A New Architecture, Couture,

[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?"

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.

I know it. You knew why I posted that. ;)

So you're an Objectivist lawyer. Thats so awesome!

[Reidy]

The reason I doubt the under-oath quote is that I've never seen plausible detail, from a reputable journalistic or scholarly source, as to where and when he said it. Twice I've heard people say that it happened at the McCarthy hearings, but Wright never testified there.

My evidence that Rand picked her career at nine is, as mentioned, a letter she printed up in the 1940s to answer her fan mail. Barbara Branden's biographical essay in Who is Ayn Rand? tells the same story.

[william.scherk]

I am no architect and no maven of couture, haute or lowbrow. Something in Philip's sketches (and one sculpture set) made me do a Google Image trawl, and put together some of what I found that reminded me of Philip's strivings. Garnier's sculptural masses atop the Paris Opera, the morning view of Angkor Wat's skyline, the stylized effusions of Baroque, Rococo, Gaudi ...

I hope you could push past the sketches and make more sculptures/models and more careful, detailed plans, Philip. Even if you never get a guild recognition or win a lawsuit to style yourself a professional architect, good plans can still get built and are often a delight and an artform in themselves. In wood, in fabric, in clay, concrete, in scale and in mininature, not merely on paper. See the fabulous Coral Castle for an example of what a non-architect built in his own lifetime ...

Are any of your confections destined to be this big or this expensive or this lengthy to build?

Edited August 23, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

My associate is an admirer of Leedskalnin. Frankly, I have become convinced that the man was truly special.

Adam

[caroljane]

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

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

I was not sure of her age, but I picked 5 to draw the parallel with Mr Ben. I wanted to lead to the hurdles she had to overcome to pursue her later career.

I take it on faith that you have hurdles, Ben, but what realistic plans do you have to overcome them?

From two real-life examples you admire -

Ayn Rand wanted to be a writer in America, so she had to go through a lot of red tape to get there, and to learn a second language.

PDS wanted to be a lawyer, so he had to graduate law school where he probably had to study things he was not interested in and suffer sleep deprivation.

Even Mozart once had to work for a boss who eventually kicked him bodily off the premises.

[MrBenjamatic]

I am no architect and no maven of couture, haute or lowbrow. Something in Philip's sketches (and one sculpture set) made me do a Google Image trawl, and put together some of what I found that reminded me of Philip's strivings. Garnier's sculptural masses atop the Paris Opera, the morning view of Angkor Wat's skyline, the stylized effusions of Baroque, Rococo, Gaudi ...

I hope you could push past the sketches and make more sculptures/models and more careful, detailed plans, Philip. Even if you never get a guild recognition or win a lawsuit to style yourself a professional architect, good plans can still get built and are often a delight and an artform in themselves. In wood, in fabric, in clay, concrete, in scale and in mininature, not merely on paper. See the fabulous Coral Castle for an example of what a non-architect built in his own lifetime ...

Are any of your confections destined to be this big or this expensive or this lengthy to build?

