"Romanticist Art" Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics

[Brant Gaede]

Tony, [...] It's a waste of time. I should have learned my lesson from your scatterbrained participation on OO's Roark the Dynamiter thread.

J

At latest by #53 (the post I'm up to in reading the thread). I think by #47 would have been sufficient.

I'm surprised at how polite and straight-to-the-point you're being on the thread so far. Do they keep you on a tight leash over there?

Ellen

Oh, I had the same problem in the 1960s and early 70s. I let ideology run away with my brain.

--Brant

and I didn't even have the ideology quite right--a common problem to say the least

[anthony]

Art, is about as complicated as one makes it, unless one begins with concepts in consciousness.
If one understands that, it's easy. An artist arranges from his consciousness those elements of existence to portray what he consciously cares about in life: what is important to him. The viewer, by translating the concrete back into concepts in his conscious mind absorbs the thrust of that, and compares it with his own view of reality and existence, whatever it is. That's all.
Call it both party's "metaphysical value-judgments" or their existential view, or simply an opinion.
Whatever: man looks for affirmation and confirmation at times, even and especially for the things he is already certain are true of existence.

A Romantic artwork is like one's choice of romantic love. She(he)embodies the affirmation of life itself, through her character and actions. She also - though secondarily - exists as affirmation to her man's life. She - and the artwork - has integrity, so she will want to be 'psychologically visible' to him.

If one seeks or permits ambiguity in life, love or art - one will definitely find it, and probably deserves what one gets. Honesty and clarity is a key ingredient of all three. In art, and particularly visual art, sure it's possible that an artist's lack of skill distorts what he truly wanted to portray. Then he's a poor craftsman and aesthetician, who can at least learn better. In literature this is quite rare, I think.
In language, over the course of a novel, it is much harder to mistake the author's metaphysical value-judgments, and they are very apparent.
As for the reader's judgment being imperfect or subjective, only compare, for example, the mv-j's of Shakespeare, Jane Austen and George Eliot, and try to claim they can be anything to anybody!

In the selfish act of creation, a good artist wants to be 'visible'.

A wide range writers, too, can have value with any reader, at a lesser level than pure Romanticism, due to their aesthetic excellence or honesty: Hierarchically, I think they 'slot-in' with one's own hierarchy of values.

Either way, an artwork is and end-in-itself just like an individual - and must stand for itself, flaws and all. We can't know what the artist 'meant' to write or paint.

Art stands at the cusp between existence and consciousness, like we do - and that's its value.

[anthony]

Tony, [...] It's a waste of time. I should have learned my lesson from your scatterbrained participation on OO's Roark the Dynamiter thread.

J

At latest by #53 (the post I'm up to in reading the thread). I think by #47 would have been sufficient.

I'm surprised at how polite and straight-to-the-point you're being on the thread so far. Do they keep you on a tight leash over there?

Ellen

Yes, Ellen. Some, it would appear, get more out of contentious shit-stirring than thinking a little bit further outside of their comfort zones.

I don't offer excuses - I admit I was irked by the anti-conceptual literalism shown in critiques of The Fountainhead.

I did push some boundaries (rational egoism vis-a-vis individual rights, I recall) and received the conventional responses.

No matter: as per usual, what anyone says of any real worth on the forums is hardly remarked upon, while one or two excesses are paraded for character assassination.

As long as you had fun!

[Brant Gaede]

Art, is about as complicated as one makes it, unless one begins with concepts in consciousness.

If one understands that, it's easy. An artist arranges from his consciousness those elements of existence to portray what he consciously cares about in life: what is important to him. The viewer, by translating the concrete back into concepts in his conscious mind absorbs the thrust of that, and compares it with his own view of reality and existence, whatever it is. That's all.

Call it both party's "metaphysical value-judgments" or their existential view, or simply an opinion.

Whatever: man looks for affirmation and confirmation at times, even and especially for the things he is certain are true of existence.

A Romantic artwork is like one's choice of romantic love. She(he)embodies the affirmation of life itself, through her character and actions. She also - though secondly - is affirmation to her man's life. If she - and the artwork - has integrity, she will want to be 'psychologically visible' to him.

If one seeks or permits ambiguity in life, love or art - one will definitely find it, and then one deserves what one gets. Honesty and clarity is a key ingredient of all three. In art, and particularly visual art, sure it's possible that an artist's lack of skill distorts what he truly wanted to portray. Then he's a poor craftsman and aesthetician, who can at least learn better. In literature this is quite rare, I think.

