Have I Been Excommunicated/Unpersoned?

[Jonathan]

.

Guy who posted this is guy not welcome in my Corner. Keep out of that one. Plenty of other space here.

What I love about the above comment is the contrast that it reveals between Stephen's wanting to be perceived as a serious, objective thinker on the subject of aesthetics, and, at the same time, his being impeded by his emotions -- especially the emotion of rage -- from grasping and objectively evaluating humorous metaphorical aesthetic content. He so badly wants objectivity in aesthetics, despite operating on pure emotion/subjectivity himself. He plugs his ears, covers his eyes, and refuses to know that which he subjectively doesn't like.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, respecting Roger I think you were somewhat abrasive. Not too bad there; it's just you.

--Brant
King of Kings is on TCM now, West Coast at least.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, while your analysis of Stephen may be substantially correct it's what is known in law as a conclusion on the part of the witness. My conclusion is he wants his conclusions, not yours. In this you will agree with me for the objectivity in esthetics is more a matter of technique than substance. If to the contrary Stephen doth repair stop chasing the man apart from his arguments.

--Brant

I'm watching The King of Kings so I've gone somewhat Biblical

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, respecting Roger I think you were somewhat abrasive. Not too bad there; it's just you.

--Brant

King of Kings is on TCM now, West Coast at least.

Brant,

Could you give an example of how you think that I might reword the statement so that it is not at all abrasive? I ask this sincerely. I honestly don't understand how it could possibly be seen as being even slightly abrasive. I freely admit that I can be abrasive. I have no problem in recognizing that fact. I simply don't see how my comment to Roger could be seen as anything but a polite philosophical inquiry.

J

[Brant Gaede]

"Could you ..." instead of "Please ...". You came a little schoolmarmish to Roger. I ascribe it to some impatience on your part. I do note I'm hyper-sensitive to this sort of thing. "Please" there is a command and commands are abrasive. They sure are to me.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

And, Jonathan, your post 26 is completely to the man.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

And, Jonathan, I like you, irregardless of my crude use of English sometimes.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

It seems obvious that Stephen considers you an antagonist.

Technically, I'm just the messenger. Stephen's true antagonist is reality.

>>>>>Some have no toleration for your type of abrasive approach, whatever the reason.

Are you saying that the following is abrasive?

Roger,

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could find the above to be abrasive.

Tibor Machan is another.

I thought that Tibor had a very high tolerance for abrasiveness. That or he can be a bit unaware of his surroundings. I remember that several of us questioned or made fun of the fact that he was still posting at SOLO and tolerating Pigero's abuse long after everyone else had left.

I don't think Stephen would post here if at all without the editorial power he gets from his Corner.

I get the same impression. Like a lot of Objectivish types, Stephen appears to have appointed himself to a certain status of authority. He will accept praise, and he will field easy quesions, but not difficult ones. Difficult questions are apparently rude and abrasive. Like Comrade Sonia, Stephen demands a one-way relationship: He is to teach, and we are to learn.

I simply don't care if he deletes anything I write there for my posts tend to be very short and I'd simply repost anything of genius elsewhere on OL.

I'm not complaining about Stephen so much as spotlighing his behavior. Don't you find it odd and interesting? Nothing could be more relevant to the topic of judgments of beauty than my comments to Roger, yet Stephen wishes to evade them by attempting to erase them from existence.

Hasn't happened yet--not the deletion or the other stuff. Now if he were a moderator of OL generally--or someone else--I'd not even be here. You won't find me on O-O.

Yes, many of the people at OO share the mindset that they are to teach and others are to learn. To them, people are being abrasive and getting their panties in a bundle if they dare to disagree with the authorities and intellectual giants at OO and inform them of anything that they didn't know, or to ask any questions that they can't answer.

Now esthetics belongs to esthetics, just like psychology belongs to psychology. The fact one can make objective (true) statements or representations of these subjects--just like in science--doesn't mean esthetics are part of the Objectivist philosophy in spite of anything Rand wrote or said on the subject however interesting and objective.