I never looked into Gaudi until now. Yes, he was great. I can tell: he designed his own furniture, he didn't care what others thought of it, he loved his work and theres flow and integrity in his work. The second video I didn't at all find to be great. My work is going to be very grand in scale. It will also be expensive as I'll be using gems (my favorite being malachite) which will have to be tiled (the tiles somes being sculptured) and they'll be placed by hand. I will have some windows which are liquid crystal so I'll be able to project images and videos (of my work). I've been thinking of a way to have a glass, somewhat like this one tile I saw, be sensitive to rain; when its hit by a raindrop Benjamatic line will sprout from that point in all directions. That will be expensive and I don't even know if its possible to have liquid crystal in a non-flat form. It should be but it will be very expensive and obviously bespoke. My work will be very intricate. Incidentally, the purpose of my pursuit is to please my senses. For example I know I can integrate perfumed wax falls into my architecture; like waterfalls but lighted but insted sporting perfumed wax so to please my sense of smell. That is one of the many ways my architecture is voluptuous to the nose. I know a certain way to have a fire-fall (like a waterfall but fire) magnetically levitate and be perfumed and I know a certain way to control and change the color of the firefall electronically. One interesting thing about my work is the magnetically levitating elements, sculpture and furniture. I have discovered a way to move magnetically levitating objects that has never been done before; its the furtherance of the maglev trains. I don't like magnetic trains as they're wibbly wobbly so I created a solution. There will be holography in my work; the holography of Nasser Peyghambarian (whose still in his pursuit of completion and will start his very own holography company). To please my sense of touch all padding, seating and bedding will be sunmate by Dynamic Systems (created by the great creator of "memory foam": Charles Yost). I know the measurements and the amounts of the different types of memory foam I'll use as I'll be stacking them and they'll be custum to their surroundings. The windows will be shaped like sculpture and will be very intricate (and when I say sculpture I don't mean merely nudes and statues I mean architectural shape). Of course, to view nature, some windows will be flat and the sculptured windows will have sections that are flat. My panes will be metal. My architecture is not ample in wood and it is only used as decoration. My favorite woods are the burls and I'll only use those woods. No mahogany, no oak, no nonsense! My work will NEVER be supported by wood, only by Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel, the newest and greatest metal on the market created by Gary Cola) and in 5-10 years Buckeypaper (which is been worked on at a university in Florida and which is 500 times stronger than steel and 10 times lighter). There will be a lot of fur in my architecture. All bedding will be magnetically attactched so it can be removed easily and each bed and chair will have (in its storage compartment) available a covering option of fur, jersey and silk (cashmere too if it gets very cold). I am also very good at placing speakers so to make excellent surround sound. I've been fiddling with things to make perfect arrangements for as loing as I can remember and i do it CONSTANTLY. Hmmm. My work will include fluorescence integrated into the architecture down to every detail in some areas. I plan on making molds to pour fluroescent rocks into (I'll have to call today as I found out a week ago my molding process won't workfor gems and rocks without ruining them or changing their color when I melt them to pour: I was told by a metallurgist it could be done but I should have called more people). There's sooooooooo much more thats new and luxurious about my architecture and I could talk about it for hours! THANKS FOR ASKING! I love talking about it!

I'd build more sculpture if I wasn't poor and my parents didn't throw away all my clay from my apartment before I moved home. I've done other sculpture and I know that my sculptural work will be different once I find my hands on clay again. Since that scultpure was created my work has drastically changed. It's much more evolved.

Once I have the money, which I plan to make by selling my book, I'll make sculpture have it 3d scanned and investment casted. I will also make perfume. Thats not too terribly regulated. I would create cigarrettes to sell but, with that damn crony Philip Morris, I will, for now, only make them for myself. I have a lot on my platter but my standards and my platter are no larger than my ability. Ones standards and pursuit is always bounded by ones ability.

Btw, had Leedskalnin built the Coral Castle today he would be arrested and fined. Building anything which will be inhabited by humans and calling oneself or creating landscape architecture is against the law without government licensing and after that they control your work. In order to achieve their license, for interior design, architecture and landscape architecture I'd have to involuntarily serve three different "professional" regulation collectives. The local city boards can vote away your (architectural and probably landscape architectural) designs and permit you to do only what they allow; I think in landscape architecture, as with architecture, you have to have your plans approved before building. They can deny you because they think your work is ugly (but only by making that which you want to do against the law first). Even if I did get my architectural license I wouldn't be allowed to be a landscape architecture or design and arrange the furniture for my architecture. I'd have to get degrees in architecture, landscape architecture AND interior design. All those that regulate are mediocrities who hate their superiers and thereby force them with government guns not to be superior. May they choke on their intellectual sewage and drown.

Carol: My absolutely logical court suit is my solution to the hurdle of red tape. My upcoming book and the job which I'm going to, but haven't yet, gotten are my means of escaping to this Hell under the whip of my parents. Creating my architecture is something I always pursue to make life worth living and this unjust hell in my way worth battling. As I think I said in another discussion, for all problems virtue is the only solution.

[caroljane]

Maybe you could get a commission from John Allison, and the Cato Institute could fountainhead your building and legal costs. Stranger things have happened.

[MrBenjamatic]

I'd gladly accept a commission from anyone if it weren't against the law.