In language, over the course of a novel, it is much harder to mistake the author's metaphysical value-judgments, and they are very apparent.

As for the reader's judgment being imperfect or subjective, only compare, for example, the mv-j's of Shakespeare, Jane Austen and George Eliot, and try to claim they can be anything to anybody!

In the selfish act of creation, an artist wants to be 'visible'.

A wide range writers, too, can have value with any reader, at a lesser level than pure Romanticism, due to thier aesthetic excellence or honesty: Hierarchically, they 'slot-in' with one's own hierarchy of values.

Either way, an artwork is and end-in-itself just like an individual - and must stand for itself, flaws and all. We can't know what the artist 'meant' to write or paint.

Art stands at the cusp between existence and consciousness, like we do - and that's its value.

Do you have any idea of the stupendous amount of knowledge you are claiming for yourself?

--Brant

[anthony]

Well...you mean you claim none for yourself?

If nothing there strikes a chord with you, I'm actually quite sorry.

It's what I think.

[Ellen Stuttle]

As long as you had fun!

I'm up to post #113, by "DonAthos."

I had laughing-out-loud fun reading that one.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

J,

Just quickly in regard to your question at the end of post #245.

I do an enormous amount of "integrating" in processing music, much of it of a kind Rand wasn't capable of doing, judging from things she said, including in the 1961-62 biographical interviews Barbara did, material from which is reported, without crediting Barbara as the interviewer, in the Essays on We the Living volume, and also from things Allan Blumenthal told me.

However, I fail to see what the term "conceptual" is supposed to mean in relation to musical experience.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Well...you mean you claim none for yourself?

If nothing there strikes a chord with you, I'm actually quite sorry.

It's what I think.

I'm particularly talking about your integrating ignorant notions about romantic love, psychology and art. "Clarity" and "ambiguity" and "honesty" to say nothing about the epistemological redundant nothing first sentence about "concepts in consciousness." Some of this might work if you were to acknowledge the non-exclusiveness of your propositions, but I fear such might conflict with the purity of your "clarity" and sail to close to your notions of "ambiguity" and "honesty" qua art--never mind "love." The implication of this is you know so much there's no more, essentially, to know.

--Brant

[anthony]

Well...you mean you claim none for yourself?

If nothing there strikes a chord with you, I'm actually quite sorry.

It's what I think.

I'm particularly talking about your integrating ignorant notions about romantic love, psychology and art. "Clarity" and "ambiguity" and "honesty" to say nothing about the epistemological redundant nothing first sentence about "concepts in consciousness." Some of this might work if you were to acknowledge the non-exclusiveness of your propositions, but I fear such might conflict with the purity of your "clarity" and sail to close to your notions of "ambiguity" and "honesty" qua art--never mind "love." The implication of this is you know so much there's no more, essentially, to know.

--Brant

Honesty - in its full sense, of truth-seeking and truth-expressing - is directly related to reality, and I maintain is one principle that life, love and art all have in common. Clarity, as in both searching for clarity and displaying clarity, is a value to rational men, artists and lovers.

Ambiguity will always be present around us, but "If one seeks or permits ambiguity..." confusion and deceit follow next - I think.

Seriously: my "ignorant notions" in these matters? I've lived and learned some, y'know.

[ginny]

Whynot, dear. I hate say this, but you may have a tendency to use words to confuse. Maybe you're real smart, I don't know. And that's the problem. You're not communicating your smartness. All I see is statements being put out there, and I'm not relating. Could be me. Brand's smarter than I am.

[Ellen Stuttle]

J,

I finished reading the "Roark the dynamiter" thread on OO. There's no indication that the thread was closed, but it abruptly stops. Did you try to post anything further on it?

Ellen

[anthony]

Whynot, dear. I hate say this, but you may have a tendency to use words to confuse. Maybe you're real smart, I don't know. And that's the problem. You're not communicating your smartness. All I see is statements being put out there, and I'm not relating. Could be me. Brand's smarter than I am.

Anything you say, sweetheart!

Though I really can't see what's confusing about my last posts, I concede that introspecting one's own "concepts of consciousness" (AR), then putting it across with crystal clarity requires a rare, dual intellectual talent. As for myself I may identify and integrate an abstraction, but not impart it very well. You need a scholar like Stephen B, but you get me - expressing concepts in a sort of stream of consciousness way, I guess..

Because this topic is all about consciousness, of the artist and the viewer, don't you agree?

But never do I set out to "use words to confuse.".

("Again, too flowery, Garland" - as my English master often quipped of my writing.)

.

[ginny]

If you say so.

[Jonathan]

Okay, so I've been looking into the issue of Rand probably having had the position that judgments of beauty were on an automatic level, and it's just a fricking nightmare trying to deal with Objectivism's invented definitions of terms, its inconsistent uses of them, and its double standards in applying them to others versus to Objectivists.

Additionally, I'm hampered by not currently having Rand's relevant works in front of me.

So, first things first. In searching online, I've seen many Objectivists stating that their tastes (in foods, colors, clothing styles, human beauty, etc.) are not subjective, but "objective but personal," but, oddly, I've seen none of them quoting Rand in support of this position. Where did they get this idea that Objectivism holds that pleasure responses are "objective but personal"?

They seem to think that, although Objectivism believes in rational values and holds that there is no place for whim/emotion/etc. as a basis for one's values, somehow their automatic pleasure responses don't count as being in that category of whim/emotion/etc. Which makes me wonder why all automatic responses, including all emotions, shouldn't also be classified as "objective but personal."

I've also heard Objectivists (including Hsieh in her podcast on beauty) claim that there is a certain limited range in which these "objective but personal" values are acceptable, but, outside of that vague and undefined range, people are "just really wrong" to have the tastes that they have, which would suggest that there is a point at which Objectivists think that the responses are no longer automatic, but are something that the experiencer can choose and therefore be held morally accountable for. Did Rand hold this view? Did she share their apparent belief that tastes are automatic, but only within a certain degree of similarity to hers (or to some specific norm?), and any tastes outside of that range were wrong? The idea seems to be to leave a door open so that others' tastes can be said to be subjective.

J

[Jonathan]

Tony, [...] It's a waste of time. I should have learned my lesson from your scatterbrained participation on OO's Roark the Dynamiter thread.

J

At latest by #53 (the post I'm up to in reading the thread). I think by #47 would have been sufficient.

I'm surprised at how polite and straight-to-the-point you're being on the thread so far. Do they keep you on a tight leash over there?

Ellen

We each have our own levels of tolerance of other posters. I've generally had a fondness for Tony, so I've been willing to tolerate more from him than others. Not so of Leonid, which is why I sometimes laugh at others' expressing frustration with him while continuing to have discussions with him.

As for the tight leash, yes, sometimes. It depends on which moderators are online while I'm posting.

J

[Jonathan]

J,

I finished reading the "Roark the dynamiter" thread on OO. There's no indication that the thread was closed, but it abruptly stops. Did you try to post anything further on it?

Ellen

I haven't tried to post anything further. I think the thread just kind of petered out because the hotheads who showed up half-cocked, half-way through, and thinking that Objectivism was under attack eventually realized that I was saying something nice about The Fountainhead. At some point I'll probably post to remind Marc that he hasn't backed up his arbitrary assertion that Objectivism accepts privacy lies as moral, and that without anything to support the assertion, it must be treated as being in the same category as the belief in God or unicorns.

J

[Jonathan]

I wrote about posting on OO:

As for the tight leash, yes, sometimes. It depends on which moderators are online while I'm posting.

Btw, Ellen, to me, part of the fun of posting on OO is the challenge of having one or both hands tied behind my back by certain moderators and yet taking on several posters whom the moderators obviously support. It's good exercise to take on a handful of posters who don't have to follow the rules, as well as moderators who occasionally join in with taunting and rules-violations of their own. It reminds me of having seen an Olympic wrestling champ calling "professional" wrestling fake, and challenging its "wrestlers" to a one-against-several match. Even having the ref on their side didn't help.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Okay, so I've been looking into the issue of Rand probably having had the position that judgments of beauty were on an automatic level, and it's just a fricking nightmare trying to deal with Objectivism's invented definitions of terms, its inconsistent uses of them, and its double standards in applying them to others versus to Objectivists.

Additionally, I'm hampered by not currently having Rand's relevant works in front of me.

So, first things first. In searching online, I've seen many Objectivists stating that their tastes (in foods, colors, clothing styles, human beauty, etc.) are not subjective, but "objective but personal," but, oddly, I've seen none of them quoting Rand in support of this position. Where did they get this idea that Objectivism holds that pleasure responses are "objective but personal"?

