Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Chris Grieb]

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Jeffrey S.

Let's examine that closing scene in the context defined by the book itself. Recall in the chapter "The Sign of the Dollar" (Owen Kellogg speaking)

"The dollar sign? For a great deal. It stands on the vest of every fat, piglike figure in every cartoon, for the purpose of denoting a crook, a grafter, a scoundrel—as the one sure-fire brand of evil. It stands—as the money of a free country—for achievement, for success, for ability, for man's creative power—and, precisely for these reasons, it is used as a brand of infamy. It stands stamped on the forehead of a man like Hank Rearden, as a mark of damnation. Incidentally, do you know where that sign comes from? It stands for the initials of the United States."

He snapped the flashlight off, but he did not move to go; she could distinguish the hint of his bitter smile.

"Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it. It was the only country in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only country whose money was the symbol of man's right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself. If this is evil, by the present standards of the world, if this is the reason for damning us, then we—we, the dollar chasers and makers—accept it and choose to be damned by that world. We choose to wear the sign of the dollar on our foreheads, proudly, as our badge of nobility—the badge we are willing to live for and, if need be, to die."

Reading that, plus the obvious allusion to "sign of the cross", and it seems to me that Rand is simultaneously:

1) Reaffirming her rejection of religious/mystical groudings

2) Reaffirming her basic allegiance to the original foundations of the USA

Bill P

Bill P; I think you understand the last scene correctly.

I must add a personal note that in 1958 I spent several weeks at Lettermen Army Hospital with a dislocated elbow. While a lady who visited showed me that a dollar sign was a way of writing US. I have often wondered if she had read Atlas.

[Alfonso Jones]

There is an extremely nasty attack on Ayn Rand, thinly disguised as an interview with Anne Heller on her Rand biography, on Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aYe2VsLOl7LU The writer/interviewer is one "Zinta Lundborg," who goes out of her way to set-up the interview with Heller by grossly distorting Rand's views beyond recognition (must have been reading all the recent smear/reviews by her cronies in the lib media).

However, Heller responds to the interviewer's loaded questions with comments that are in the same hyper-critical derisive tone. This is in contrast to Heller's book which, while quite critical of Rand, also goes on to complement her on her accomplishments in ways that most reviewers have chosen to avoid.

Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Heller did not come to the defense of Rand at any point in the interview. It is possible, however, that any positive comments by Heller may have been edited-out, since there is a note at the end of the article that it was "part" of a longer interview.

That "interview" is despicable. I do wonder if Heller would agree that it accurately reflected the interview which took place. I have no knowledge of the particulars of the interview, but I do note that Heller has in her presentation and discussion at CATO, for instance, sounded MUCH more positive about Rand than is suggested by what is on the Bloomberg site.

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

Folks:

I am sorry to keep bringing this up, but does it really matter whether she did amphetamines?

Does it matter that she was, apparently, a "slob", which, I might add, is not unusual at all for brilliant individuals who "see", who invent, who lead movements, who create art...

The personal commitment, dedication and sheer force of will to create Atlas Shrugged from "Who is John Galt?" to over 1,000 pages later, "He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." is a tour de force unparalleled in my lifetime.

I just step back and say thank you.

I often wonder how my life would have progressed had I not read Atlas when I was 14-15.

Adam

Short answer re amphetamines usage: No, it does NOT matter that she used prescribed amphetamines, apparently from all accounts at a low or moderate level(with some reports of her increasing the dosage to stimulate her energy levels for particular writing sequences).

Longer answer: The repeated reference to her use of amphetamines in the recent ad hominem attacks-posing-as-book-reviews are transparent attempts to dismiss the content of her writings as drug-influenced and therefore not worthy of consideration. This criticism does not hold up to examination, for a number of reasons:

1) Regular prescribed amphetamine usage, despite the popular view presented in the MSM, does NOT ordinarily lead to addiction, build-up of tolerance to the drugs, requiring ever-increasing dosage titration, and adverse psychological consequences. There is extensive recent published psychiatric literature on the use of amphetamines and related psycho-stimulants, to counter or reduce symptoms of depression and other syndromes such as adult attention deficit disorders. When properly used, under medical supervision, administration of amphetamines often lead to alleviation of depressive symptoms and can be taken for extended periods without the horrendous consequences breathlessly reported by the MSM.

It is true that prescribed usage of amphetamines fell out of favor in the late decades of the 20th century, However, as examination of recent research will demonstrate to those taking the time to look, this is not the case now. Yes, amphetamines certainly can be abused, with disastrous consequences. But so can aspirin (and MANY other drugs). Usually, however, those unfortunate "speed" users that have abused amphetamines by the handful, are no longer capable of stringing to gether a complete sentence, much less a sustained coherent line of thought.

For those that question this, I am sufficiently annoyed by this line of attack on Rand that I will again look up some of the recent medical literature that verifies what I have just written, and post the references here on OL, if others are interested. But anyone can easily do this, by consulting PUB-MED or other search tools.

2) This specious "amphetamine users are crazy" assertion would also apply to every other writer (or anyone else) that has used drugs or alcohol (by far, the abuse drug of choice). Many creative people have used or abused "psycho-active" substances. It is not legitimate to dismiss their contributions on that account, but it is an easy (although dishonest) way to avoid confronting views that one will not (or cannot) answer.

[Robert Campbell]

That Lundborg interview with Anne Heller looks to me to the product of 60 Minutes-style editing.

I would imagine that anything Ms. Heller said that sounded too favorable to Ayn Rand was cut.

Also, some of the comments sound to me like Anne Heller and others sound less like her, for one reason or another.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

There is an extremely nasty attack on Ayn Rand, thinly disguised as an interview with Anne Heller on her Rand biography, on Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aYe2VsLOl7LU The writer/interviewer is one "Zinta Lundborg," who goes out of her way to set-up the interview with Heller by grossly distorting Rand's views beyond recognition (must have been reading all the recent smear/reviews by her cronies in the lib media).

However, Heller responds to the interviewer's loaded questions with comments that are in the same hyper-critical derisive tone. This is in contrast to Heller's book which, while quite critical of Rand, also goes on to complement her on her accomplishments in ways that most reviewers have chosen to avoid.

Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Heller did not come to the defense of Rand at any point in the interview. It is possible, however, that any positive comments by Heller may have been edited-out, since there is a note at the end of the article that it was "part" of a longer interview.

That "interview" is despicable. I do wonder if Heller would agree that it accurately reflected the interview which took place. I have no knowledge of the particulars of the interview, but I do note that Heller has in her presentation and discussion at CATO, for instance, sounded MUCH more positive about Rand than is suggested by what is on the Bloomberg site.

Bill P

Bill,

I was also at Cato Institute event, when Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns spoke. Neither displayed a hostile or derisive attitude toward Rand at that event, However, it is possible that their responses may have been tailored toward their audience. But, there was also a recent audio interview of Anne Heller on the New York Times website by Sam Tannenhaus, editor of the NYT Sunday Book Review, and a critic of all things "conservative." (I think it was referenced earlier in this string. If not, I can find the reference again.).

In contrast to the tone of the Bloomberg piece, Anne Heller did not respond to questions from Tannenhaus in the same derisive manner that appears in the Bloomberg piece (although she had a clear opportunity to do so, if she wished!).

If I can find a direct email address for contacting Anne Heller (does anyone have this?) ,I would like to inquire as to whether the Bloomberg piece accurately records her responses. If I accomplish this, I will post her answer here.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey S, Bill P, and Chris G,

There's no reason why the little ritual at the end of Atlas Shrugged couldn't be both

• A reaffirmation of the historical uniqueness of the United States

and

• An invocation of Mercury, the patron god of commerce

Yuri Slezkine's book The Jewish Century (cited in Anne Heller's book, but a long way from fully mined there) refers to trading minorities (which the Jews were in most places for the past several centuries) as "Mercurians."