[caroljane]

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

[MrBenjamatic]

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

[caroljane]

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

Maybe that's why many "true Objectivists" do not have much sense of humour. Ayn Rand didn't.

[MrBenjamatic]

Thats debatable. One's sense of humor pertains to ones philosophy. My sense of humor consists of pretending to take the stupid seriously. Will Ferrell does, I think, the same only I take it to the extreme. For example, my parents are evil (and thereby stupid: its stupid to be evil and evil to be stupid). Stupidity consists of refusing to think. Whenever my parents tried to dictate to me, I used to and sometimes still do pretend to be incredibly dimwitted (as someone with down syndrome) and pretend to take what they say seriously or most recently pretend to take them on faith (still pretending to have down syndrome). I think its hilarious! I've been doing that since around age 4 or 5. They become furious (which is as funny as my act) and try to pretend that I'm actually stupid so to think that they're ability is greater than mine; they're utterly jealous of me. Now keep in mind I'm not making fun of down syndrome. The difference between down syndrome and stupidity is that down syndrome is something one is born with. Stupidity is a lifestyle choice.

As for Ayn Rand, I;ve heard her crack jokes. She made a funny one about her view of Elvis.

[caroljane]

I didn't say she had no sense of humour, I said not much.

So your sense of humour consists of pretending to be what you aren't. Interesting.

[MrBenjamatic]

I only pretend to be stupid around incredibly evil people such as my parents. I haven't performed that pretend stupid act around anyone else other than my parents. If someone does or says something stupid sometimes I laugh it depends. I remember bursting out laughing while working on a floorplan or an elevation (I don't remember) and, on youtube, I heard Obama say, "You didn't build that somebody else made that happen". Consitering what I was working on, that's one of the funniest things I've heard.

If I was in a room with a dictator who forced me, I would, undoubtedly, put on a down syndrome face and pretend to take him seriously when he talked and reply with the most stupid remarks I could think of. I guess that act is my way of dealing with being forced to hate people by their force which forces me to deal with them. Now that I think of it, it would be fair to say its my way of making fun of pure evil. I think its incredibly just and incredibly funny. I giggled just thinking about it and the face of Mom when I do it.

Have you seen Dot from Madtv? That was a funny one. I probably wouldn't go as far as that, but God, how funny that girl was.

Now that I think about it, if I was in a room with a dictator I wouldn't help him pretend that I'm stupid or that he's not a tyrant. It would be much more serious than dealing with my parents. I could run away from my parents. An American dictator I could not escape, there's no where to defect to. I would act as Galt did when held hostage in the hotel.

[Brant Gaede]

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

Your court case may be perfectly logical. But isn't there a saying that "any idea, when taken to its logical extreme, becomes ridiculous"?

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

Maybe that's why many "true Objectivists" do not have much sense of humour. Ayn Rand didn't.

Not true. I once heard her make the whole Ford Hall Forum break up in laughter and not by cracking a joke but telling a story. Her humor was quite delimited, but it came out every once in a while. In her public evaluations of humor she was even more delimited than personally. The only reason I'd like to go back in time and know her personally would be to see how she'd react to my off the cuff almost continuous humorous remarks. Everywhere I go I seem to be able to make people laugh by the way I see things and express them and not by being a comedian, btw. From what I've heard, seemingly I was doing the same as a boy. There used to be some "Look at me, look at me!" in it, but when I understood that I simply rent it out. The way I use humor is an easy way to connect with people superficially, but the serious stuff is the difficult stuff and that humor really provides no foundation for it. It's fun and social lubrication.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I'll take your word Brant. I only know her from her writings.

[MrBenjamatic]

Here we go...

I have read some of Capitalism and it hasn't yet contradicted my justification of rights. I have discovered there is much I have to learn. I returned Capitalism to the library as I think it will be practical to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, then David Harriman's The Logical Leap (on induction & deduction), then The Virtue of Selfishness before reading Capitalism as politics is justified by epistemology, metaphysics and morality.