Possibly from Peikoff.

I'm in process of perusing OPAR on these issues, for the first time. I see some hints, but haven't gotten to reading details of relevant sections yet. Stay tuned.

They seem to think that, although Objectivism believes in rational values and holds that there is no place for whim/emotion/etc. as a basis for one's values, somehow their automatic pleasure responses don't count as being in that category of whim/emotion/etc. Which makes me wonder why all automatic responses, including all emotions, shouldn't also be classified as "objective but personal."

That leads to a question I've been wanting to get to about your meaning of "subjective."

Do you mean whimsical? I think you don't, but I'm not sure.

Something you might not quite realize, since, if I recall right, you haven't personally been around many Objectivists, is the emotional cachet of "subjectivism" in Objectivist usage. "Intrinsicism" is a mistake. But "subjectivism" is a sin. "Subjectivism" has the flavor of capricious, unprincipled.

However, there are things which obviously vary from person to person and in regard to which even an Objectivist isn't going to say of the variants that some of them are irrational. A frequent for instance used is liking chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream better. These sorts of issues are considered optional personal issues. The way I used to hear it put was, "It's optional for me to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream and for you to have the reverse preferences, but it's objective that I like chocolate ice cream better and you like vanilla ice cream better." Maybe this has led to a notion of "objective but personal."

I've also heard Objectivists (including Hsieh in her podcast on beauty) claim that there is a certain limited range in which these "objective but personal" values are acceptable, but, outside of that vague and undefined range, people are "just really wrong" to have the tastes that they have, which would suggest that there is a point at which Objectivists think that the responses are no longer automatic, but are something that the experiencer can choose and therefore be held morally accountable for. Did Rand hold this view? Did she share their apparent belief that tastes are automatic, but only within a certain degree of similarity to hers (or to some specific norm?), and any tastes outside of that range were wrong? The idea seems to be to leave a door open so that others' tastes can be said to be subjective.

I suppose Rand didn't object to the idea that it's ok for one person to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla and vice versa, if this issue even came up in discussions with her. Her favorite color was known, and I don't recall picking up any whiffs that it wasn't ok for others to have a different favorite color.

Some choices clearly were considered acceptably optional. Career choices. Choices of romantic partner. For instance.

I suspect that Diana with her "just really wrong" on beauty responses is doing her own thing. However, it seems to me, from the sparse explicit hints I've found, and from the way she speaks of a beautiful image in a painting, that Rand assumed at least strong commonality in beauty responses.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

About the variable-depending-on-moderator "tight leash" on OO, has there ever been talk posted of banning you? Or talk you've heard of going on off-list about the suggestion of banning you?

I see that Bob K. was banned. I don't know what for. Not for his few comments on the "Roark the dynamiter" thread.

I strongly hope that you don't strain the leash to the point of getting yourself banned. Banned posters become unsearchables. Not being able to search for your content would be a big nuisance in trying to find material over there.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

We each have our own levels of tolerance of other posters. I've generally had a fondness for Tony, so I've been willing to tolerate more from him than others. Not so of Leonid, which is why I sometimes laugh at others' expressing frustration with him while continuing to have discussions with him. As for the tight leash, yes, sometimes. It depends on which moderators are online while I'm posting.

J

I'd never read more than an occasional post of Tony's before. His typography - awfully hard on my eye troubles - had historically put me off from reading to find out what he was saying. I've now concluded that the content is as jumbled as the style.

When I was posting on SOLO, I mostly side-stepped Leonid, not wanting to bother with his typical incoherence. However, I granted him leeway because of his non-facility with English.

On that doctrine of the arbitrary thread, on which I was back-and-forthing with him here, I concluded that the problem has to be more than a lack of skill with English. Some of what he said was just too illogical. For instance, asserting that I'd said that he hadn't provided a definition of "arbitrary" when I'd several times, and some of them in the very post he then quoted as evidence, referred to his definition. And other examples. I don't want to re-hash the sequence. It's just that by the end I'd concluded that he must be posting in haste and not really attending to what he was answering.

Ellen

PS: I'll get back to the things you said about my moon-through-a-telescope experience. You have me engaged in doing imaginal visual variations, but there are chores I need to tend to, and I'll have to wait till later today or tomorrow to write up the results.

[Jonathan]

That leads to a question I've been wanting to get to about your meaning of "subjective."

Do you mean whimsical? I think you don't, but I'm not sure.