Robert C

PS. A standard numismatic explanation of the dollar sign comes from the backs of old Spanish 8 reales ("pieces of eight"), big silver coins which showed the New World framed between two Pillars of Hercules. Around each column is wound a little banner; on the banners is inscribed "Ne Plus Ultra" (nothing more beyond). One pillar-plus-wrap is in the shape of a $ and the other looks like its mirror image.

[Jerry Biggers]

That Lundborg interview with Anne Heller looks to me to the product of 60 Minutes-style editing.

I would imagine that anything Ms. Heller said that sounded too favorable to Ayn Rand was cut.

Also, some of the comments sound to me like Anne Heller and others sound less like her, for one reason or another.

Robert Campbell

One example showing a clear contrast about the same issue, Greenspan's "confession" to congress retracting his former views of market practices.

In the Cato event, Anne Heller is clearly comparing and criticizing Greenspan for changing his views from those presented in earlier articles in The Objectivist Newsletter (and later, CUI) to those in his disgraceful comments in front of Congress. Whereas, in the Bloomberg piece, it is made to sound like he was directly refuting his earlier articles in front of Congress. The way it reads in Bloomberg sounds like Heller is implying that he directly refuted Ayn Rand (by name) in his Congrssional testimony. He said no such thing.

[jeffrey smith]

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Jeffrey S.

Let's examine that closing scene in the context defined by the book itself. Recall in the chapter "The Sign of the Dollar" (Owen Kellogg speaking)

"The dollar sign? For a great deal. It stands on the vest of every fat, piglike figure in every cartoon, for the purpose of denoting a crook, a grafter, a scoundrel—as the one sure-fire brand of evil. It stands—as the money of a free country—for achievement, for success, for ability, for man's creative power—and, precisely for these reasons, it is used as a brand of infamy. It stands stamped on the forehead of a man like Hank Rearden, as a mark of damnation. Incidentally, do you know where that sign comes from? It stands for the initials of the United States."

He snapped the flashlight off, but he did not move to go; she could distinguish the hint of his bitter smile.

"Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it. It was the only country in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only country whose money was the symbol of man's right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself. If this is evil, by the present standards of the world, if this is the reason for damning us, then we—we, the dollar chasers and makers—accept it and choose to be damned by that world. We choose to wear the sign of the dollar on our foreheads, proudly, as our badge of nobility—the badge we are willing to live for and, if need be, to die."

Reading that, plus the obvious allusion to "sign of the cross", and it seems to me that Rand is simultaneously:

1) Reaffirming her rejection of religious/mystical groudings

2) Reaffirming her basic allegiance to the original foundations of the USA

Bill P

Are you familiar with the concept of "over-determination"? One of the reason that people use symbols is that they can carry more than one meaning at a time, and sometimes more meaning than the original artist or writer intended.

Whatever Rand thought the origins are, the dollar sign remains one of the transformations of the staff of Hermes, and comes with all the implications of that, and the closing scene remains a magical ritual. In fact, it remains a matical ritual even if you limit what the dollar sign means to what Rand mentioned in the paragraph you quote.

BTW, I would presume that I'm not the first person to have noticed that Rand was playing off the Biblical image of the "mark of the Beast" in that passage.

Jeffrey S.

[Alfonso Jones]

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Jeffrey S.

Let's examine that closing scene in the context defined by the book itself. Recall in the chapter "The Sign of the Dollar" (Owen Kellogg speaking)

"The dollar sign? For a great deal. It stands on the vest of every fat, piglike figure in every cartoon, for the purpose of denoting a crook, a grafter, a scoundrel—as the one sure-fire brand of evil. It stands—as the money of a free country—for achievement, for success, for ability, for man's creative power—and, precisely for these reasons, it is used as a brand of infamy. It stands stamped on the forehead of a man like Hank Rearden, as a mark of damnation. Incidentally, do you know where that sign comes from? It stands for the initials of the United States."

He snapped the flashlight off, but he did not move to go; she could distinguish the hint of his bitter smile.

"Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it. It was the only country in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only country whose money was the symbol of man's right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself. If this is evil, by the present standards of the world, if this is the reason for damning us, then we—we, the dollar chasers and makers—accept it and choose to be damned by that world. We choose to wear the sign of the dollar on our foreheads, proudly, as our badge of nobility—the badge we are willing to live for and, if need be, to die."

Reading that, plus the obvious allusion to "sign of the cross", and it seems to me that Rand is simultaneously:

1) Reaffirming her rejection of religious/mystical groudings

2) Reaffirming her basic allegiance to the original foundations of the USA

Bill P

Are you familiar with the concept of "over-determination"? One of the reason that people use symbols is that they can carry more than one meaning at a time, and sometimes more meaning than the original artist or writer intended.

Whatever Rand thought the origins are, the dollar sign remains one of the transformations of the staff of Hermes, and comes with all the implications of that, and the closing scene remains a magical ritual. In fact, it remains a matical ritual even if you limit what the dollar sign means to what Rand mentioned in the paragraph you quote.

BTW, I would presume that I'm not the first person to have noticed that Rand was playing off the Biblical image of the "mark of the Beast" in that passage.

Jeffrey S.

Of course the symbol has multiple meanings. My point is that it's not just a big mystical moment at the end of the book. It's firmly rooted in the things I outline above which are quite clearly outlined in the book and in Rand's other writings.

Of course, there is an allusion to the "sign of the cross." (See my #1 above.) In fact, I see it as a little bit of a poke in the eye at religious mysticism - - - appropriating some of the cloaking of a prime religious ritual/symbol and reinvesting it with radically different meaning.

Nothing to substantiate the comment you make:

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Do you really think that Rand was "invoking the God of Commerce and Communication upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony?" Seriously???

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

Robert -

Thanks. I thought Heller would find the tone of what was published to be strange. It certainly was radically at variance with the tone of her Cato appearance, and even of the OVERALL tone of Ayn Rand and the World She Made.

Bill P

[Selene]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

I am shocked that you and Ms. Heller would impugn the high standards of journalistic integrity with libelous statements!

The next story you will invent is that the most influential scientists in the world all colluded to doctor data on man made Earth killing global warming~

OOPs sorry...

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Of course the symbol has multiple meanings. My point is that it's not just a big mystical moment at the end of the book. It's firmly rooted in the things I outline above which are quite clearly outlined in the book and in Rand's other writings.

Of course, there is an allusion to the "sign of the cross." (See my #1 above.) In fact, I see it as a little bit of a poke in the eye at religious mysticism - - - appropriating some of the cloaking of a prime religious ritual/symbol and reinvesting it with radically different meaning.

Nothing to substantiate the comment you make:

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Do you really think that Rand was "invoking the God of Commerce and Communication upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony?" Seriously???

Bill P

Bill--

That's exactly what she did. She may not have intended it that way in her own mind, but that's what it is. Rather like a person who plays the melody of the Star Spangled Banner is also playing the melody of Anacreon in Heaven, despite the probable fact that drinking glees are far from his/her mind at the moment. Did she realize the dollar sign is connected to Hermes, god of Commerce? Quite possibly not. And if she did, she probably didn't care. But the fact that the dollar sign is connected to Hermes makes the scene fit even more nicely

I do agree that she was trying to invest a religious symbol with a new meaning, but that means that the symbolism of the religious ceremony she was poking in the eye carries on underneath the new meaning Rand gives it (otherwise the new, Randian, meaning loses all coherence). Yes, it is a takeoff on the sign of the cross, but you can't entirely delete the meaning or context of the sign of the cross without losing something essential. Think of what a person raised in an environment where the sign of the cross is unknown would think when reading that scene: he would lose a great deal of the meaning because he wouldn't be aware of what Rand was playing off of.

No matter how hard she tried, she couldn't keep the mystical/non rational element out of it.

Jeffrey S.

PS-- I think you misunderstood what I meant by "mark of the beast". I was referring to the mark placed on the foreheads of the followers of the Antichrist in Revelations, (and a parallel vision in Ezekiel) and Rand's twice repeated statement regarding the dollar sign being stamped on the foreheads of Hank Rearden and his allies. (Or possibly the mark of Cain in Genesis.) Again, she was obviously trying to give a new meaning to an old symbol, and directly challenging Christianity in doing so (in effect, declaring that the dollar sign is the symbol of the Antichrist).

Edited December 3, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Thanks for your inquiry to Anne Heller regarding the accuracy of her quoted remarks in the Bloomberg.com "interview."

I have included Anne Heller's one-sentence response in an email to Zinta Lundborg at Bloomberg.com. Ms Lundborg had not responded to an earlier email that I had sent to her about her interview with Heller. What a surprise.

I doubt if she will respond to Heller's comment. If she does, I will post it here.

[Alfonso Jones]

Of course the symbol has multiple meanings. My point is that it's not just a big mystical moment at the end of the book. It's firmly rooted in the things I outline above which are quite clearly outlined in the book and in Rand's other writings.

Of course, there is an allusion to the "sign of the cross." (See my #1 above.) In fact, I see it as a little bit of a poke in the eye at religious mysticism - - - appropriating some of the cloaking of a prime religious ritual/symbol and reinvesting it with radically different meaning.

Nothing to substantiate the comment you make:

One of the things that amuses me about AS is that closing scene. After a thousand pages exalting reason and expounding her philosophy, Rand chose to end the book with a magical ritual.

The dollar sign is a form of the staff of Hermes/Mercury. Making that ritual sign was nothing more nor less than invoking the God of Commerce and Communication(and who would have been a better member of the pantheon?)upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony.

Do you really think that Rand was "invoking the God of Commerce and Communication upon Galt's Gulch in a fairly brief but standard magical ceremony?" Seriously???

Bill P

Bill--

That's exactly what she did. She may not have intended it that way in her own mind, but that's what it is. Rather like a person who plays the melody of the Star Spangled Banner is also playing the melody of Anacreon in Heaven, despite the probable fact that drinking glees are far from his/her mind at the moment. Did she realize the dollar sign is connected to Hermes, god of Commerce? Quite possibly not. And if she did, she probably didn't care. But the fact that the dollar sign is connected to Hermes makes the scene fit even more nicely

I do agree that she was trying to invest a religious symbol with a new meaning, but that means that the symbolism of the religious ceremony she was poking in the eye carries on underneath the new meaning Rand gives it (otherwise the new, Randian, meaning loses all coherence). Yes, it is a takeoff on the sign of the cross, but you can't entirely delete the meaning or context of the sign of the cross without losing something essential. Think of what a person raised in an environment where the sign of the cross is unknown would think when reading that scene: he would lose a great deal of the meaning because he wouldn't be aware of what Rand was playing off of.

No matter how hard she tried, she couldn't keep the mystical/non rational element out of it.

Jeffrey S.

PS-- I think you misunderstood what I meant by "mark of the beast". I was referring to the mark placed on the foreheads of the followers of the Antichrist in Revelations, (and a parallel vision in Ezekiel) and Rand's twice repeated statement regarding the dollar sign being stamped on the foreheads of Hank Rearden and his allies. (Or possibly the mark of Cain in Genesis.) Again, she was obviously trying to give a new meaning to an old symbol, and directly challenging Christianity in doing so (in effect, declaring that the dollar sign is the symbol of the Antichrist).

Jeffrey -

I think we're experiencing some sort of bizarre communication failure. OF COURSE there is an allusion to the mystical. See my response where I explicitly discuss that.

But what she does is not to fail to "keep the mystical/non rational element out of it." She is EXPLICITLY alluding to and rejecting that element.

I don't know how to express this more succinctly or more clearly.

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Thanks for your inquiry to Anne Heller regarding the accuracy of her quoted remarks in the Bloomberg.com "interview."

I have included Anne Heller's one-sentence response in an email to Zinta Lundborg at Bloomberg.com. Ms Lundborg had not responded to an earlier email that I had sent to her about her interview with Heller. What a surprise.