I disagree, and I think we've had this discussion before. I think that the Obectivist Esthetics is a part of the Objectivist philosophy. In a way, it's the starting point of the philosophy. Where Objectivism doesn't have answers, but only overconfident assertions, it's really just offering up an aesthetic view that hasn't been fleshed out with proof. (In some cases, proof will eventually be discovered, in others, not.)

J

You are confusing Objectivism with what Rand said it is. I explained the difference already. What it was is engraved in stone. What it really now is or should be is vibrant and alive.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

"Could you ..." instead of "Please ...". You came a little schoolmarmish to Roger. I ascribe it to some impatience on your part. I do note I'm hyper-sensitive to this sort of thing. "Please" there is a command and commands are abrasive. They sure are to me.

--Brant

Okay, thanks for the pointer.

J

[Jonathan]

And, Jonathan, your post 26 is completely to the man.

--Brant

Yes. This thread is about Stephen's actions. But the post of mine that was deleted by Stephen in his corner had nothing to do with the man. It wasn't even addressed to Stephen.

J

[Jonathan]

Roger had written a post which has now disappeared, but since I had already taken the time to write a response, I'm going to post it even though Roger's is now gone.

Roger wrote:

Just guessing, but I'd say Stephen was implying not that you were angry, but that you were ~disgusting~ (to him), and that your panties post was sufficient reason not to engage in serious discussion with you. If I'm correct, then you basically missed the point of his linking without comment to your panties post.

You're probably right that I initially misunderstood his meaning in posting the link.

In other words, his cutting you off and banishing you from his Corner would appear to be motivated not by anger with you, but simply by disgust. Just guessing. But it's a good bet that your further abrasive and mocking comments have all but closed the door with him permanently.

No, I don't think so. I think that Stephen only used the panties post as an excuse to delete my substantive post. After all, he has previously deleted other substantive posts of mine, as well as ones by Dragonfly. He doesn't like to be disagreed with. He especially doesn't like substantive arguments that he can't answer, and which address the pure emotionalism of his positions.

Over the past few years, you have repeatedly spoken of those who withdraw from discussion with you as being angry, enraged, having "hissy fits," and "getting their panties in a bundle." Like people who have an anger management problem, you seem to have an anger ~projection~ problem.

Examples of why I perceive others as being angry:

Michael Newberry titled his farewell thread "Flame War Rant." That suggests anger to me. He didn't answer the substance of my posts on that thread, but stormed off and later asked MSK that content that he had posted on OL be removed. That says anger to me.

Did you read Comrade Sonia's Facebook tantrum in response to my criticism on OO of her opinions on art? It's got anger written all over it. Like Newberry, she didn't address any of the substance of my criticisms of her ideas.

Stephen has deleted people's posts a few times now on OL without warning and without explanation. Until now, he has never asked me to not post in his corner. In fact, as I reported earlier in this thread, I had been contributing substantive content to a thread of his that he thanked me for (apparently grudgingly), and which he said that he would be addressing in future essays. Then, out of the blue, he deleted the entire thread. When I asked him about it in a private message, he didn't respond and put me on "ignore." That says anger to me. (This was prior to my having posted the panties visual metaphor). Like Newberry and Hsieh, he hasn't addressed the substance of my criticism.

I've also described you, Roger, as having what appeared to be angry reactions. For example, in the past, you've indentified Rand as being rather ignorant on the subject of music. On The Art Instinct thread, when I similarly identified you as being ignorant of the visual arts, you took it as a personal attack when it was nothing but a dispassionate identification of a fact, and you then announced that you wouldn't be participating further in the discussion. That says anger to me.

When I rejected your attempt to establish as universal your personal lack of aesthetic response (as well as your wife's) to abstract visual forms, once again, you took it as a personal attack. You seemed to be quite upset that I didn't take your personal aesthetic limitations as proof that everyone else must be similarly limited.