No, I don't mean whimsical. Since Rand seemed to use different meanings of "subjective," I've tried to find her least hostile and least emotional/irrational meaning of the term, which I think is what's found in some of her comments on aesthetics, such as in treating our musical tastes as a subjective matter until the time that an objective conceptual vocabulary is found, or in her comment, that I've quoted a few times on this thread, on a man not being able to distinguish or prove which aspects of an experience are inherent in the object and which are contributed by his own consciousness.

Something you might not quite realize, since, if I recall right, you haven't personally been around many Objectivists, is the emotional cachet of "subjectivism" in Objectivist usage. "Intrinsicism" is a mistake. But "subjectivism" is a sin. "Subjectivism" has the flavor of capricious, unprincipled.

However, there are things which obviously vary from person to person and in regard to which even an Objectivist isn't going to say of the variants that some of them are irrational. A frequent for instance used is liking chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream better. These sorts of issues are considered optional personal issues. The way I used to hear it put was, "It's optional for me to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream and for you to have the reverse preferences, but it's objective that I like chocolate ice cream better and you like vanilla ice cream better." Maybe this has led to a notion of "objective but personal."

I think that I've been slowly recognizing the grave seriousness of using the term "subjective" with Objectivists. It seems to be such a hated term that Rand's followers often alter her use of it to "personal." For example, many times in the past year or two I've seen them change her comment on musical preferences being treated as a subjective matter to "personal matter."

I suppose Rand didn't object to the idea that it's ok for one person to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla and vice versa, if this issue even came up in discussions with her. Her favorite color was known, and I don't recall picking up any whiffs that it wasn't ok for others to have a different favorite color.

Some choices clearly were considered acceptably optional. Career choices. Choices of romantic partner. For instance.

I suspect that Diana with her "just really wrong" on beauty responses is doing her own thing. However, it seems to me, from the sparse explicit hints I've found, and from the way she speaks of a beautiful image in a painting, that Rand assumed at least strong commonality in beauty responses.

I think that Rand assumed much more than a strong commonality in tastes. After all, she claimed that men of high self-esteem will respond positively to "bright colors" and other things that she found to be beautiful, where men of low self-esteem will have a positive response to "muddy colors." So she makes a "sense of life" connection to tastes -- she believed that tastes in colors and landscapes which differed from hers revealed something more than mere "personal," automatic physical pleasure responses, and indicated deficiencies in psychology or outlook.

I think an interesting thing is that the pleasure responses of taste are alterable, just like Objectivism's view of emotions. The term "acquired taste" has legitimacy. As a child, I may have disliked "muddy colors," but as an adult artist, I've acquired a much more advanced and nuanced understanding of color theory and its expressive effects, and have therefore acquired more complex or sophisticated tastes. In fact, Rand's preference for "bright colors" suggests to me visual naivete. It's like hearing a middle aged woman announce that mac-n-cheese with cut-up-hot dogs and Oreos for dessert is the most delicious meal, and that pretentious "grown up" food and "fine cuisine" is icky and indicative of sense of life problems.

Rand and some of her followers don't seem to like the idea of others' having wide ranges of taste, especially if the include things that Rand and her followers don't like. They seem to see a virtue in hating certain things, and have the mindset that if you don't join them in choosing a side in matters of taste, then you don't actually like anything, or you're somehow degrading what they like by also liking what they don't. I think that's why Pigero often has the confused notion that others "haven't tried" Romanticism if they don't join him in hating non-Romanticism -- you can tell him over and over again that you love Romanticism, but he just doesn't believe you if you admit to liking something else as well. I think Tony, Newberry, Cresswell and others have the same view: Despite what you say, you can't really like what they like if you like something else as well; liking that other thing is an attack on what they like!

J

[caroljane]

Okay, so I've been looking into the issue of Rand probably having had the position that judgments of beauty were on an automatic level, and it's just a fricking nightmare trying to deal with Objectivism's invented definitions of terms, its inconsistent uses of them, and its double standards in applying them to others versus to Objectivists.

Additionally, I'm hampered by not currently having Rand's relevant works in front of me.

So, first things first. In searching online, I've seen many Objectivists stating that their tastes (in foods, colors, clothing styles, human beauty, etc.) are not subjective, but "objective but personal," but, oddly, I've seen none of them quoting Rand in support of this position. Where did they get this idea that Objectivism holds that pleasure responses are "objective but personal"?