I doubt if she will respond to Heller's comment. If she does, I will post it here.

A follow-up regarding the Bloomberg.com interview with Anne Heller: In response to Anne Heller's denial (see above) that she was quoted correctly in the Bloomberg article by Zinta Lundborg based on that interview, I received a two-sentence response from "Manuela Hoelterhoff, Bloomberg Newsroom" (mhoelterhoff@bloomberg.net): "She [Zinta Lundborg] is on vacation but I was at the interview. We don't alter comments."

It would be instructive on this point if the audio of the whole interview were to be made available, since the original article had a note at the end stating that it was based on a "longer interview." Somehow, I doubt that Bloomberg would be that accommodating.

[Selene]

Jerry,

I emailed Anne Heller about the Lundborg interview.

Here's her reaction: "All I can say is that I did not recognize my style of speaking or my sentiments in any part of that interview."

Ms. Heller mentioned an online Wall Street Journal interview that also, um, took liberties with what she said.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Thanks for your inquiry to Anne Heller regarding the accuracy of her quoted remarks in the Bloomberg.com "interview."

I have included Anne Heller's one-sentence response in an email to Zinta Lundborg at Bloomberg.com. Ms Lundborg had not responded to an earlier email that I had sent to her about her interview with Heller. What a surprise.

I doubt if she will respond to Heller's comment. If she does, I will post it here.

A follow-up regarding the Bloomberg.com interview with Anne Heller: In response to Anne Heller's denial (see above) that she was quoted correctly in the Bloomberg article by Zinta Lundborg based on that interview, I received a two-sentence response from "Manuela Hoelterhoff, Bloomberg Newsroom" (mhoelterhoff@bloomberg.net): "She [Zinta Lundborg] is on vacation but I was at the interview. We don't alter comments."

It would be instructive on this point if the audio of the whole interview were to be made available, since the original article had a note at the end stating that it was based on a "longer interview." Somehow, I doubt that Bloomberg would be that accommodating.

Jerry:

I am not sold on either "narrative", Heller's or Lundborg's.

Well, if she wanted to prove her point, and I would want to, Heller could demand it publicly by letter.

Adam

looking for courage and integrity in all the wrong places lol

[Robert Campbell]

Hmm...

Media organizations don't generally grant requests for raw interview tapes or transcripts.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Hmm...

Media organizations don't generally grant requests for raw interview tapes or transcripts.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

I have broken down a lot of doors in my life. If I were Ms. Heller, and I was telling the truth, I would demand it publicly for two reasons.

First, it is the right stand to take, and secondly, it will help book sales in a niche market that could catapult it above the myriad choices of books.

Adam

always marketing lol

[9thdoctor]

I am not sold on either "narrative", Heller's or Lundborg's.

Well, if she wanted to prove her point, and I would want to, Heller could demand it publicly by letter.

Adam

looking for courage and integrity in all the wrong places lol

Maybe she’s playing both sides in order to sell more books. Heller has good media credentials and experience, yet she’s now disputed the published content of interviews at least twice. Mighty fishy. On the other hand, when the subject is AR, history shows that Anything Goes.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[jeffrey smith]

Jeffrey -

I think we're experiencing some sort of bizarre communication failure. OF COURSE there is an allusion to the mystical. See my response where I explicitly discuss that.

But what she does is not to fail to "keep the mystical/non rational element out of it." She is EXPLICITLY alluding to and rejecting that element.

I don't know how to express this more succinctly or more clearly.

Bill P

But's she not rejecting that element. She's merely substituting one symbol for another. The mystical/nonrational element comes with the gesture of blessing, no matter what symbol was used. She could have had the characters wave a slide rule in all seven* directions, and it would come out the same thing.

*before you tnink there's a bizarre failure of communication there--north, east, south, west, above, below, and center.

Jeffrey S.

[Alfonso Jones]

Jeffrey -

I think we're experiencing some sort of bizarre communication failure. OF COURSE there is an allusion to the mystical. See my response where I explicitly discuss that.