If your suggestion of humility regards the degree I post my philosophy at present before it's not completely Objectivist, I agree with you. I will be putting at least a year of thinking into Objectivist philosophy before having others check my premises again. That is the reason I joined this website, if I found I had a lot of contradictions, I would offer my gratitude to those who checked my premises and go back to studying. I took a break from studying objectivism to talk on Objectivist Living, I had always wanted to have philosophical conversation with an objectivist. You think I'm pretentious: that I pretend to understand Objectivism more than I actually do. I probably am pretentious in regards to understanding objectivism but I'm sure I'll be less so in a year. I thought I had a much better grasp on it than I did. I might stop by the website every once and a while and make posts, but not as much as I did till now. I'll still come here to remind myself I'm not the only one in the world at present who thinks. It helps knowing others do. Its what Rand called fuel just like listening to Lionel Yu, Bogdan Alin Ota and Rachmaninoff.

I joined this website to have my premises checked by Objectivists after diligently studying Objectivism for 1.5 years. Non-objectivists asked questions, too, which provoked thought. I came to Objectivist Living because I love thinking. The questions you posters asked me I asked of myself. I answered them to the extent of my knowledge and I've posted my full answers- answers I intended for myself -answers bound only by my knowledge- and I thought no evil could come from honesty. But it was not honesty which has repulsed you, it was that I expected, without really thinking about it, others to take my knowledge of my architecture (of which I didn't provide sensory evidence) on faith. To the extent of my knowledge I am who I've claimed to be. To the extent of your knowledge, I'm not. You are just, PDS. Just as you have concluded that God doesn't exist due to the absolute lack of sensory evidence so you have concluded that my ability, talent, and virtue are not as great as I've claimed due to lack of sensory evidence. You are repulsed because I claim to be much more virtuous than I can prove with sensory evidence. It takes great virtue to create a new architecture and a new means of construction. After 17 years in my diligent pursuit of architecture, I know I am able to construct my architecture. I'm honest enough to admit that I needed recognition and respect for my virtue, talent and ability, and, if modern law were different I wouldn't be so desperate for it; I would have expected recognition once I could prove with physical buildings that my architecture and means of construction is new and I achieved it alone without help. I can't prove that I'm virtuous, talented and able enough to construct my work, virtue in the field of architecture is illegal, talent is forbidden and ability is bridled. It's pretentious incompetent gangsters doing it, as Frank Lloyd Wright said. I have claimed to be the great creator of a heroic architecture without offering sensory evidence that it can exist in physical form. I don't expect you to comprehend what my work will look like off paper in physical form by merely looking at my sketches which many people have referred to as scribbles. PDS, you said you liked my work. Almost instantly after reading your post (in the discussion: Metaphysical Argument Against Objectivism which I'm responding to) I was subconsciously driven to think of the reason why Gail Wynand did not want to meet the creators of the art he bought, hid and adored. It repulsed you that I who made those sketches you like, expected you to take me on faith and respect me for virtue without proving I have practiced it. You were repulsed by my claiming great ability as justification for my posts. I know I have a great mind, you don't; the only sensory evidence you can go by is my philosophical posts and I've reached contradictions on the website. I still hold that there are no contradictions in my justification of rights. You were annoyed at my bold conclusions. I know you think I'm pretentious. At first I thought you might think I'm immoral (which is why I thought of Wynand) but I know I'm not as I'm a thinker. I used to be immoral to the degree I took altruist morality on faith, accepted the unearned guilt of being pure evil and acted on emotion (as I did when dealing with my tyrannical parents). I have made more mistakes and have been more immoral in my past than Howard Roark, and perhaps that repulsed you to. I wish I could prove to you who I am; I wish I could offer you Benjamatic architecture to walk through because that would mean I would have earned the present. But wishing won't make it so and I will never again expect anyone to take me on faith. I should not preach to have great virtue, talent and ability without having sensory evidence to prove it and expect Objectivists to respect me. Taking what I've preached on faith would contradict the grounds upon which Objectivism rests. I expected respect from Objectivists for my virtue, talent and ability, especially after discovering that the creator of the philosophy wrote a book portraying an architect as a hero who created a new architecture. But respect and love can only be earned with proof of virtue. You were just to be repulsed by me: I expected love without proving that I deserved it. I know I deserve it but you can't know that as I can't prove virtue beyond sketches due to legality.

Expecting love without proving virtue is expecting to be loved without standard. To ask you to love without standards is to ask to not to love the virtuous and thereby to love no one. Brant was repulsed by my post on the discussion Love and Ownership as to the extent of his knowledge I'm a grandiose pretentious worm pretending to be a heroic creator presumptuously struggling to learn objectivism while evading reality. WhyNot has reached the same conclusion and with justice. I couldn't fathom why no one respected me as I know I deserve to be respected. I couldn't stop thinking to understand why you, an objectivist, would call me a parody in mockery of Objectivism, why you, and Objectivist, would be repulsed by my immodesty, why you, an Objectivist, would be repulsed by me in the first place. I now know why. I will no longer claim virtue, talent and ability which I cannot prove you despite my knowledge of my worth. To you, PDS, to Brant to WhyNot and to everyone else repulsed by me, I sincerely apologise for expecting you to take me on faith and respect me without offering proof of my virtue, talent and ability (and thereby logically asking you to love no one). I laughed when I saw a boy on Piekoffs facebook pretending to be a creator. To you all, I must not be much more ridiculous and contemptible that that kid -except my profile picture doesn't include a photo of me with pretentiously wide eyes in attempt to immitate Howard Roark and a bath towel wrapped around my head, holding the DIM Hypothesis. I would have saved that kids photo for laughs before he deleted his profile but it was more contemptible than funny.

Anyway, I'm going back to study Objectivism. Incidentally, as I already awared you of my epistemological process, I think you will agree that after reading David Harrimans The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectvist Epistemology and after much more thinking, my epistemology will improve. I'll still be on the website but not as much and I won't really post much until my knowlege of Objectivism has doubled: I'm reading The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness then Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal.

Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother

PBH

[caroljane]

You are concluding that others are "repulsed" by you because you have not earned their 'love?" I think you are muddling your threads here, jumping to conclusions and also, reading your Rand in the wrong order. Start with what she wrote first. Peikoff is a commentator on Rand and Harriman is an advisor to Peikoff.

Carol

Excluded middle

[MrBenjamatic]

I expected the unearned as I didn't prove virtue which is what makes love possible. I'm not the best at reading people but I do think people on this forum are repulsed by me (but as to what degree I don't know). I know at least some of them have concluded I have an overbearing sense of self-worth (which is arrogance). I always seem to infuriate people without knowing why. Objectivism is helping me understand why I've been hated (though I don't think anyone hates me here only that they're, to a degree, repulsed). Of course understanding that is not my reason for understanding Objectivism.

[caroljane]

I expected the unearned as I didn't prove virtue which is what makes love possible. I'm not the best at reading people but I do think people on this forum are repulsed by me (but as to what degree I don't know). I know at least some of them have concluded I have an overbearing sense of self-worth (which is arrogance). I always seem to infuriate people without knowing why. Objectivism is helping me understand why I've been hated (though I don't think anyone hates me here only that they're, to a degree, repulsed). Of course understanding that is not my reason for understanding Objectivism.

For crying out loud, did you not notice the Middle I signed with?

People do not react to new people with love or hate. Usually, especially on this forum, it is polite interest. Love and hate are for real-life , personal relationships, not internet discussions. Of course over time these can become personal. But it is your ideas and arguments, not your personality whatever it is, that we respond to. We do not know you, but only what you say. Every individual has his own reaction to your writings and to their own evaluation of your study of objectivism. I have indicated mine. I don't hate you and do not feel repulsed. I don't love you either, why should I? Unlike you, I do not believe that love can be earned.

I still like your ideas about wedding dresses.

[Reidy]

Where did you get the quote about "pretentious, incompetent gangsters"? In years of studying Wright, I've never seen it.

[Brant Gaede]

Whether love can be earned or not, Carol, depends on quite a few variables. Love, however, must be maintained, which is difficult.

--Brant

[anthony]

I expected the unearned as I didn't prove virtue which is what makes love possible. I'm not the best at reading people but I do think people on this forum are repulsed by me (but as to what degree I don't know). I know at least some of them have concluded I have an overbearing sense of self-worth (which is arrogance). I always seem to infuriate people without knowing why. Objectivism is helping me understand why I've been hated (though I don't think anyone hates me here only that they're, to a degree, repulsed). Of course understanding that is not my reason for understanding Objectivism.