Possibly from Peikoff.

I'm in process of perusing OPAR on these issues, for the first time. I see some hints, but haven't gotten to reading details of relevant sections yet. Stay tuned.

They seem to think that, although Objectivism believes in rational values and holds that there is no place for whim/emotion/etc. as a basis for one's values, somehow their automatic pleasure responses don't count as being in that category of whim/emotion/etc. Which makes me wonder why all automatic responses, including all emotions, shouldn't also be classified as "objective but personal."

That leads to a question I've been wanting to get to about your meaning of "subjective."

Do you mean whimsical? I think you don't, but I'm not sure.

Something you might not quite realize, since, if I recall right, you haven't personally been around many Objectivists, is the emotional cachet of "subjectivism" in Objectivist usage. "Intrinsicism" is a mistake. But "subjectivism" is a sin. "Subjectivism" has the flavor of capricious, unprincipled.

However, there are things which obviously vary from person to person and in regard to which even an Objectivist isn't going to say of the variants that some of them are irrational. A frequent for instance used is liking chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream better. These sorts of issues are considered optional personal issues. The way I used to hear it put was, "It's optional for me to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream and for you to have the reverse preferences, but it's objective that I like chocolate ice cream better and you like vanilla ice cream better." Maybe this has led to a notion of "objective but personal."

I've also heard Objectivists (including Hsieh in her podcast on beauty) claim that there is a certain limited range in which these "objective but personal" values are acceptable, but, outside of that vague and undefined range, people are "just really wrong" to have the tastes that they have, which would suggest that there is a point at which Objectivists think that the responses are no longer automatic, but are something that the experiencer can choose and therefore be held morally accountable for. Did Rand hold this view? Did she share their apparent belief that tastes are automatic, but only within a certain degree of similarity to hers (or to some specific norm?), and any tastes outside of that range were wrong? The idea seems to be to leave a door open so that others' tastes can be said to be subjective.

I suppose Rand didn't object to the idea that it's ok for one person to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla and vice versa, if this issue even came up in discussions with her. Her favorite color was known, and I don't recall picking up any whiffs that it wasn't ok for others to have a different favorite color.

Some choices clearly were considered acceptably optional. Career choices. Choices of romantic partner. For instance.

I suspect that Diana with her "just really wrong" on beauty responses is doing her own thing. However, it seems to me, from the sparse explicit hints I've found, and from the way she speaks of a beautiful image in a painting, that Rand assumed at least strong commonality in beauty responses.

Ellen

Okay, so I've been looking into the issue of Rand probably having had the position that judgments of beauty were on an automatic level, and it's just a fricking nightmare trying to deal with Objectivism's invented definitions of terms, its inconsistent uses of them, and its double standards in applying them to others versus to Objectivists.

Additionally, I'm hampered by not currently having Rand's relevant works in front of me.

So, first things first. In searching online, I've seen many Objectivists stating that their tastes (in foods, colors, clothing styles, human beauty, etc.) are not subjective, but "objective but personal," but, oddly, I've seen none of them quoting Rand in support of this position. Where did they get this idea that Objectivism holds that pleasure responses are "objective but personal"?

Possibly from Peikoff.

I'm in process of perusing OPAR on these issues, for the first time. I see some hints, but haven't gotten to reading details of relevant sections yet. Stay tuned.

They seem to think that, although Objectivism believes in rational values and holds that there is no place for whim/emotion/etc. as a basis for one's values, somehow their automatic pleasure responses don't count as being in that category of whim/emotion/etc. Which makes me wonder why all automatic responses, including all emotions, shouldn't also be classified as "objective but personal."

That leads to a question I've been wanting to get to about your meaning of "subjective."

Do you mean whimsical? I think you don't, but I'm not sure.

Something you might not quite realize, since, if I recall right, you haven't personally been around many Objectivists, is the emotional cachet of "subjectivism" in Objectivist usage. "Intrinsicism" is a mistake. But "subjectivism" is a sin. "Subjectivism" has the flavor of capricious, unprincipled.

However, there are things which obviously vary from person to person and in regard to which even an Objectivist isn't going to say of the variants that some of them are irrational. A frequent for instance used is liking chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream better. These sorts of issues are considered optional personal issues. The way I used to hear it put was, "It's optional for me to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream and for you to have the reverse preferences, but it's objective that I like chocolate ice cream better and you like vanilla ice cream better." Maybe this has led to a notion of "objective but personal."