When I challenged your opinion that your interpretation of any artwork represents its "real" or "actual" meaning and that anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing," and when I asked if it was even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend, you took it as a personal attack and announced that you wouldn't answer my questions. That came across as anger to me.

When I asked you why paintings of certain objects, such as Linda Mann's paintings of stones, qualify as art to you, where paintings of colorful tiles somehow don't count as art (and inspire your wife to say "Give me a break" about the assertion that they're art), you refused to answer, and announced that you'd refuse to explain why. Anger seemed to be the most realistic explanation.

If it wasn't anger, what was it? Disgust? If so, what's the difference? It's still an emotional reaction to relevant, substantive inquiries. And like Newberry, Hsieh and Boydstun, you used your emotional reaction as an excuse to avoid dealing with the substance.

As I've said many times in many Objectivish fora, art is like a transmitter, and viewers are like receivers. The Objectivist Esthetics instructs the receivers that they are to judge the quality of the transmitter and its transmissions. In doing so, it doesn't address the possibility that the receivers might malfunction or be limited in some way -- that all receivers might not have the equal ability to receive transmissions clearly. The Objectivist Esthetics only addresses the issue of the transmitter's functioning or malfunctioning, and how it is to be judged. But if we are to be truly objective about it, don't we have to test and judge the levels at which both the transmitter and the receivers are functioning? If a receiver doesn't receive a message -- or even if several receivers don't -- is it rational to conclude that the transmitter failed to transmit?

What I find interesting are three things:

1) The "receivers" who are the most passionate about asserting that the limited range of frequencies that they are capable of receiving are the only valid frequencies in existence, and that all other receivers are lying or "rationalizing" when they claim to receive information on other frequencies, tend to associate or congregate only with similarly limited receivers, and, when discussing transmission/reception theory, they actively limit themselves to "learning" only from teachers who share their limitations and their belief that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they personally receive.

2) These limited "receivers" tend to act as if their congregating is somehow proof that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they receive. They seem to feel that their gathering en masse somehow constitutes objective proof that no receiver has abilities beyond their own. When congregated, they like to laugh at other receivers who claim to receive more frequencies.

3) The "receivers" who are limited in range of frequencies often show themselves to be incapable of receiving transmissions even well within the limited range that they accept as valid. When tested in that range, they reveal that they haven't received the transmissions as clearly as those who can receive more frequencies. They miss obvious things that were transmitted. They imagine receiving things that weren't transmitted. They garble meanings. Yet they insist that they're accurately receiving the transmissions within that range, and that anyone who says otherwise is lying, delusional, rationalizing, etc.

You, Roger, are that type of receiver -- the type that believes that no receiver could possibly function at a higher level, and that it is insulting and disgusting for anyone to even suggest that you are anything but the perfect, ultimate, top-of-the-line receiver.

In the meantime, have no fear: there are plenty of places on Objectivist Living for you to post your ideas, images, etc. Our Supreme Leader has stalwartly stated his love for you, so you are in no danger of moderational hellfire.

I think you've misunderstood my motive for creating this thread. It was not to complain that I'm not allowed to post in Stephen's corner. I couldn't care less if I'm not allowed there.

But you have managed to get yourself excluded from certain areas, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

I agree with you there. I am to blame because I knowingly posted polite, potent, substantive criticism in an area where it is not allowed.

Anyway, Roger, I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my comment to you that Stephen deleted in his corner, but which I re-posted above.

I'm going to take Brant's advice and rewrite it so that it isn't abrasive:

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, could you please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

Thank you.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan, on 01 Apr 2013 - 14:52, said:

Roger had written a post which has now disappeared, but since I had already taken the time to write a response, I'm going to post it even though Roger's is now gone.

