Objectivist Roundup

[Ellen Stuttle]

link

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2013-12-31 21:20.

Ed

[....]

See you Feb 1? Or you can slip another one in before midnight if you like.

I suddenly had images of the Disney movie of "Cinderella," the clock striking midnight after the ball, the carriage, horses, driver, footman, clothes reverting....

Ellen

[PDS]

There is Horses' Assery afoot, me thinks.

I suspect LP will miss the limelight, such as it is in these odd circles.

[Jonathan]

Heh.

Pigero offers this as proof to Ed that he's a serious thinker and that he supports his aesthetic tantrums with "reason."

Here's some similar "reasoning" of the same quality:

Do you remember a few years ago that Britain's Got Talent exposed Nessun Dorma and Turandot to a new generation of what Pigero calls cretinous airheads? Well, contrary to Pigero's attempt to blame various shootings on Ke$ha's song Die Young, it was actually the reinjection of the poison of Turandot into the culture which caused all of the shootings. The cretinous airheads bought into Turandot's message that torture and murder are okay, and that "love" is nothing but mindless, physical, hormonal obsession.

No rational person can deny that Turandot became culturally relevant and influential again, and that its messages is what I say it is, and that lots of shootings happened after cretinous airheads were exposed to it. Therefore Turandot caused the shootings.

Now, the question is, when will Ed and Pigero renounce it? When will they apologize for the cultural damage that they have caused in promoting it?

J

[Jonathan]

And let's not forget that an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand intended it to mean. Technically, Howard Roark, the novel's "hero," behaves very immorally by Objectivist standards. Surely his doing so has contributed to cultural rot and murder and such, and we must condemn it in our quest for Pigeronian aesthetic spiritual renewal.

J

[PDS]

Maybe so, but the lad who sang Nessun Dorma was quite sweet, Lanza is handsome, and Keisha is clearly a slut. So...

[Jonathan]

Maybe so, but the lad who sang Nessun Dorma was quite sweet...

No! Pigero threw a fit over the lad, Paul Potts. He wasn't quite up to Pigero's consumer tastes (though, perplexingly, Peter Cresswell and Michael Newberry somehow are up to his tastes despite being no more talented in their fields than Potts is in his).

But you're on the right track. Potts would have been rated as more artistically talented if Pigero had liked Potts' physical appearance, or if he had discovered that Potts was an Objectivist.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suspect LP will miss the limelight, such as it is in these odd circles.

Not long, since he's anticipating that he'll return on February 1, 2014.

[Ellen Stuttle]

And let's not forget that an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand intended it to mean. Technically, Howard Roark, the novel's "hero," behaves very immorally by Objectivist standards. Surely his doing so has contributed to cultural rot and murder and such, and we must condemn it in our quest for Pigeronian aesthetic spiritual renewal.

J

Re-reminder, Rand had not formulated Objectivism when she wrote The Fountainhead, so she could hardly have been intending Roark to be acting by Objectivist standards, whatever it was she was intending.

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

...it was actually the reinjection of the poison of Turandot into the culture which caused all of the shootings. The cretinous airheads bought into Turandot's message that torture and murder are okay, and that "love" is nothing but mindless, physical, hormonal obsession.

No rational person can deny that Turandot became culturally relevant and influential again, and that its messages is what I say it is, and that lots of shootings happened after cretinous airheads were exposed to it. Therefore Turandot caused the shootings.

Now, the question is, when will Ed and Pigero renounce it?

Turandot couldn't inspire shootings; beheadings yes, shootings no. And I think it's high time Ed called in Pu-Tin-Pao to help deal with a certain pesky dissenter. I'm going to start to 'Gira la cote' in the meantime.

[Jonathan]

And let's not forget that an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand intended it to mean. Technically, Howard Roark, the novel's "hero," behaves very immorally by Objectivist standards. Surely his doing so has contributed to cultural rot and murder and such, and we must condemn it in our quest for Pigeronian aesthetic spiritual renewal.

J

Re-reminder, Rand had not formulated Objectivism when she wrote The Fountainhead, so she could hardly have been intending Roark to be acting by Objectivist standards, whatever it was she was intending.

Ellen

Right. I agree. I should have said that "an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand and her "heirs" and followers have claimed that it meant."

[Brant Gaede]

And let's not forget that an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand intended it to mean. Technically, Howard Roark, the novel's "hero," behaves very immorally by Objectivist standards. Surely his doing so has contributed to cultural rot and murder and such, and we must condemn it in our quest for Pigeronian aesthetic spiritual renewal.

J

Re-reminder, Rand had not formulated Objectivism when she wrote The Fountainhead, so she could hardly have been intending Roark to be acting by Objectivist standards, whatever it was she was intending.

Ellen

Right. I agree. I should have said that "an objective analysis of the contents of The Fountainhead reveals that it doesn't mean what Rand and her "heirs" and followers have claimed that it meant."

Ruthlessness is not Objectivism?

--Brant

drat!

[Jonathan]

Turandot couldn't inspire shootings; beheadings yes, shootings no.

In Objectivist circles, that's called "concrete bound" thinking. Turandot contains murder, and therefore inspires people in the real world to commit it. They don't have to commit the same specific type of murder, just as they don't have to wear the same clothing or sing the same words as the characters who inspired them.

And I think it's high time Ed called in Pu-Tin-Pao to help deal with a certain pesky dissenter. I'm going to start to 'Gira la cote' in the meantime.

I think that Ed wants to change. He wants something more out of life than the evil which has taken over his soul, which is why he has a strong interest in "aesthetic and spiritual renewal." So, he doesn't need to sharpen his blades and continue wallowing in the cultural depravity of Turandot. No, what he needs to do is to be strong and virtuous, and to lead by example and give up the evil art that has infected him and the culture. He should publicly destroy his copies of any recordings, poster art or other images of Turandot that he has. He should promise to never listen to it again, and to never attend any more performances of it.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Now according to SLOP's chief LP fan we here at OL are Tooheys to LP's Roark.

--Brant

run with that

[9thdoctor]

Not long, since he's anticipating that he'll return on February 1, 2014.

So it turns out he's just taking a one month break, and it's garnered all this attention? Extra hits to a site that couldn't even draw flies?

Well played, Jabba, well played...

Turandot couldn't inspire shootings; beheadings yes, shootings no.

In Objectivist circles, that's called "concrete bound" thinking. Turandot contains murder, and therefore inspires people in the real world to commit it. They don't have to commit the same specific type of murder, just as they don't have to wear the same clothing or sing the same words as the characters who inspired them.

At last I see the error of my ways! Mille grazie!!

This calls for a little Nessun Dorma, I say. This one is from the first complete recording, and is one of the few that does the ending as written. You'll see the score during the video at the relevant part and can decide for yourself.

I blame the fact that Ayn Rand's liberal detractors get away with misrepresenting what she wrote on tenors like Mario Lanza who taught, by example, that it's ok to just make shit up, never minding what the actual writer put down on paper! This is a freaking revelation, I think I finally grok what KASS is all about!!

[Jonathan]

In addition to the evil moral message of Turandot, there's also the fact, as I explained here, that opera's aesthetic style isn't independent, rational or individualistic, but arbitrary and based on the imposed subjective tastes of those who had political power over composers, as well as on conditions and technological limitations that are no longer relevant. The style that Ed and Pigero love is very anti-Objectivist. It's the mindset that Howard Roark fought against.

J

[Jonathan]

At last I see the error of my ways! Mille grazie!!

I'm glad that you're beginning to see the light. The next step is to destroy your copies of evil art, and to limit yourself to experiencing only good, clean, pure art. Cleanse yourself of your evil.

J

[Brant Gaede]

At last I see the error of my ways! Mille grazie!!

I'm glad that you're beginning to see the light. The next step is to destroy your copies of evil art, and to limit yourself to experiencing only good, clean, pure art. Cleanse yourself of your evil.

J

But evil is so much fun!

--Brant

[Selene]

At last I see the error of my ways! Mille grazie!!

I'm glad that you're beginning to see the light. The next step is to destroy your copies of evil art, and to limit yourself to experiencing only good, clean, pure art. Cleanse yourself of your evil.

J

But evil is so much fun!

--Brant

And remember evil spelled backwards is ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like some of what I see, too, but I'm a bit more cautious than you are. I don't see her as having as much passion for her craft as she does for the spotlight and for rubbing elbows with those who do have a passion for the craft. She has some Big Ideas, but I remember making fun of some of the details of her writing style, and wondering how she got published, even if by a small publisher -- as you might expect of someone with a connection to Rand and Objectivism, she's strong on the moral conflict in her fiction but not very polished on the artistry of presenting the moral conflict. It's almost as if aesthetics is morality in her view.

Jonathan,

I see the rough edges and influences. But think of this. We can't help where we come from. (I'm not making a quip. I'm serious.)

Kira grew up around what she grew up around. She's young and proficient, but not a master by far. I know she used the influence from her upbringing to smooth the way in the publishing world, but what young person would not in her shoes? I would if I were her. I suspect you would, too.

The time to spit on your parents is in your teens, not in your twenties.

I see no dishonor whatsoever in getting a hand up out of the gate from inherited contacts. Part of the wealth kids inherit is people, not just money. And like all heirs, they can lean on that all their lives, multiply it or squander it. I don't judge the first steps on that score.

Also, every great artist starts by imitating a master or some masterworks when they start out. I don't know of one who has not gone this route. And I don't know of one who didn't appear green doing it.

So I see Kira as a writer of a first novel. Not as a seasoned writer. A budding celebrity, not a public fixture. Where she takes her art in the future will show what stuff she's made of. But I see lots of promise.

I'm optimistic about her and it gives me pleasure to contemplate her future. I think it's cool she comes from the most ortho environment in our subcommunity and she's not a dud. She's talented.

I'm rooting for her success.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Kira grew up around what she grew up around. She's young and proficient, but not a master by far. I know she used the influence from her upbringing to smooth the way in the publishing world, but what young person would not in her shoes? I would if I were her. I suspect you would, too.

No, I wouldn't. I've never used "pull," and never will. I value the reality of merit. And I'm proud of the hard work that I've done to become as good as I am at what I do. I have zero interest in having people help me pretend that I've achieved and earned more than I have. If I were in Kira's shoes, I'd change my name, tell no one my real name, tell no one who my father was or what his connection to Rand was. I'd want the reality of succeeding or failing on my own merit.

So I see Kira as a writer of a first novel. Not as a seasoned writer. A budding celebrity, not a public fixture. Where she takes her art in the future will show what stuff she's made of. But I see lots of promise.

I don't see promise but potential. Right now, she appears to be, as you said, a "budding celebrity," rather than a budding artist. Fame appears to be more important than craft.

I'm rooting for her success.

If her goal is celebrity, I'm not rooting for her success. I'm rooting for her to focus totally on her craft and to forget about cultivating pull.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

You've been Roarked!

Do you think the kids of millionaires should donate their inherited money to charity or something like that so they can only make their own money on their own merit and not pretend they have earned more than their merit allowed them to?

If not, why should they renounce the name of their influential parents and the benefits that brings? That would presume that inherited money is good, but inherited name is evil.

Do you have a reason for that?

Or are you against all inheritance of any nature?

Here's what I believe. Just like, as Rand said, the market will take care of the heir who does not deserve the wealth he inherits and remove his wealth, so too will the market take care of inherited "pull."

(I'm talking about art and entertainment here. Just look at the untalented aspiring kids of lots of famous people for proof. They flare up because of their name and connections, then become nobodies since their stuff stinks. If this were politics, it would be somewhat different and something like the Peter Principle would be added to the mix.)

In my view, I say let Kira enjoy her head start. It won't last if she's a dud. And if she becomes a master, frankly, it won't mean much since her best works will not need her privileged start to attain their own success.

Also, getting connections is not an easy task. Read Rand's letters to see how she prodded people for their "pull." They didn't just read her works and go, "Wow, you're a genius, let me help you." Rand was very good at building her network of influence and working it. I have no doubt that had she had relatives in the publishing or movie industry, she would not have hesitated in approaching them for opportunities.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I really don't get this discussion. A name can open doors but all that does is make you into a public sink or swim. My inclination is simply to leave this woman alone.