What can you do - ya just gotta love this guy's spirit!

Mr Ben, Now don't go putting yourself into that hero/martyr mould, you hear?

"Repulsed"? "Infuriated"? - no way; irritated sometimes is all.

See, you're rushing into Objectivism and getting ahead of yourself somewhat.

It's not only about studying O'ism, it's about integrating the philosophy into you -

who and what you are. Never shoe-horning yourself into IT. You've heard that already.

Look on the principles and ethics as your own tool for life - not a club to use on people

(which could be the way of the second-hander, not a rational egoist.)

Me, I think you'll do just fine in future. Amidst your studies, pay some special attention

to Nathaniel Branden's books, I strongly suggest. He makes all the difference, I believe.

Ultimately - I think - if Objectivism ain't human (in the fullest possible sense) it ain't nuthin'.

[PDS]

Here we go...

I have read some of Capitalism and it hasn't yet contradicted my justification of rights. I have discovered there is much I have to learn. I returned Capitalism to the library as I think it will be practical to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, then David Harriman's The Logical Leap (on induction & deduction), then The Virtue of Selfishness before reading Capitalism as politics is justified by epistemology, metaphysics and morality.

If your suggestion of humility regards the degree I post my philosophy at present before it's not completely Objectivist, I agree with you. I will be putting at least a year of thinking into Objectivist philosophy before having others check my premises again. That is the reason I joined this website, if I found I had a lot of contradictions, I would offer my gratitude to those who checked my premises and go back to studying. I took a break from studying objectivism to talk on Objectivist Living, I had always wanted to have philosophical conversation with an objectivist. You think I'm pretentious: that I pretend to understand Objectivism more than I actually do. I probably am pretentious in regards to understanding objectivism but I'm sure I'll be less so in a year. I thought I had a much better grasp on it than I did. I might stop by the website every once and a while and make posts, but not as much as I did till now. I'll still come here to remind myself I'm not the only one in the world at present who thinks. It helps knowing others do. Its what Rand called fuel just like listening to Lionel Yu, Bogdan Alin Ota and Rachmaninoff.

I joined this website to have my premises checked by Objectivists after diligently studying Objectivism for 1.5 years. Non-objectivists asked questions, too, which provoked thought. I came to Objectivist Living because I love thinking. The questions you posters asked me I asked of myself. I answered them to the extent of my knowledge and I've posted my full answers- answers I intended for myself -answers bound only by my knowledge- and I thought no evil could come from honesty. But it was not honesty which has repulsed you, it was that I expected, without really thinking about it, others to take my knowledge of my architecture (of which I didn't provide sensory evidence) on faith. To the extent of my knowledge I am who I've claimed to be. To the extent of your knowledge, I'm not. You are just, PDS. Just as you have concluded that God doesn't exist due to the absolute lack of sensory evidence so you have concluded that my ability, talent, and virtue are not as great as I've claimed due to lack of sensory evidence. You are repulsed because I claim to be much more virtuous than I can prove with sensory evidence. It takes great virtue to create a new architecture and a new means of construction. After 17 years in my diligent pursuit of architecture, I know I am able to construct my architecture. I'm honest enough to admit that I needed recognition and respect for my virtue, talent and ability, and, if modern law were different I wouldn't be so desperate for it; I would have expected recognition once I could prove with physical buildings that my architecture and means of construction is new and I achieved it alone without help. I can't prove that I'm virtuous, talented and able enough to construct my work, virtue in the field of architecture is illegal, talent is forbidden and ability is bridled. It's pretentious incompetent gangsters doing it, as Frank Lloyd Wright said. I have claimed to be the great creator of a heroic architecture without offering sensory evidence that it can exist in physical form. I don't expect you to comprehend what my work will look like off paper in physical form by merely looking at my sketches which many people have referred to as scribbles. PDS, you said you liked my work. Almost instantly after reading your post (in the discussion: Metaphysical Argument Against Objectivism which I'm responding to) I was subconsciously driven to think of the reason why Gail Wynand did not want to meet the creators of the art he bought, hid and adored. It repulsed you that I who made those sketches you like, expected you to take me on faith and respect me for virtue without proving I have practiced it. You were repulsed by my claiming great ability as justification for my posts. I know I have a great mind, you don't; the only sensory evidence you can go by is my philosophical posts and I've reached contradictions on the website. I still hold that there are no contradictions in my justification of rights. You were annoyed at my bold conclusions. I know you think I'm pretentious. At first I thought you might think I'm immoral (which is why I thought of Wynand) but I know I'm not as I'm a thinker. I used to be immoral to the degree I took altruist morality on faith, accepted the unearned guilt of being pure evil and acted on emotion (as I did when dealing with my tyrannical parents). I have made more mistakes and have been more immoral in my past than Howard Roark, and perhaps that repulsed you to. I wish I could prove to you who I am; I wish I could offer you Benjamatic architecture to walk through because that would mean I would have earned the present. But wishing won't make it so and I will never again expect anyone to take me on faith. I should not preach to have great virtue, talent and ability without having sensory evidence to prove it and expect Objectivists to respect me. Taking what I've preached on faith would contradict the grounds upon which Objectivism rests. I expected respect from Objectivists for my virtue, talent and ability, especially after discovering that the creator of the philosophy wrote a book portraying an architect as a hero who created a new architecture. But respect and love can only be earned with proof of virtue. You were just to be repulsed by me: I expected love without proving that I deserved it. I know I deserve it but you can't know that as I can't prove virtue beyond sketches due to legality.