Roger wrote:

Quote

Just guessing, but I'd say Stephen was implying not that you were angry, but that you were ~disgusting~ (to him), and that your panties post was sufficient reason not to engage in serious discussion with you. If I'm correct, then you basically missed the point of his linking without comment to your panties post.

You're probably right that I initially misunderstood his meaning in posting the link.

Quote

In other words, his cutting you off and banishing you from his Corner would appear to be motivated not by anger with you, but simply by disgust. Just guessing. But it's a good bet that your further abrasive and mocking comments have all but closed the door with him permanently.

No, I don't think so. I think that Stephen only used the panties post as an excuse to delete my substantive post. After all, he has previously deleted other substantive posts of mine, as well as ones by Dragonfly. He doesn't like to be disagreed with. He especially doesn't like substantive arguments that he can't answer, and which address the pure emotionalism of his positions.

Quote

Over the past few years, you have repeatedly spoken of those who withdraw from discussion with you as being angry, enraged, having "hissy fits," and "getting their panties in a bundle." Like people who have an anger management problem, you seem to have an anger ~projection~ problem.

Examples of why I perceive others as being angry:

Michael Newberry titled his farewell thread "Flame War Rant." That suggests anger to me. He didn't answer the substance of my posts on that thread, but stormed off and later asked MSK that content that he had posted on OL be removed. That says anger to me.

Did you read Comrade Sonia's Facebook tantrum in response to my criticism on OO of her opinions on art? It's got anger written all over it. Like Newberry, she didn't address any of the substance of my criticisms of her ideas.

Stephen has deleted people's posts a few times now on OL without warning and without explanation. Until now, he has never asked me to not post in his corner. In fact, as I reported earlier in this thread, I had been contributing substantive content to a thread of his that he thanked me for (apparently grudgingly), and which he said that he would be addressing in future essays. Then, out of the blue, he deleted the entire thread. When I asked him about it in a private message, he didn't respond and put me on "ignore." That says anger to me. (This was prior to my having posted the panties visual metaphor). Like Newberry and Hsieh, he hasn't addressed the substance of my criticism.

I've also described you, Roger, as having what appeared to be angry reactions. For example, in the past, you've indentified Rand as being rather ignorant on the subject of music. On The Art Instinct thread, when I similarly identified you as being ignorant of the visual arts, you took it as a personal attack when it was nothing but a dispassionate identification of a fact, and you then announced that you wouldn't be participating further in the discussion. That says anger to me.

When I rejected your attempt to establish as universal your personal lack of aesthetic response (as well as your wife's) to abstract visual forms, once again, you took it as a personal attack. You seemed to be quite upset that I didn't take your personal aesthetic limitations as proof that everyone else must be similarly limited.

When I challenged your opinion that your interpretation of any artwork represents its "real" or "actual" meaning and that anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing," and when I asked if it was even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend, you took it as a personal attack and announced that you wouldn't answer my questions. That came across as anger to me.

When I asked you why paintings of certain objects, such as Linda Mann's paintings of stones, qualify as art to you, where paintings of colorful tiles somehow don't count as art (and inspire your wife to say "Give me a break" about the assertion that they're art), you refused to answer, and announced that you'd refuse to explain why. Anger seemed to be the most realistic explanation.

If it wasn't anger, what was it? Disgust? If so, what's the difference? It's still an emotional reaction to relevant, substantive inquiries. And like Newberry, Hsieh and Boydstun, you used your emotional reaction as an excuse to avoid dealing with the substance.

As I've said many times in many Objectivish fora, art is like a transmitter, and viewers are like receivers. The Objectivist Esthetics instructs the receivers that they are to judge the quality of the transmitter and its transmissions. In doing so, it doesn't address the possibility that the receivers might malfunction or be limited in some way -- that all receivers might not have the equal ability to receive transmissions clearly. The Objectivist Esthetics only addresses the issue of the transmitter's functioning or malfunctioning, and how it is to be judged. But if we are to be truly objective about it, don't we have to test and judge the levels at which both the transmitter and the receivers are functioning? If a receiver doesn't receive a message -- or even if several receivers don't -- is it rational to conclude that the transmitter failed to transmit?

