HERESY!!!

[rush242]

Hi, Rush. It's been awhile. I hope life is generally going well for you.

Hi, and thank you.

I'm feeling at a loss about how to answer your post. I think that it's not talking about what I was meaning, and I don't know what to say about what it seems you are talking about. You seem to be addressing Objectivism's not providing answers to life questions, which, no, it doesn't provide. But the sort of people I have in mind talk and act as if they believe Objectivism has provided all the answers.

Maybe I was unclear, but if you had asked me in 1992, yeah, I would have told you that o'ism did provide all the answers. One, because after reading AS, I could generalize enough in my daily life to deal with whatever discussions or dilemmas came up. And two, because I simply didn't have any real idea where else I needed to go with o'ism. The free will discussions, aside from being beyond me at the time, would have struck me (as they often do somewhat now) as an exercise in arguing about possible shades of meaning of words in English, how the participants mean or interpret those shades, and how to ram that meaning or interpretation down someone else's throat. My point, I guess, was that the people you are referring to may act and believe that way simply because they are happy with what they know and do not know, or do not have the tools or experience to know any different. Take for example, the "force and fraud" business. It never would have crossed my mind back then to break the two out.

A question: Have you met many Objectivists? I looked up your profile; I find this description of your list participation: ~snip~ What's the "et cetera"? Have you been on ObjectivismOnline? ForumforAynRand fans?

Those sound familiar, but I purged a lot of stuff 2003-2004 when I went back to school, I don't really remember. But "met?" No, never once that I know of. A few people who have loved the books, but who have never gotten any farther.

I don't know what the old SOLO e-mail list was like, since I was never on that. NB's group had quite a mix of people. The Atlantis crowd, the main crowd, is a tough bunch. Few of the main posters are Objectivists. They're mostly well-read and hard-arguing -- give no quarter. Not the place to ask for supportiveness. (A2 is pretty much a ghost town these days, as I expect you know; you've posted a few things recently. I'm talking more about its heyday; but there are still folks posting there with whom you...don't jibe too well.)

Yeah, and that's fine. As I've said before, I never set the tone around there, but I sure rubbed some people the wrong way. That's fine, they seem to be perfectly happy doing that intentionally to others.

Your comment about "blank out": What she meant by that was a refusal to think. You seem to be talking about reaching a place in your thoughts where you don't know how to go farther.

I think you'd probably find, if you wanted to pose questions here, that you'd be minimally attacked or used as an opportunity for grandstanding. Not that those activities are never engaged in here, but not nearly so often as on more typical O'ist lists.

Nice to hear from you again! --Ellen

You too. And yes, I get that, I know what she meant by the term. But my point was that to some people, my inexperience, or lack of a real philosophical foundation, would come across as a blank out as I sought to defend whatever position I had taken.

But you're right about posting here. Note I posted the comment about .mp3s recently--Oh Jeebus did that topic get people insane on the old SOLO list. That turned into a firefight. For no real reason.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] The free will discussions, aside from being beyond me at the time, would have struck me (as they often do somewhat now) as an exercise in arguing about possible shades of meaning of words in English, how the participants mean or interpret those shades, and how to ram that meaning or interpretation down someone else's throat. My point, I guess, was that the people you are referring to may act and believe that way simply because they are happy with what they know and do not know, or do not have the tools or experience to know any different. Take for example, the "force and fraud" business. It never would have crossed my mind back then to break the two out.

Ah, as I suspected, we were talking about a whole different set of people. The people who were involved in those free will discussions aren't the sort I meant at all. Most of those folks don't even consider themselves Objectivists. Ellen Moore of course considered herself an Objectivist, but she was a phenomenon onto herself, by no means "typical" of anyone except herself. (The past tense is because she died last year, on or about Veteran's Day. I was sad to hear of her passing. Despite -- or, maybe, because of -- how stubborn she could be and how aggravating, I was fond of her.)

Those [ObjectivismOnline and Forum4AynRandFans] sound familiar, but I purged a lot of stuff 2003-2004 when I went back to school, I don't really remember. But "met?" No, never once that I know of. A few people who have loved the books, but who have never gotten any farther.

Those 2 forums are primarily populated by the sorts I was talking about.

Yeah, and that's fine [re A2]. As I've said before, I never set the tone around there, but I sure rubbed some people the wrong way. That's fine, they seem to be perfectly happy doing that intentionally to others.

