Objectivist Roundup


Recommended Posts

Well, a side bonus of discovering the unity of Rand's philosophy, for many is a confirmation of previous bias against any art they don't like and/or understand. Remember Victor Pross? And he was an artist himself, always whining that other, more successful artists did not know their trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a side bonus of discovering the unity of Rand's philosophy, for many is a confirmation of previous bias against any art they don't like and/or understand. Remember Victor Pross? And he was an artist himself, always whining that other, more successful artists did not know their trade.

I'm not sure, but Victor might have ended up changing his mind somewhat. I think I remember correctly that he hooked up with a cute young lass who was into creating abstract art. I'm pretty sure that I remember him praising some of her images. Good for him if he grew and changed.

The interesting thing to me is that the petulant OObjecti-children seem to have gone far beyond Rand in their views on what is verboten in visual art. It seems now that True Art must present images of men doing things. Only they can communicate meanings to "the human mind" (each OObjecti-child's mind is the universal representative of human cognition, and the absolute limit of human ability). So, apparently Rand was wrong to explain how a painting of an apple qualifies as art. It is not. Still lifes are not art. Atmospheric landscapes are not art. Only images of men doing things.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Liar of thousand lies

See them within his eyes

Smite him to true pintsize

Fraudulent bastard!"

As a conscientious reporter on Randsites I include this excerpt from Forum4, which has devolved unto a repository of Objectivist creativity , especially of Brian Faulkner referenced above. Mr Faulkner's poetry alternates between ecstatic lifeworship and righteous anger, of which the above is a recent example, and he demonstrates a remarkable consistency in form and imagery, without greatly varying his theme.

A slight pedantic quibble which in no way quarrels with poetic license:

As it is clear from frequent references that Mr. Obama is your referent,technically he is not a bastard, as evidence is incontrovertible that he was born in wedlock. If this was simply an idiomatic addition, it may be an intriquing new direction in the generally highminded style of the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over on OO, the belligerently ignorant children can't tell the difference between toddler art and Romanticism in visual art at its peak.

J

Are the last 5 from Turner paintings, per chance?

Four of the five are. The OObrats are so unaware of art history that even with hints they didn't understand what I was doing. They had to be told a couple of times that I had posted uncropped scans of realist Romanitic paintings before it started to sink in. And they still might not understand. I think they realize that they're being laughed at, but they don't fully grasp why.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone should tell aspiring Dear Aynie Kevin Delaney that Leading Men can be found at any Starbucks or unemployment office. It is the character actors who score the steady work.

Kevin should team up with his fellow "leading man" Doug Bandler. Maybe open up the Lonnie Leonard Club for Objectivist Leading Men.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they realize that they're being laughed at, but they don't fully grasp why.

J

I like the way you work, J.

Very Eastern with a nice Western twist.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monthly checkin. All quiet on the fronts.

Hmm, so Doug Bandler praising fascism in the name of liberty is not noteworthy? (I note that while the silly boy loves to flirt with self-proclaimed fascists, he probably doesn't care to sign on with some of the more, shall we say, challenging challenges to his mentally challenged world view:

It is relevant to question why a male, after discovering a fairly effective tactic for disarming the sexual defenses of the average woman, would continue to use this skill over and over without eventually settling on a single woman?...To be so dedicated to the PUA lifestyle, you’d have to be motivated by something OTHER than simple biologically-driven sexual interest or desire for female companionship. In this case the answer is both obvious and hideous: an overwhelming hatred...You can take the failure out of his basement and place him in a woman’s vagina, but he will still be a failure.

Just thought I'd mention all this, 'cause it looks like Daunce Lynam missed this post of his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Flea,

Indeed I did miss I the latest development of the Bandlerian ethos. If I don't shape up I will lose my cushy beat assignment and have to cover ARI podcasts or even Philosophy in Action. Shudder.

One of the most striking, if depressing, features of the Dog is his apparent) honesty.He admits he has wet dreams about the violent rearrangement of society to suit his own tastes. This is a bond he shares with Perigo, and though they do not detail the particulars of cleansing the airheads and filth from the body politic, doubtless such details enrich their joint fantasy lives. It is quaint to hear Doug agree that after the cleansing, "government can loosen" . Sure, the State will wither away.

He also states that he no longer hates all women, like he used to. I'm sure he now likes a few of them, considering them honorary men with benefits. But my sense is that he hated women before he ever began trying to approach them sexually, and perhaps the women sensed this and it was part of the early rejections that so tortured and enraged him.

It is our Thanksgiving today and I am thankful that I don't live anywhere near Doug Bandler, whatever his real name or location is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over on OO, the belligerently ignorant children can't tell the difference between toddler art and Romanticism in visual art at its peak.

J

Are the last 5 from Turner paintings, per chance?