But what she does is not to fail to "keep the mystical/non rational element out of it." She is EXPLICITLY alluding to and rejecting that element.

I don't know how to express this more succinctly or more clearly.

Bill P

But's she not rejecting that element. She's merely substituting one symbol for another. The mystical/nonrational element comes with the gesture of blessing, no matter what symbol was used. She could have had the characters wave a slide rule in all seven* directions, and it would come out the same thing.

*before you tnink there's a bizarre failure of communication there--north, east, south, west, above, below, and center.

Jeffrey S.

I suspect we're just going to differ on this. I see the content of the entire 1000+ pages of Atlas Shrugged up to that point, note that Rand is certainly willing to use symbols and legends but adamantly non-mystical, and interpret the gesture at the end of the book in the context of those 1000+ pages. Is there a reference to the mystical - - of course, as I have continually stressed. But it is a reference as rejection, not as endorsement.

I don't conclude that because Rand uses the legend of Atlantis as lost continent that she believes that legend to be factual. Nor that because she has one of her heroes refer to Prometheus that she believed Greek mythology to be factually true.

Bill P (smiling as he recalls Rand's voice saying "mystic" or "mystical")

Edited December 4, 2009 by Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Jeffrey -

I think we're experiencing some sort of bizarre communication failure. OF COURSE there is an allusion to the mystical. See my response where I explicitly discuss that.

But what she does is not to fail to "keep the mystical/non rational element out of it." She is EXPLICITLY alluding to and rejecting that element.

I don't know how to express this more succinctly or more clearly.

Bill P

But's she not rejecting that element. She's merely substituting one symbol for another. The mystical/nonrational element comes with the gesture of blessing, no matter what symbol was used. She could have had the characters wave a slide rule in all seven* directions, and it would come out the same thing.

*before you tnink there's a bizarre failure of communication there--north, east, south, west, above, below, and center.

Jeffrey S.

I suspect we're just going to differ on this. I see the content of the entire 1000+ pages of Atlas Shrugged up to that point, note that Rand is certainly willing to use symbols and legends but adamantly non-mystical, and interpret the gesture at the end of the book in the context of those 1000+ pages. Is there a reference to the mystical - - of course, as I have continually stressed. But it is a reference as rejection, not as endorsement.

I don't conclude that because Rand uses the legend of Atlantis as lost continent that she believes that legend to be factual. Nor that because she has one of her heroes refer to Prometheus that she believed Greek mythology to be factually true.

Bill P (smiling as he recalls Rand's voice saying "mystic" or "mystical")

I have found the last scene of Atlas in keeping with the rest of the book. Let's not be silly.

[jeffrey smith]

I suspect we're just going to differ on this. I see the content of the entire 1000+ pages of Atlas Shrugged up to that point, note that Rand is certainly willing to use symbols and legends but adamantly non-mystical, and interpret the gesture at the end of the book in the context of those 1000+ pages. Is there a reference to the mystical - - of course, as I have continually stressed. But it is a reference as rejection, not as endorsement.

I don't conclude that because Rand uses the legend of Atlantis as lost continent that she believes that legend to be factual. Nor that because she has one of her heroes refer to Prometheus that she believed Greek mythology to be factually true.

Bill P (smiling as he recalls Rand's voice saying "mystic" or "mystical")

I know her intent was to reject the "mystical". But simply changing the symbol from cross to dollar sign doesn't constitute a rejection of the mystical: the gesture itself is a mystical one, no matter what the context is, and I find it ironic that this is the way she chose to end the novel. And the fact that she uses a symbol directly linked to the GrecoRoman God of Commerce (even if she wasn't aware of the connection) adds both to the meaning and the irony. As I said earlier, Hermes-Mercury is probably the aptest choice out of all the pantheon.

Jeffrey S.

[Robert Campbell]

Ayn Rand used the word "mystical" awfully broadly.

Mysticism isn't the same as religious faith.

And the mythic need not be either mystical or faith-based.

Robert Campbell