They revel in it -- the particular ones who were the main ones. But those particular ones aren't Objectivists and aren't representatives of what I meant. Far from it.

And yes, I get that, I know what she meant by the term. But my point was that to some people, my inexperience, or lack of a real philosophical foundation, would come across as a blank out as I sought to defend whatever position I had taken.

Not a blank out; that isn't how they'd see it. Other negative terms (terms of their own; not O'ist terms).

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Ellen Moore of course considered herself an Objectivist, but she was a phenomenon onto herself, by no means "typical" of anyone except herself. (The past tense is because she died last year, on or about Veteran's Day. I was sad to hear of her passing. Despite -- or, maybe, because of -- how stubborn she could be and how aggravating, I was fond of her.)

I don't remember hearing that Ellen Moore had died. I knew that Larry Fullmer was gone, and I heard something about "Jason Alexander's" passing as well, including someone mentioning his real name.

Has anyone else from the old Atlantis or A2 days died? I see some of the old familiar names on other sites, but some names I haven't seen in years.

They revel in it -- the particular ones who were the main ones. But those particular ones aren't Objectivists and aren't representatives of what I meant. Far from it.

Oddly enough, I never personally faced much nastiness from the Atlantis main crowd. There were some -- Larry Fullmer, Ellen Moore and maybe a few minor players whose names I'd really have to struggle to remember -- who were excessively rude to me (including in unsolicited and unprovoked offlist rants) when I first started posting there under one pseudonym or another, but I don't remember any of those who might usually be thought of as the "big attack dogs" -- Ghs, RL, JR, JO, etc. -- ever coming after me, even when I disagreed with them. I can't remember a single incident in which any of those four were anything but courteous with me.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't remember hearing that Ellen Moore had died. I knew that Larry Fullmer was gone, and I heard something about "Jason Alexander's" passing as well, including someone mentioning his real name.

Has anyone else from the old Atlantis or A2 days died? I see some of the old familiar names on other sites, but some names I haven't seen in years.

Insofar as I know, Ellen Moore's death wasn't announced anywhere.

Chris Tame and Ken Gregg.

Oddly enough, I never personally faced much nastiness from the Atlantis main crowd. [....] I don't remember any of those who might usually be thought of as the "big attack dogs" -- Ghs, RL, JR, JO, etc. -- ever coming after me, even when I disagreed with them. I can't remember a single incident in which any of those four were anything but courteous with me.

Nothing odd about that. You were never discourteous to them -- and they found your sense of humor delightful.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

[i don't agree with your reading there. The context pertaining to the eyes on this thread was people's mock-worrying about having hazel eyes being a bad sign for Rand hero-dom. It wouldn't be.

Eyes like Lillian's and Mouch's I'd take as a character sign. She might not have well enough described what I'm getting from the description. Character does show in eyes. It isn't really the color though. It's a missing light.

The point is that she does describe the colors very explicitly. And Rand doesn't write something without purpose. Neither does she use a neutral term like "hazel", no she writes: "pale, brownish pupils of his eyes looked like the yolks of eggs smeared under the not fully translucent whites", which is obviously meant as the description of something distasteful. And: The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression. She means it: vagely pale eyes, neither quite gray nor brown are a flaw. Cuffy Meigs had "blurred brown eyes". Eyes "the color and quality of pale blue ice" and "cold blue" are reserved for a hero (Rearden) as are eyes that are "pure, clear blue", "color of the sky" (Francisco), "cold blue" (Hugh Akston), "gun metal grey" (Dagny), "sky-blue" (Danneskjöld), "deep, dark green of light glinting on metal" (Galt).

The passage about Francisco is in glaring contradiction to her statement that "No one is born with any kind of 'talent.'" The contradiction was pointed out on that SOLOHQ thread about her "blank slate" views, if you remember the thread I mean -- you were a participant.

I can't remember that this passage was brought up.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Character does show in eyes. It isn't really the color though. It's a missing light.

The point is that she does describe the colors very explicitly. And Rand doesn't write something without purpose. Neither does she use a neutral term like "hazel", no she writes: "pale, brownish pupils of his eyes looked like the yolks of eggs smeared under the not fully translucent whites", which is obviously meant as the description of something distasteful.

Agreed that it's obviously meant as the description of something distasteful. And distasteful is just what I find the look of such eyes: gaaky, tummy-turning, eyes that are signs of a debauched life style -- or possibly the result of liver problems from a cause other than excess boozing and poor eating habits. But the full context of Mouch's description indicates life style as the cause.

And: The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression [emphasis added] She means it: vagely pale eyes, neither quite gray nor brown are a flaw.

Not eyes that are simply not quite gray nor brown, but eyes that are vaguely so with a lifeless emptiness of expression. A character trait is being revealed here, a result of the sort of person Lillian is. Likewise for the other descriptions. The heroes are clear-eyed.

Eyes are "the windows of the soul." She isn't just talking genetics of eye color; she's conveying psychological qualities of the persons.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

.."pale, brownish pupils of his eyes looked like the yolks of eggs smeared under the not fully translucent whites", which is obviously meant as the description of something distasteful.

Agreed that it's obviously meant as the description of something distasteful. And distasteful is just what I find the look of such eyes: gaaky, tummy-turning, eyes that are signs of a debauched life style -- or possibly the result of liver problems from a cause other than excess boozing and poor eating habits. But the full context of Mouch's description indicates life style as the cause.

First, she writes about the color of the pupils, while she obviously means the color of the irises, the pupils are always black (otherwise the eyesight would be severely impaired). Sloppy writing! The color of the iris may be influenced by injuries, poisons or some diseases, but not by excess boozing and poor eating habits.

Not eyes that are simply not quite gray nor brown, but eyes that are vaguely so with a lifeless emptiness of expression. A character trait is being revealed here, a result of the sort of person Lillian is. Likewise for the other descriptions. The heroes are clear-eyed.

Of course she describes a character trait, but her error is to couple it to genetically determined factors, just as the confluence of eyebrows was once thought to be a sign of a criminal mind. Her characterizations are a crude form of stereotyping.

Eyes are "the windows of the soul." She isn't just talking genetics of eye color; she's conveying psychological qualities of the persons.

"Windows of the soul" is unscientific crap that belongs in the same category as phrenology or Lombroso's theories. You cannot determine the character of a person on the basis of the color of his irises.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly,

I had to laugh out loud at your post above.

For one thing, whatever point you're trying to establish I think has become buried. If it's simply that her descriptions are caricaturing, I already agreed with that; I was never disputing that.

For another, again you're focusing on one aspect, the color of the irises (she did mean irises not pupils) and ignoring the rest of the description. The irises of Mouch's eyes "looked like the yolks of eggs smeared under the not fully translucent whites." This is a description of the kind of look of the eyes which results from boozing and bad eating habits. The issue isn't simply the color of the irises; it's that the irises are occluded in clarity by murky whites of the eyes.

For another, actually the color of the irises does change within limits with chemicals, not just poisons, in the blood stream. For instance, my eyes used to get greener each month when the progestin level was high. (The color of my irises is basically blue, but can range in appearance from gray to grayish-blue to greenish-blue to green dependent on context effects from what I'm wearing and can also vary through that range dependent on blood-stream factors.)

For another, she isn't coupling the character trait being conveyed in Lillian's description with "genetically determined factors." She isn't saying that someone whose eyes are "not quite gray nor brown" therefore has bad character. It's the expression that's conveying the character.

And for toppers, your response about "windows of the soul" cracked me up:

"Windows of the soul" is unscientific crap that belongs in the same category as phrenology or Lombroso's theories. You cannot determine the character of a person on the basis of the color of his irises.

"Windows of the soul" is metaphor and not in the least "unscientific." Quite a bit about a person is revealed by the person's eyes. But the issue isn't that of "determin[ing] the character of a person on the basis of the color of his irises." It's the total look of the eyes.

About Lillian: I feel that I know just what those eyes look like from Rand's description: those of a woman who's a snake in female form, to use another metaphor. I have met such women. I wouldn't be surprised if you have too.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

For another, she isn't coupling the character trait being conveyed in Lillian's description with "genetically determined factors." She isn't saying that someone whose eyes are "not quite gray nor brown" therefore has bad character. It's the expression that's conveying the character.

No, of course she doesn't present a theoretical treatise about the connection between color of the iris and character, but it's obvious that she does make that link, if you read the examples I've quoted. She doesn't merely mention the expression of the eyes, but gives extensive descriptions of the colors, implying that these are relevant. Her examples are telling enough: heroes have monochromatic irises (cool blue, metallic green, gunmetal grey) while villains have irises with pale brownish, muddy colors. The symbolism is obvious, and very crude.

"Windows of the soul" is metaphor and not in the least "unscientific." Quite a bit about a person is revealed by the person's eyes. But the issue isn't that of "determin[ing] the character of a person on the basis of the color of his irises." It's the total look of the eyes.

It's still pseudoscience, as it is about subjective impressions for which no objective data exist. But even if there were some validity in it, the point is that Rand isn't so much talking about the "total look", but repeatedly describes the color of the "pupils" (read "irises"), as if that is important (and not just an irrelevant detail).

About Lillian: I feel that I know just what those eyes look like from Rand's description: those of a woman who's a snake in female form, to use another metaphor. I have met such women. I wouldn't be surprised if you have too.

Do you really think that snake-like women can't have brilliant blue or green eyes?

[Mike11]

So, so, so typical.

How someone can read AS or TH and not see the link between physical description and character is something only a truly dedicated philosophical detective can do.

[Brant Gaede]

DF, do you really think a literary artist is supposed to be "scientific"? Of course the bad guys wear black hats.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

For another, she isn't coupling the character trait being conveyed in Lillian's description with "genetically determined factors." She isn't saying that someone whose eyes are "not quite gray nor brown" therefore has bad character. It's the expression that's conveying the character.

No, of course she doesn't present a theoretical treatise about the connection between color of the iris and character, but it's obvious that she does make that link, if you read the examples I've quoted. She doesn't merely mention the expression of the eyes, but gives extensive descriptions of the colors, implying that these are relevant. Her examples are telling enough: heroes have monochromatic irises (cool blue, metallic green, gunmetal grey) while villains have irises with pale brownish, muddy colors. The symbolism is obvious, and very crude.

I disagree that she is saying -- as any sort of factual statement -- that there's a link between the color of the irises and character. I agree with you that she's making shorthand, stereotyped descriptions. The point on which I disagree is your specific thesis as to her having a specific theory connecting the color of the iris and character. I also disagree that the descriptions of the colors are "extensive." They're part of a wider description.

I think we're just going to have to continue to disagree on this. (I won't, however, be continuing the discussion of the issue. I have more pressing subjects on my mind. ;-))

"Windows of the soul" is metaphor and not in the least "unscientific." Quite a bit about a person is revealed by the person's eyes. But the issue isn't that of "determin[ing] the character of a person on the basis of the color of his irises." It's the total look of the eyes.

It's still pseudoscience, as it is about subjective impressions for which no objective data exist.

No, it isn't "pseudoscience." "Pseudoscience" is something which falsely presents itself as being science. The expression "The eyes are the windows of the soul" is no more "pseudoscience" than is "My love is like a red, red rose." Both are figures of speech. There's nonetheless figurative truth in the first, and possibly there was in the second re whatever particular love Shakespeare meant.

But even if there were some validity in it, the point is that Rand isn't so much talking about the "total look", but repeatedly describes the color of the "pupils" (read "irises"), as if that is important (and not just an irrelevant detail).

Again, I disagree with how you assess the respective percentage and significance of the various details of her descriptions. I think she was describing a "total look."

I'll make the point this way in regard to what I think she thought: I much doubt that if someone had asked Ayn Rand, "Ayn, do you think that iris color is diagnostic of character?" she would have answered in the affirmative.

About Lillian: I feel that I know just what those eyes look like from Rand's description: those of a woman who's a snake in female form, to use another metaphor. I have met such women. I wouldn't be surprised if you have too.

Do you really think that snake-like women can't have brilliant blue or green eyes?

Of course I don't. And I very much doubt that Rand thought so either. You keep forgetting or overlooking the point about the lifeless emptiness of the expression -- not that snakes in female form necessarily have an emptiness of expression; it might be a hardness of expression, but I digress...

Peace. Or at least truce.

Ellen

PS: I hope this edit goes in before you see the post, DF. I've connected with having thrown you off in one comment I made, viz.: "'Windows of the soul' is metaphor and not in the least 'unscientific.'" That sounded as if I was saying it's "scientific." That's not what I meant. I meant that it's a category error to describe "windows of the soul" as either "scientific" or "unscientific." It's literary; it's metaphoric, though it has metaphoric truth.

___

Edited June 12, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

So, so, so typical.

How someone can read AS or TH and not see the link between physical description and character is something only a truly dedicated philosophical detective can do.

1) Your sentence doesn't make sense.

2) Guessing at its meaning, I suggest that maybe you might want to read the details of the exchange before indicating that anyone on this thread (unless I've forgotten someone) has said that Rand wasn't linking her physical descriptions and character. See my post above for details of what in particular DF and I have been debating in the last few exchanges; you'd have to read farther back to see how the whole sidesubject of what Rand believed, factually, pertaining to iris (of the eye) color and character developed.

Ellen

PS: Btw, Joel, on the assumption that your post was referring to me and that your "So, so, so typical" comment refers to what you take as typical Objectivist behavior: Watch that stereotyping! I'm not an Objectivist; I've never been an Objectivist.

___

Edited June 12, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

DF, do you really think a literary artist is supposed to be "scientific"? Of course the bad guys wear black hats.

Well, if that artist claims to be the champion of rationality and reason, she shouldn't make extensive use of unscientific clichés. Wearing a black hat or being covered with tattoos is a choice which perhaps may tell us something about the character of the person, the color of his eyes isn't. I'd expect such an actor to focus on the actions of the persons, not on their genetic endowment, especially if that author defends the notion of the blank slate. And she doesn't only use it as a literary device. For example in her article about the Watergate hearings she writes about John Dean 3rd: "Dean's face, with its rodent-like jaw structure, was almost unbearable to watch. It is probable that he doesn't look quite so sordidly contemptible in person; but the television camera reveals too much." Conclusion: a person is contemptible if he has a jaw structure like that of a rat.

[Mike Hardy]

So, so, so typical.

How someone can read AS or TH and not see the link between physical description and character is something only a truly dedicated philosophical detective can do.

Well, I remember that Peter Keating was called "decorative" in a context in which it was clearly intended to mean he was good-looking. So where does that fit in to what you're saying? -- Mike Hardy

[Brant Gaede]

DF, do you really think a literary artist is supposed to be "scientific"? Of course the bad guys wear black hats.

Well, if that artist claims to be the champion of rationality and reason, she shouldn't make extensive use of unscientific clichés. Wearing a black hat or being covered with tattoos is a choice which perhaps may tell us something about the character of the person, the color of his eyes isn't. I'd expect such an actor to focus on the actions of the persons, not on their genetic endowment, especially if that author defends the notion of the blank slate. And she doesn't only use it as a literary device. For example in her article about the Watergate hearings she writes about John Dean 3rd: "Dean's face, with its rodent-like jaw structure, was almost unbearable to watch. It is probable that he doesn't look quite so sordidly contemptible in person; but the television camera reveals too much." Conclusion: a person is contemptible if he has a jaw structure like that of a rat.

You've touched on something unattractive here about her, but you are mixing up contexts. Fiction and non-fiction. Art and not art. No fair! You may argue that she did the same thing in Atlas Shrugged, but still it is primarily a work of literary art. It is an interesting consideration whether in that art she resorted to an implicit argumentum ad h. for her ideas. But it wasn't primary. Primary was illustration of the practical consequences of statism and Galt's speech. The latter is an example of argument by asserveration if not illustration. And Galt (Rand) was not addressing a radio audience but the reader, of course, but she had to deal with the literary needs of the novel and the philosophical needs of the reader and the conflict was somewhat negation. That is, to agree with the speech the reader either had to take it on faith or supply the missing reasoning. Strictly speaking, the speech should have been much shorter, but the gargantuan novel demanded a gargantuan speech--sort of an argument ad gargantuan.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

An addendum. I wrote, to DF:

I disagree that she is saying -- as any sort of factual statement -- that there's a link between the color of the irises and character.

And:

I'll make the point this way in regard to what I think she thought: I much doubt that if someone had asked Ayn Rand, "Ayn, do you think that iris color is diagnostic of character?" she would have answered in the affirmative.

A memory surfaced of AR's being asked directly just such a question at the Ford Hall Forum. The question was something like "You seem to be an expert on how character is revealed in physiognomy. Could you elaborate?"

Her first response was a blank, "Huh [or something to that effect]; I don't understand the question." The questioner elaborated -- I don't recall the details -- and she responded with something, again I don't recall the details, about artistic selection processes.

The industriously curious might try looking for "physiognomy" in the index of the Q and A book. I don't have the book. From what I hear it leaves out and/or edits certain questions/answers. But maybe that one is in there.

Also, a point about what she DID, in real life. A number of the folk classifiable as members of the "Inner Circle" have or had (some of them are deceased) betwixt-and-between and/or pale iris coloration -- including Leonard Peikoff (vaguely brownish) and Allan Blumenthal (pale blueish). I can't recall even once having heard so much as mention of AR's being suspicious of the character of any of these people on the basis of the color of their irises.

She was reported as expressing suspicions, for example -- an important example -- of Allan Blumenthal on the basis of his tastes in music, and on the basis of other issues. But not ever that I heard tell of on the basis of his eye color (or of his height -- he's short; most of her heroic characters are tall -- or of any other physical characteristic, though I can't think of any other physical characteristic of his which is of the sort she attributes to her villainous characters: eye color and height would be the only ones that overlap with some of her villain descriptions).

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

Also, a point about what she DID, in real life. A number of the folk classifiable as members of the "Inner Circle" have or had (some of them are deceased) betwixt-and-between and/or pale iris coloration -- including Leonard Peikoff (vaguely brownish) and Allan Blumenthal (pale blueish). I can't recall even once having heard so much as mention of AR's being suspicious of the character of any of these people on the basis of the color of their irises.

She was reported as expressing suspicions, for example -- an important example -- of Allan Blumenthal on the basis of his tastes in music, and on the basis of other issues. But not ever that I heard tell of on the basis of his eye color (or of his height -- he's short; most of her heroic characters are tall -- or of any other physical characteristic, though I can't think of any other physical characteristic of his which is of the sort she attributes to her villainous characters: eye color and height would be the only ones that overlap with some of her villain descriptions).

Who said she was consistent in her views and her behavior? In the Fountainhead she writes about talent that is selected over the generations, while she emphatically states elsewhere that there is no such thing as "talent". In her aesthetic theories she stresses the importance of the subject of a painting ("It is the selectivity in regard to subject - the most severely, rigorously, ruthlessly exercised selectivity - that I hold as the primary, the essential, the cardinal aspect of art" .. "That which is not worth contemplating in life, is not worth re-creating in art"), but when her favourite Capuletti paints "a still life featuring a solid expanse of old, peeling, blotched, cracked plaster" it suddenly becomes a "tour de force", "beautiful and inspiring". Further she was a great rationalizer, if one of her admirers would have had the jaw structure of a rodent, she wouldn't have had any problem in dismissing the importance of that feature, but when it concerns someone she detests, like John Dean, it's suddenly worth mentioning with great distaste. Of course she realized that she couldn't get away with the explicit argument that eye color or jaw structure was a reason to suspect someone, but she was happy to use the argument implicitly when it suited her.

When I read the whole list of descriptions of her villains I compiled I was suddenly struck by the strong resemblance with many German caricatures of Jews during the Hitler regime: protruding wet underlips, bulging necks and bellies and protruding or veiled eyes, softness, it is the same repertoire, while you'll find her heroes back in Arno Breker's sculptures and Leni Riefenstahl's movies.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Who said she was consistent in her views and her behavior?

Well, I didn't, for one.

However, you claimed on the basis of her novelistic descriptions that she held a particular factual theory. Sorry, you're going to have to come up with better evidence than something like your presumption (below) as to what she "realized" "she couldn't get away with" to support your assertion as to what she believed. I mean, who's the one here who's reading into the mind of the other? You're doing to her exactly one of the sorts of things you've faulted her for doing to others. If it's invalid procedure when she does it, it's every bit as invalid when you do it:

Of course she realized that she couldn't get away with the explicit argument that eye color or jaw structure was a reason to suspect someone, but she was happy to use the argument implicitly when it suited her.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Incidentally"...

We were talking about Ayn's supposed theory, according to DF, that the color of one's irises is diagnostic of one's character, but there's been a reversion to other physical characteristics which Ayn described her villains as having:

Kay Nolte Smith had pendulous lips. (Is that the "real" reason Ayn broke with her over the dropping of a couple lines of dialogue, at the actor's request, in a late performance of the Smiths' production of Penthouse Legend?)

Barbara Weiss was grossly obese -- unsightly obese -- and not pretty in face either, and she had disproportionately short forelimbs and sort of oily and unattractive black hair. Yet she was Subscription Manager (or Circulation Manager) of the publications, and did secretarial work for Ayn, and Ayn never broke with her.

I could detail physical defects of other Inner Circle folk. But possibly the above two cases are sufficient.

Re Ayn's not always practicing what she preached: The supportable charge goes the other direction: i.e., in that of her decrying attitudes she in fact, at least sometimes, exhibited.

Making a case that a person really believed the opposite of what the person's behavior exhibited is a much harder case to document.

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

However, you claimed on the basis of her novelistic descriptions that she held a particular factual theory. Sorry, you're going to have to come up with better evidence than something like your presumption (below) as to what she "realized" "she couldn't get away with" to support your assertion as to what she believed. I mean, who's the one here who's reading into the mind of the other?

It's not a question of mind reading, I only point out the obvious. You must be blind not to see that she considered physical "defects", like the wrong eye color or a particular structure of the jaw as signs of an evil character; she takes the characterization of her heroes and villains in AS very seriously ("and I mean it!"). These are of course no objective theories but subjective feelings on her part, and it's therefore logical that she doesn't try to present them as scientific theories (she wouldn't be able to make up such a theory), but that doesn't stop her from applying those ideas liberally when she wants to condemn people, whethere these are characters in a novel or people in real life.

[Dragonfly]

Kay Nolte Smith had pendulous lips. (Is that the "real" reason Ayn broke with her over the dropping of a couple lines of dialogue, at the actor's request, in a late performance of the Smiths' production of Penthouse Legend?)

Really? Here are a few photos of her:

That's not what I'd call pendolous lips.

Here is a real example:

and it's even a real crook!

Barbara Weiss was grossly obese -- unsightly obese -- and not pretty in face either, and she had disproportionately short forelimbs and sort of oily and unattractive black hair. Yet she was Subscription Manager (or Circulation Manager) of the publications, and did secretarial work for Ayn, and Ayn never broke with her.

I answered that already:

Further she was a great rationalizer, if one of her admirers would have had the jaw structure of a rodent, she wouldn't have had any problem in dismissing the importance of that feature, but when it concerns someone she detests, like John Dean, it's suddenly worth mentioning with great distaste.

Re Ayn's not always practicing what she preached: The supportable charge goes the other direction: i.e., in that of her decrying attitudes she in fact, at least sometimes, exhibited.

These are two sides of the same coin.

Making a case that a person really believed the opposite of what the person's behavior exhibited is a much harder case to document.

Not at all. The error is in thinking that a person cannot have a certain belief in a particular context and the opposite belief in a different context. There are several examples of this in Rand's texts that we've discussed earlier.

BTW, it has been documented that you wouldn't be allowed to work for Rand if you had a beard, because you'd be "hiding" something in that case. So in some cases your appearance did make you unacceptable to her in daily life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I am astounded that you are missing the point so totally.

Rand is not claiming that certain physical characteristics are signs of an evil character. In her fiction, she is taking the normal emotional load of unpleasant characteristics and loading this on to her villians to make them even more villain-like (giving them "bad vibes" so to speak). It is a literary device.

She even said that this was what she was doing in her comments on connotation.

You are an artist yourself. You should know these things.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I would not describe Barbara Weiss as "grossly obese." She was very over-weight, but well-groomed. Maybe she really let herself go after 1971-72. I don't know.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Rand is not claiming that certain physical characteristics are signs of an evil character. In her fiction, she is taking the normal emotional load of unpleasant characteristics and loading this on to her villians to make them even more villain-like (giving them "bad vibes" so to speak).

Which of course raises the question why these characteristics (irises of an undefinable color, peculiar jaw structure, pendulous lip) are "unpleasant characteristics" and give "bad vibes" that make people even "more villain-like", if one thinks that they have no relation to the character of the person with those characteristics.

It is a literary device.

In my opinion crude stereotyping has no place in serious literature. Further I've shown that Rand doesn't use it exclusively in her fiction, but also in her description of real people. Is that rational and objective?