What I find interesting are three things:

1) The "receivers" who are the most passionate about asserting that the limited range of frequencies that they are capable of receiving are the only valid frequencies in existence, and that all other receivers are lying or "rationalizing" when they claim to receive information on other frequencies, tend to associate or congregate only with similarly limited receivers, and, when discussing transmission/reception theory, they actively limit themselves to "learning" only from teachers who share their limitations and their belief that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they personally receive.

2) These limited "receivers" tend to act as if their congregating is somehow proof that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they receive. They seem to feel that their gathering en masse somehow constitutes objective proof that no receiver has abilities beyond their own. When congregated, they like to laugh at other receivers who claim to receive more frequencies.

3) The "receivers" who are limited in range of frequencies often show themselves to be incapable of receiving transmissions even well within the limited range that they accept as valid. When tested in that range, they reveal that they haven't received the transmissions as clearly as those who can receive more frequencies. They miss obvious things that were transmitted. They imagine receiving things that weren't transmitted. They garble meanings. Yet they insist that they're accurately receiving the transmissions within that range, and that anyone who says otherwise is lying, delusional, rationalizing, etc.

You, Roger, are that type of receiver -- the type that believes that no receiver could possibly function at a higher level, and that it is insulting and disgusting for anyone to even suggest that you are anything but the perfect, ultimate, top-of-the-line receiver.

Quote

In the meantime, have no fear: there are plenty of places on Objectivist Living for you to post your ideas, images, etc. Our Supreme Leader has stalwartly stated his love for you, so you are in no danger of moderational hellfire.

I think you've misunderstood my motive for creating this thread. It was not to complain that I'm not allowed to post in Stephen's corner. I couldn't care less if I'm not allowed there.

Quote

But you have managed to get yourself excluded from certain areas, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

I agree with you there. I am to blame because I knowingly posted polite, potent, substantive criticism in an area where it is not allowed.

Anyway, Roger, I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my comment to you that Stephen deleted in his corner, but which I re-posted above.

I'm going to take Brant's advice and rewrite it so that it isn't abrasive:

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, could you please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

Thank you.

J

I will reply to, and only to, your substantive question if and only if you agree to stop mentioning my wife in your comments. It was my mistake for citing her reaction to some of your previous posts, because you've used it as a means of obsessive repetition and ridicule, and I will not discuss any matter with you (for now, the above only), unless you agree to cease referring to her. This is not negotiable.

I do have a substantive reply for you, but you won't hear it, unless you agree to the foregoing.

REB

[Jonathan]

I will reply to, and only to, your substantive question if and only if you agree to stop mentioning my wife in your comments. It was my mistake for citing her reaction to some of your previous posts, because you've used it as a means of obsessive repetition and ridicule, and I will not discuss any matter with you (for now, the above only), unless you agree to cease referring to her. This is not negotiable.

That's not true. I haven't used it as a means of ridicule. And I certainly haven't been obsessive about it. I've simply rejected your using it as an appeal to authority. The truth of the matter is that you introduced her opinion into the discussion as an attempt to ridicule me!

I do have a substantive reply for you, but you won't hear it, unless you agree to the foregoing.

I will gladly agree to not discuss your wife or her opinions as long as you agree to no longer cite her opinions or attempt to use them for the purpose of ridicule or for the purpose of attempting to establish your and her aesthetic authority.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan, on 01 Apr 2013 - 16:55, said:

Roger Bissell, on 01 Apr 2013 - 16:39, said:

I will reply to, and only to, your substantive question if and only if you agree to stop mentioning my wife in your comments. It was my mistake for citing her reaction to some of your previous posts, because you've used it as a means of obsessive repetition and ridicule, and I will not discuss any matter with you (for now, the above only), unless you agree to cease referring to her. This is not negotiable.

That's not true. I haven't used it as a means of ridicule. And I certainly haven't been obsessive about it. I've simply rejected your using it as an appeal to authority. The truth of the matter is that you introduced her opinion into the discussion as an attempt to ridicule me!

Roger Bissell, on 01 Apr 2013 - 16:39, said:

I do have a substantive reply for you, but you won't hear it, unless you agree to the foregoing.

I will gladly agree to not discuss your wife or her opinions as long as you agree to no longer cite her opinions or attempt to use them for the purpose of ridicule or for the purpose of attempting to establish your and her aesthetic authority.

J

Perhaps you didn't take me seriously, but I said it was non-negotiable and I meant it.

Regarding my wife: the first time you mentioned her on OL could plausibly (though misguidedly) have been for the purpose of rejecting my (supposed) use of her as an authority, or my using her casual comment ("give me a break") in order to ridicule one of your opinions (not you, personally). But not the other numerous times you have done so, long after I broke off any discussion with you. I stand by my claim that you are obsessed about this matter, and I continue to refuse to be baited by it, and I reject your claim that there is anything proper about repeatedly mentioning her, especially after you and I stopped discussing ideas.

Regarding anger vs. disgust: the issue of anger is the ~specific~ emotion you have trotted out, ~over and over~, no matter who it is that rejects you. Switching it to emotion in general reminds me of the Global Warmers redefining the problem as Catastrophic Climate Change. It's bogus, and it points to the possibility of yourself being the one with a lot of pent-up anger and frustration toward those who will not take your nihilistic claims about the philosophy of art seriously -- and your projecting this anger onto others.

I do plan at some point, sooner or later, to address the issue you raised -- or rather to revisit and revise things I've written long ago but not published -- but I will post that material either in my own Corner or in Stephen's Corner (if he consents), and you will not be part of that discussion thread. You are free to discuss it or not in the vast areas of OL in which you have free run.

Non-negotiably, REB

[Jonathan]

It's bogus, and it points to the possibility of yourself being the one with a lot of pent-up anger and frustration toward those who will not take your nihilistic claims about the philosophy of art seriously -- and your projecting this anger onto others.

I haven't made any nihilistic claims about the philosophy of art. How did you come up with such a ridiculous opinion? Heh. I think that more can be communicated, experienced and valued in art than you do.

I do plan at some point, sooner or later, to address the issue you raised -- or rather to revisit and revise things I've written long ago but not published -- but I will post that material either in my own Corner or in Stephen's Corner (if he consents), and you will not be part of that discussion thread. You are free to discuss it or not in the vast areas of OL in which you have free run.

Great! It will be a refreshing change to hear some substance in response to issues that I've raised rather than whining, evasion and censorship.

J

[Brant Gaede]

The basic problem with esthetics is it can't be put into the Objectivist philosophy only arbitrarily attached to it. Rand did that. That's all that is really being argued about here but by ad hominem proxy creating smoke to cover a strategic withdrawal. The irony is it's from Jonathan's fire.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Jonathan always has a lot of ironies in the fire.

[BaalChatzaf]

Jonathan always has a lot of ironies in the fire.

Touche

[Jonathan]

The basic problem with esthetics is it can't be put into the Objectivist philosophy only arbitrarily attached to it. Rand did that. That's all that is really being argued about here but by ad hominem proxy creating smoke to cover a strategic withdrawal. The irony is it's from Jonathan's fire.

--Brant

Aesthetics can be put into the Objectivist philosophy. The Objectivist philosophy is basically the recognition of reality (or at least it aims to be). One can therefore put aesthetics into the philosophy by recognizing the reality of which judgments of aesthetic phenomena are subjective, instead of wishing all judgments to be objective. Objectivism can identify and accept the fact that the very nature of many types of art is that they intentionally involve inviting viewers and listeners to contribute their subjective input to the experiencing of the art.