--Brant

change her name?--yeck

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

You've been Roarked!

Heh.

No, I've held my views on merit long before I ever heard of Rand or Roark. But Roark's integrity is definitely something with which I identify. Actions speak louder than words, and I've always felt that if I had to resort to using pull, I was admitting that I sucked at what I wanted to do. And if I sucked at what wanted to do, using pull wouldn't make me better at it in reality, but would just temporarily fake reality. So why not work at getting good at what I wanted to do rather than work at temporarily faking reality?

Do you think the kids of millionaires should donate their inherited money to charity or something like that so they can only make their own money on their own merit and not pretend they have earned more than their merit allowed them to?

If not, why should they renounce the name of their influential parents and the benefits that brings? That would presume that inherited money is good, but inherited name is evil.

Do you have a reason for that?

Or are you against all inheritance of any nature?

No, I'm not against inheritance at all. I'm only against people trying to fake reality and make something inheritable or transferable which is not, or to purchase something which cannot be purchased. Talent and skill are not inheritable. Leonard Peikoff didn't inherit any from Rand by being designated the heir of her estate, and young Ms. Peikoff didn't inherit any from Rand through her father.

The principle of opposing pull-peddling also extends to other examples of trying to purchase the unpurchasable: I'm opposed to parents bribing teachers or entire educational institutions into giving their children better grades than what they deserve, I'm opposed to a person using his wealth or fame to protect his relatives from getting the justice that they deserve for having committed a crime, I'm opposed to the idea of someone trading sexual favors in exchange for a better position for themselves or their family members, etc.

I don't cease to agree with Rand on the issue of pull peddlers when those who were associated with her are the beneficiaries of the pull.

My circle of friends includes professional journalists and writers, so I have quite a bit of knowledge of how competitive the field can be. I've seen what it takes for friends to make it on merit. I'm aware of the level of quality that they have to produce. From what I've read of Ms. Peikoff's work, she appears to be receiving professional opportunities way beyond what her abilities should earn. Logically, there are a few possible explanations for that.

Here's what I believe. Just like, as Rand said, the market will take care of the heir who does not deserve the wealth he inherits and remove his wealth, so too will the market take care of inherited "pull."

You seem to be saying that you don't want to take a position on the morality of the issue, but that you'll defer to what the market thinks. If so, what's your beef with the position that I'm taking? Am I not simply a part of the market having its say about talent and pull?

(I'm talking about art and entertainment here. Just look at the untalented aspiring kids of lots of famous people for proof. They flare up because of their name and connections, then become nobodies since their stuff stinks. If this were politics, it would be somewhat different and something like the Peter Principle would be added to the mix.)

In my view, I say let Kira enjoy her head start. It won't last if she's a dud. And if she becomes a master, frankly, it won't mean much since her best works will not need her privileged start to attain their own success.

Also, getting connections is not an easy task. Read Rand's letters to see how she prodded people for their "pull." They didn't just read her works and go, "Wow, you're a genius, let me help you." Rand was very good at building her network of influence and working it. I have no doubt that had she had relatives in the publishing or movie industry, she would not have hesitated in approaching them for opportunities.

I don't think that you and I are very far apart on this issue. All that I'm really saying is that I hope that Ms. Peikoff earns the opportunities that she's been given by focusing on her craft.

I'd also like to see her acquire a sense of taste and journalistic propriety which would guide her to say things like, "No, you're not going to take a photo of me to accompany the piece. Comparative DNA testing is the subject here, not me and my pretty face."

J

[Brant Gaede]

"Pull" is great for money. You should see my money bin. I like to spend the day in it rolling around in the coins and bills.

--Brant

no way to spend it--the bin has liens

quack, quack!

[Jonathan]

Just think of what a special moment in time this is. Right now, and for the rest of this month, Pigero is writing the Credos that will save the world. It's like when Hank Rearden put in endless hours perfecting his metal or designing a bridge, only with Pigero, it's not fiction and it's not just about manufacturing and practical crap like that, it's real and it's the most important thing ever! It's happening right now, and we are fortunate enough to be alive to witness it! Future generations will ask us what it was like to live through January, 2014, and to dream of the new world about to be born.

J