Four of the five are. The OObrats are so unaware of art history that even with hints they didn't understand what I was doing. They had to be told a couple of times that I had posted uncropped scans of realist Romanitic paintings before it started to sink in. And they still might not understand. I think they realize that they're being laughed at, but they don't fully grasp why.

J

That's pretty embarrassing, and proves again that there needs to be a new edict from Mount Peikoff: i.e., that young Objectivsts are not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about. It is quite sad that people claiming to know something about art would not recognize "the Turner" in those images, if not the specific paintings themselves.

Nobody should lose their Objectivist union card by simply stating "I don't know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Peikoff could issue such an edict without evoking the ghost of Rand who felt obliged to do the same thing.

A recent small, but pedantically irritating example came up on OO's sigline recently, her quote that Americans "created the phrase 'to make money'." They didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty embarrassing, and proves again that there needs to be a new edict from Mount Peikoff: i.e., that young Objectivsts are not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about.

That might start a revolution from "young" O'sts who will demand that "older" O'ists are also "...not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about."

The Pope and Dr. Dr. would only be able to put out twelve (12) podcasts a year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty embarrassing, and proves again that there needs to be a new edict from Mount Peikoff: i.e., that young Objectivsts are not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about.

That might start a revolution from "young" O'sts who will demand that "older" O'ists are also "...not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about."

The Pope and Dr. Dr. would only be able to put out twelve (12) podcasts a year!

And something on the order of a half of Rand's non-fiction would have to go.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty embarrassing, and proves again that there needs to be a new edict from Mount Peikoff: i.e., that young Objectivsts are not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about.

That might start a revolution from "young" O'sts who will demand that "older" O'ists are also "...not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about."

The Pope and Dr. Dr. would only be able to put out twelve (12) podcasts a year!

And something on the order of a half of Rand's non-fiction would have to go.

Ellen

I would say 1/3 to 40%...

Close enogh Ellen...

Didn't she give Nathan "psychology" because it was a sewer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, is begging to be nominated for the Podcast Awards.

Is that something that Howard Roark would do, or something that Peter Keating would do?

J

Peter would beg better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, is begging to be nominated for the Podcast Awards.

Is that something that Howard Roark would do, or something that Peter Keating would do?

J

Peter would ask Howard to do the begging for him, he would claim credit for Howard's begging, the whole thing would go awry, and then Howard would burn down the podcast studio--all while standing naked on the edge of a cliff--with his head thrown back, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty embarrassing, and proves again that there needs to be a new edict from Mount Peikoff: i.e., that young Objectivsts are not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about.

That might start a revolution from "young" O'sts who will demand that "older" O'ists are also "...not required to opine about subjects they know nothing about."

The Pope and Dr. Dr. would only be able to put out twelve (12) podcasts a year!

And something on the order of a half of Rand's non-fiction would have to go.

Ellen

I would say 1/3 to 40%...

Close enogh Ellen...

Didn't she give Nathan "psychology" because it was a sewer?

Now, remember: it was the demi-god Hercules who cleaned the Augean stables. Rand perhaps at least subconsciously saw Branden as the intellectual equivalent of Hercules, in that respect. (Also, wasn't it *Hercules* who shrugged, when Atlas refused to take the world back on his shoulders? That's always bothered me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck yeah!!!

Part 2 of the "radio" interview with Jenn Casey on living with food allergies is finally going to be on Philosophy Inaction! It seems like forever since the first part. I can't wait. Why won't Wednesday hurry up and get here? It feels like time has slowed down since I saw the announcement of Part 2.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Solo, perennial favourite NotDougBandler continues his intellectual journey through nineteenth century Eugenics, and makes short work of the Asians.

The Asians ...no need to distinguish between Singaporeans and Seoulmen here, anatomy is destiny... though not as stupid and savage as the blacks, are brainwired collectivists and however much exposed to liberty will never understand it. Only white people are brainwired to understand it. White people who marry Asians and ugh, have children, are suicidally destroying their own liberty genes. How sick is that? Maybe white people are not all so smart after all.

So, heads up on the Yellow Peril, the Sequel. Just when you thought it was safe to order Chinese...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Solo, perennial favourite NotDougBandler continues his intellectual journey through nineteenth century Eugenics, and makes short work of the Asians.

The Asians ...no need to distinguish between Singaporeans and Seoulmen here, anatomy is destiny... though not as stupid and savage as the blacks, are brainwired collectivists and however much exposed to liberty will never understand it. Only white people are brainwired to understand it. White people who marry Asians and ugh, have children, are suicidally destroying their own liberty genes. How sick is that? Maybe white people are not all so smart after all.

So, heads up on the Yellow Peril, the Sequel. Just when you thought it was safe to order Chinese...

I wonder how many Asians he actually knows personally. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now