I've also heard Objectivists (including Hsieh in her podcast on beauty) claim that there is a certain limited range in which these "objective but personal" values are acceptable, but, outside of that vague and undefined range, people are "just really wrong" to have the tastes that they have, which would suggest that there is a point at which Objectivists think that the responses are no longer automatic, but are something that the experiencer can choose and therefore be held morally accountable for. Did Rand hold this view? Did she share their apparent belief that tastes are automatic, but only within a certain degree of similarity to hers (or to some specific norm?), and any tastes outside of that range were wrong? The idea seems to be to leave a door open so that others' tastes can be said to be subjective.

I suppose Rand didn't object to the idea that it's ok for one person to prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla and vice versa, if this issue even came up in discussions with her. Her favorite color was known, and I don't recall picking up any whiffs that it wasn't ok for others to have a different favorite color.

Some choices clearly were considered acceptably optional. Career choices. Choices of romantic partner. For instance.

Ellen

Not so acceptably optional for Peikoff who could have been a doctor-- or Blumenthal who wanted to be a concert pianist-- or Barbara who did not really want to marry |Nathan - or, ahem, Nathan who wanted to marry Patrecia.

[Jonathan]

About the variable-depending-on-moderator "tight leash" on OO, has there ever been talk posted of banning you? Or talk you've heard of going on off-list about the suggestion of banning you?

I see that Bob K. was banned. I don't know what for. Not for his few comments on the "Roark the dynamiter" thread.

I strongly hope that you don't strain the leash to the point of getting yourself banned. Banned posters become unsearchables. Not being able to search for your content would be a big nuisance in trying to find material over there.

Ellen

There's definitely been talk of banning me at OO. The moderators have told me so. I'm currently on moderation, and have been since February.

Here's a post by Nicky which contains my post which put me over the line (mine was deleted for its alleged vicious personal abusiveness).

My comments were:

Who said anything about "refusing to work with others"? I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm talking about the Roarkian sense of life. The independent creator. The pride of originality. Um, read the sections in Atlas Shrugged where Rand very righteously and powerfully mocks the idea of people borrowing or appropriating others' creations and turning them into popular slogans or popular art/entertainment pieces, and then I think you might get a better sense of where I'm coming from. The point is that one isn't being a "producer" by rearranging, defacing or adding a line of text to others' work. If that's your notion of productivity, then I think there's probably quite a lot yet that you need to learn about Objectivism and the scale of vision that it promotes. Your view of it seems to be so tiny and insignificant.

I think that Rand would be moderated/banned at OO. I think she would whole-heartedly agree with me that the lack of originality in appropriating others' work in an effort to promote Objectivism is to have a very tiny and insignificant view of Objectivism, and to completely miss the independent, Roarkian sense of life.

Anyway, my saying so is seen as abusive, yet other posters and moderators have said much worse to me, including on the "Roark the Dynamiter" thread that you read.

Typical silly Objectivist shit.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suspect that Diana with her "just really wrong" on beauty responses is doing her own thing. However, it seems to me, from the sparse explicit hints I've found, and from the way she speaks of a beautiful image in a painting, that Rand assumed at least strong commonality in beauty responses.

I think that Rand assumed much more than a strong commonality in tastes. After all, she claimed that men of high self-esteem will respond positively to "bright colors" and other things that she found to be beautiful, where men of low self-esteem will have a positive response to "muddy colors." So she makes a "sense of life" connection to tastes -- she believed that tastes in colors and landscapes which differed from hers revealed something more than mere "personal," automatic physical pleasure responses, and indicated deficiencies in psychology or outlook.

I think that's combining two issues. As I recall, in the places where Rand spoke for instance of men of low self-esteem having a positive response to muddy colors, the implication was that they liked those colors because of the colors' unattractiveness, that the liking was an expression of those persons' hatred for all values, including beauty.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think that I've been slowly recognizing the grave seriousness of using the term "subjective" with Objectivists. It seems to be such a hated term that Rand's followers often alter her use of it to "personal." For example, many times in the past year or two I've seen them change her comment on musical preferences being treated as a subjective matter to "personal matter."

I think that "personal matter" is how she meant it in that context. As you've noticed, tracking inconsistencies of meaning in Objectivist usage is a headache. When Rand produced these inconsistencies, then the thunderous response, if she was called on them, would typically be "Consider the context!"

Ellen