Expecting love without proving virtue is expecting to be loved without standard. To ask you to love without standards is to ask to not to love the virtuous and thereby to love no one. Brant was repulsed by my post on the discussion Love and Ownership as to the extent of his knowledge I'm a grandiose pretentious worm pretending to be a heroic creator presumptuously struggling to learn objectivism while evading reality. WhyNot has reached the same conclusion and with justice. I couldn't fathom why no one respected me as I know I deserve to be respected. I couldn't stop thinking to understand why you, an objectivist, would call me a parody in mockery of Objectivism, why you, and Objectivist, would be repulsed by my immodesty, why you, an Objectivist, would be repulsed by me in the first place. I now know why. I will no longer claim virtue, talent and ability which I cannot prove you despite my knowledge of my worth. To you, PDS, to Brant to WhyNot and to everyone else repulsed by me, I sincerely apologise for expecting you to take me on faith and respect me without offering proof of my virtue, talent and ability (and thereby logically asking you to love no one). I laughed when I saw a boy on Piekoffs facebook pretending to be a creator. To you all, I must not be much more ridiculous and contemptible that that kid -except my profile picture doesn't include a photo of me with pretentiously wide eyes in attempt to immitate Howard Roark and a bath towel wrapped around my head, holding the DIM Hypothesis. I would have saved that kids photo for laughs before he deleted his profile but it was more contemptible than funny.

Anyway, I'm going back to study Objectivism. Incidentally, as I already awared you of my epistemological process, I think you will agree that after reading David Harrimans The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectvist Epistemology and after much more thinking, my epistemology will improve. I'll still be on the website but not as much and I won't really post much until my knowlege of Objectivism has doubled: I'm reading The Logical Leap, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness then Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal.

Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother

PBH

Good luck. And Godspeed.

[MrBenjamatic]

Where did you get the quote about "pretentious, incompetent gangsters"? In years of studying Wright, I've never seen it.

If it isn't this one its the other on youtube. I remember watching this when I was starting on my case (or short after). Before I even knew who Ayn Rand was, I was looking for architects who shared my view that architecture presupposes liberty ( the liberty to offer ones work in exchange for money). I thought Frank Lloyd Wright would be the one, but I didn't find much and before I read up on him further than youtube I found an architects quote "a building has integrity just like a man and just as seldom". That architect turned out to be Rand. So I can't say I know much about Frank, other than I don't like his work but I still, none the less, know its great and romantic.

Also, Frank didn't call them pretentious but it was implied. Anyone who claims the right to someone else's rights without their permission, a gangster for instance, is pretentious.

I thought I'd ask you, as I've realized you've very much studied up on Wright, whether it was he who said that architecture begins where engineering ends.