Rand said about music: "In listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others -- and, therefore, cannot prove -- which aspects of his experience are inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness."

She said it with the hope and expectation that one day man would be able to purify the experience by eliminating the content contributed by each individual listener. In other words, she came so close to recognizing the nature of music, but instead mistook its greatest feature for a flaw. She hoped that that wonderful individualistic feature would be eliminated, and then music would become an imitation of her style of literature, and then everyone, collectively, would have the same exact experience that the artist intended them to have. How sad.

Aesthetically, Objectivism just needs to back up and actually identify the true nature of the various art forms, and to do so without Rand's personal biases and irrationally desired outcomes. Objectivism needs to take into account factual information about the art forms rather than just relying on Rand's mistaken opinions from ignorance. (A good example would be all of the information that I posted about photography which caused Comrade Sonia to get her panties in a bundle right after she declared that there's no need to get one's panties in a bundle over the issue of photography qualifying as art or not.)

Chasing down Rand's hoped-for "conceptual vocabulary" of music is a fool's errand. It's the Objectivist Sasquatch.

J

[PDS]

Jonathan always has a lot of ironies in the fire.

This is a gem.

Nay, a precious gemstone.

[Brant Gaede]

Definitionally an Objectivist like a scientist is a truth seeker although the latter is more narrowly focused, but one goes out into aesthetic-land to find those truths and it's not proper to call what you find "Objectivism." The four basic Objectivist principles are logically linked by and progress from the inherent individualism of the thinking mind which is celebrated by reality, reason, right conduct and freedom. These are all things the human organism needs qua organism respecting personal actions and social interactions and delineate the natural boundaries of a proper philosophy. There is nothing wrong with an Objectivist being an aesthetican or psychologist or physicist or chemist or lawyer or businessman or woman, but it is completely wrong to bring any of this home to the philosophy and call it Objectivist this or that. That leaves hoi polloi et al. searching for two truths: truth and Objectivist truth, the former being optional.

--Brant

simpler but deeper than commonly supposed

[Jonathan]

Brant,

I think we're kind of saying the same thing.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, you're sly like a fox.

--Brant

I didn't know that about you

[Jonathan]

Roger rejected my offer to no longer discuss his wife's aesthetic opinion that he had posted on a previous thread (which he posted as an attempt to ridicule my ideas without addressing their substance). Instead of taking me up on the offer, he continued to complain about the subject, thus giving it longer legs.

So I have a new offer. Roger says that he rejects the idea that there is anything proper about my repeatedly mentioning his posting of his wife's opinion. Well, I feel the same way about Roger's negative judgments of others' aesthetic interpretations of works of art. There is nothing proper about his claiming that others must be "rationalizing" when they interpret a work of art to mean something other than what Roger interprets it to mean. I also think that it is highly improper of him to feel free to criticize Rand's level of knowledge of music but to feel personally attacked when I criticize his level of knowledge of visual art -- if my criticisms of his level of knowedge are "personal attacks," then his of Rand's are also.

So here's my new proposal: I will agree to never mention Roger's wife or her silly little aesthetic opinion ever again, or Roger's attempting to use it as a weapon of ridicule and then whining when it backfired, if he agrees to never bring up her or her aesthetic opinions again, and if he agrees to never again denigrate any other person with the claim that they are "rationalizing" when disagreeing with his interpretations of works of art, and if agrees to never make another "personal attack" on Rand by being critical of her level of knowledge of music.

This is non-negotiable.

J

[Brant Gaede]

You want to restart a discussion with Roger by first calling his wife's esthetic opinions "silly"? Now you're a dog that bites and won't let go. Not that it makes any difference; he's already gone from you. You cannot re-start the fire of ratiocination in the midst of the burned-down intellectual forest. Both Stephen and Roger were disgusted with you even if you might have out-argued them, compounding the offense. I doubt if they think you did, but if they do they have a way provided by you to save face.

--Brant