understood objectivism he would have been Romantic insted of surreal and abstract. Actually, I know he would have been, I just wish he had. His Sleeping Beauty Waltz is glamourous enough evidence that he was capable of Romanticism. I like his Dance of the Knights, I used to listen to it as a battle hymn when I thought I was a villain.

Your interest reads you like music. My three favorite composers I discovered not so long ago and are all ingenius and unrecognized. Very much like non-fiction Richard Halleys. Have you heard of Lionel Yu (my favorite), Bogdan Alin Ota or Karl Jenkins. I'll post, for yours and others convenience links to a song by each (which are different from my earlier postings of them in this very discussion)

Lionel Yu:

Bogdan Alin Ota:

[MrBenjamatic]

Karl Jenkins: