tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post2489789539837136222..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: The Ayn RaeliansDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-79787158269517312342008-03-15T00:52:00.000-07:002008-03-15T00:52:00.000-07:00Oh, how sweet, an actual earnest Objectivist in th...Oh, how sweet, an actual earnest Objectivist in the Moot. I do hope your features are suitably chiseled, else we might worry you might lapse ineluctably into the moochdome of your many lessers. To call Miss Rand's homespun vacuities "pure philosophy in the classical tradition" is such a knee-slapper I find I can forgive you nearly anything. <BR/><BR/>And so I'll tolerate this little proselytizing exercise you've indulged in here, this once, but just know that if you keep plugging your sad sociopathic oversimplifications I'll have to delete it as spam. <BR/><BR/>The Moot is already quite overpopulated I'm afraid with overconfident undercritical ill-educated boys foolishly peddling certainties that conduce to incumbent interests. <BR/><BR/>As it happens, if you were to ask me (and it's my blog so it doesn't much matter that you wouldn't) I can think of few people who have done more damage to American culture than Ayn Rand did, nor a culture more deserving of the damage than the America that happened to fall for it.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-15764244650717203162008-03-14T23:14:00.000-07:002008-03-14T23:14:00.000-07:00As someone who is not only familiar with Objectivi...As someone who is not only familiar with Objectivism but lives by it, I find the attempted connection between transhumanism and Objectivism bizarre. Transhumanism seems to basically be a technological movement with philosophical elements bordering on mysticism, and Objectivism is pure philosophy in the classical tradition. I'm certain Rand would have seen no connection whatsoever because 1) she rejected mysticism out of hand and 2) she would have regarded transhumanism's technological tinkering as no more relevant to philosophy than what drugs to take to cure a cold. <BR/><BR/>If someone should manage to escape the cynical orbit of the original post wanting information about Objectivism, I would go for the non-fiction. Her novels were written earlier in her career before she began writing her explicitly philosophical tracts, and aren't likely to be effective learning tools for those who are already predisposed not like her. <BR/><BR/>For a one-shot deal, I'd recommend "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. It contains all the major points of her thought, divided by chapter. If you want it directly from the source, you can find metaphysics and epistemology in Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and ethics in "The Virtue of Selfishness". I would pay special attention to her definitions because she takes great pains to create them, and a proper understanding of her thought depends on them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-63101462886887537992008-03-14T16:58:00.000-07:002008-03-14T16:58:00.000-07:00Great comment, Greg. I think this is largely spot...Great comment, Greg. I think this is largely spot on. <BR/><BR/>(I am speaking as somebody who grew up in small town Bible-Belt Middle-America myself -- Floyds Knobs, Indiana, I kid you not.)Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-19431196743727519142008-03-13T15:28:00.000-07:002008-03-13T15:28:00.000-07:00Guilo wrote: Over here in contemporary Europe, mos...Guilo wrote: <I>Over here in contemporary Europe, most learned people do not even know who she was.</I><BR/><BR/>Not too surprising. My take on Rand as someone who has some experience with American society, particularly as it exists away from the metropoles is this:<BR/><BR/>Rand is basically the only thing that penetrates small town, Red State America that seems "different". If you're a smarter than average kid growing up in the Bible Belt the first voice of "dissent" you will encounter will be Rand or someone influenced by her (a lot of sci-fi is basically crypto-Randian). You will not encounter the modern left at all until college if ever. And to be fair Rand seems like a revelation when all your life you've been told to obey and conform and pray to Jeebus. Most of the good aspects of her pretentious "philosophy" are just recycled philosophical materialism mixed with appallingly oversimplified biological determinism and the reification of American style gilded age crapitalism. To people with long time experience of Enlightenment culture and (real) philosophy the former seems passe (like stating boldly that Rome is in Italy, duh) and the latter things just seem crazy or stupid.<BR/><BR/>THists luv them some Rand simply because most of them derive from heartland American computer programmer types who have had the above "philosophical education". The non-repudiation of Rand stems from the inability of these people to understand just how aberrant the whole thing looks to most people in the more secular societies of either Europe or American coastal metropoles. It's just another sign of the general ghettoization of the whole movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-80471016676727412382008-03-13T13:00:00.000-07:002008-03-13T13:00:00.000-07:00Mitchell wrote:> Wilson & Shea's Illuminatus trilo...Mitchell wrote:<BR/><BR/>> Wilson & Shea's Illuminatus trilogy. . . also contains a parody of Atlas Shrugged<BR/>> called Telemachus Sneezed.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Rand is a tempting target for humor like that.<BR/><BR/>There's a book (which I haven't read) by novelist Mary Gaitskill<BR/>(Jeff Walker mentions it in _The Ayn Rand Cult_) called<BR/>_Two Girls, Fat and Thin_, in which one of the characters is<BR/>involved in a thinly-fictionalized version of Objectivism<BR/>called "Definitism", whose guru is a woman named "Anna Granite".<BR/>The fictional titles of this guru's two novels are<BR/>_The Bulwark_ and _The Gods Disdained_.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35395895802396732332008-03-13T12:52:00.000-07:002008-03-13T12:52:00.000-07:00De Thezier wrote:> But until you actually get your...De Thezier wrote:<BR/><BR/>> But until you actually get your hands on a copy and read it,<BR/>> I suggest you watch the following. . .<BR/><BR/>Ehh, skip the books and watch the movies. ;-><BR/><BR/>Helen Mirren is appropriately scary as the great lady<BR/>in _The Passion of Ayn Rand_, based on the book of the<BR/>same title by Barbara Branden.<BR/>http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Helen-Mirren/dp/B000056BP0<BR/><BR/>(There seem to be some clips from this film, set to music,<BR/>on You Tube:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcMTKPoitQ )<BR/><BR/>I like the Jeff Beal soundtrack of this movie, too. It's<BR/>available for free (what **would** Rand say to that?!)<BR/>at<BR/>http://www.jeffbeal.com/Pages/FILMS%20Pages/AYN%20RAND.html<BR/><BR/>I especially like the closing vocal "Love Is, Love Is Not".<BR/>("Love is not what we choose. Love is what we do.")jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-83972116735104723262008-03-13T11:27:00.000-07:002008-03-13T11:27:00.000-07:00Dale wrote:> I must say it is hard to imagine a mo...Dale wrote:<BR/><BR/>> I must say it is hard to imagine a more vulgar misreading of the<BR/>> Nietzschean project of affirmation and self-overcoming<BR/>> (hence "Overman," sometimes idiotically misconstrued as<BR/>> "Superman") than the embarrassing self-congratulatory self-help<BR/>> pieties of Randian/Extropian "Nietzscheans."<BR/><BR/>I didn't realize that Nietzsche was being (has been) rehabilitated<BR/>by the academic Left. Sounds like an "incredibly slippery" project<BR/>indeed! Sorry, didn't mean to step on **your** toes!jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-23157331867128081652008-03-13T11:09:00.000-07:002008-03-13T11:09:00.000-07:00I must say it is hard to imagine a more vulgar mis...I must say it is hard to imagine a more vulgar misreading of the Nietzschean project of affirmation and self-overcoming (hence "Overman," sometimes idiotically misconstrued as "Superman") than the embarrassing self-congratulatory self-help pieties of Randian/Extropian "Nietzscheans." <BR/><BR/>As Oscar Wilde -- an exact contemporary of Nietzsche's with whom he had an enormous lot in common -- "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." <BR/><BR/>I strongly recommend those who are serious about engaging with the incredibly allusive and slippery rhetoric of that profound trickster Nietzsche take a look at Deleuze's book <I>Nietzsche and Philosophy</I> and Nehamas's book <I>Nietzsche: Life as Literature</I> (with neither of which I agree entirely, but both of which have proven especially useful to students) for a bit of context. <BR/><BR/>Rarely has Bertrand Russell been so clueless than in his assessment, quoted above, of Nietzsche, who was a life-long invalid endlessly exposing the ugly horror of human stupidity and cruelty, even if it is true that he was too skeptical of solidarity to embrace the compensatory blessings of human collaboration and kindness. I think probably Nietzsche simply wasn't Russell's cup of tea -- which certainly is fair enough -- and he published a snap judgment betraying too superficial an acquaintance to justify its confidence. Something we all do from time to time -- I still think Russell's the cat's meow in other areas of concern.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-42495291228604449732008-03-13T10:48:00.000-07:002008-03-13T10:48:00.000-07:00Giulio wrote:> But of course from your point of vi...Giulio wrote:<BR/><BR/>> But of course from your point of view I will remain<BR/>> a filthy Ayn Raelian.<BR/><BR/>If you touch poop, don't act surprised when other people<BR/>can smell it (even if you can't, yourself). Get used<BR/>to it, or go take a shower.<BR/><BR/>> I have nothing to repudiate, because I never even took<BR/>> Rand seriously enough to read her.<BR/><BR/>Hey, that's no excuse! I'll let Ayn Rand herself tell you why:<BR/><BR/>"Now some of you might say, as many people do: ;Aw, I never think<BR/>in such abstract terms — I want to deal with concrete, particular,<BR/>real-life problems — what do I need philosophy for?' . . .<BR/><BR/>You might claim — as most people do — that you have never been influenced<BR/>by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought<BR/>or said the following? 'Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything.'<BR/>You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though<BR/>you might never have heard of him. Or: 'This may be good in theory, but<BR/>it doesn't work in practice.' You got that from Plato. Or: 'That was a<BR/>rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world.'<BR/>You got that from Augustine. Or: 'It may be true for you, but it's not<BR/>true for me.' You got it from William James. Or: 'I couldn't help it!<BR/>Nobody can help anything he does.' You got it from Hegel. Or: 'I can't prove it,<BR/>but I feel that it's true.' You got it from Kant. Or: 'It's logical,<BR/>but logic has nothing to do with reality.' You got it from Kant. Or:<BR/>'It's evil, because it's selfish.' You got it from Kant. Have you heard<BR/>the modern activists say: 'Act first, think afterward'? They got it from John Dewey. <BR/><BR/>Some people might answer: 'Sure, I've said those things at different times,<BR/>but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been<BR/>true yesterday, but it's not true today.' They got it from Hegel.<BR/>They might say: 'Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' They got<BR/>it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: 'But can't one<BR/>compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according<BR/>to the expediency of the moment?' They got it from Richard Nixon — who<BR/>got it from William James. <BR/><BR/>Now ask yourself: if you are not interested in abstract ideas, why<BR/>do you (and all men) feel compelled to use them? The fact is that abstract<BR/>ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number<BR/>of concretes — and that without abstract ideas you would not be able to<BR/>deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the<BR/>position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented<BR/>phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the<BR/>number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed. <BR/><BR/>You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations,<BR/>your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles.<BR/>Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they<BR/>represent your conscious, rational conviction — or a grab-bag of notions<BR/>snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you<BR/>do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a<BR/>hot potato if you knew."<BR/><BR/>-- Ayn Rand, "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"<BR/>http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now **here**'s an association that depresses me no end.<BR/>It could upset me even more than the association between<BR/>autism and narcissism upsets Anne Corwin, if I let it<BR/>( :-0 ).<BR/><BR/>http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/bios/space/hill.html<BR/>-------------------------<BR/>Meet: Paul Hill<BR/>Flight Director<BR/>Johnson Space Center<BR/><BR/>Who I am and What I Do<BR/><BR/>I am a Flight Director. I'm in charge of space shuttle and space<BR/>station mission control and responsible for the safe conduct of<BR/>space shuttle and space station missions. . .<BR/><BR/>As a kid, I liked to read. My 5th grade teacher Mrs. Martin<BR/>brought reading to life for me and introduced me to J.R.R. Tolkien,<BR/>both of which made me an avid reader for life. I love anything from<BR/>Ayn Rand [to] Tolkien and Hugo. . .<BR/><BR/>My standout favorites in fiction are Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien;<BR/>Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand; and The Man Who Laughs, Victor Hugo. My favorites<BR/>in non-fiction are The Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff;<BR/>Philosophy, Who Needs It, Ayn Rand; . . . None of these encouraged me<BR/>to pursue a career in space, but they did encourage me to think.<BR/>Like the best teachers, most of these books expanded my outlook on<BR/>life in more ways than just the story they tell, especially Rand's<BR/>and Hugo's. . .<BR/>-------------------------jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-78701705365694666392008-03-13T10:16:00.000-07:002008-03-13T10:16:00.000-07:00Giulio Prisco wrote:> Over here in contemporary Eu...Giulio Prisco wrote:<BR/><BR/>> Over here in contemporary Europe, most learned people do not<BR/>> even know who [Ayn Rand] was.<BR/><BR/>No. But they know all about her main progenitor,<BR/>Friedrich Nietzsche.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"In calling Rand a Nietzschean, I don't mean to suggest<BR/>that she shared all Nietzsche's views, or that those<BR/>views she thought she shared were necessarily true to<BR/>Nietzsche. (Some Nietzsche scholars deny, for instance,<BR/>that Nietzsche really held the common herd of ordinary<BR/>humans in contempt.) Rand was a 'vulgar Nietzschean':<BR/>she adhered to a cluster of ideas, including contempt<BR/>for the common herd, popularly associated with<BR/>Nietzsche.<BR/><BR/>Rand found the common man of the twentieth century, if<BR/>anything, to be an even more grotesquely botched entity<BR/>than Nietzsche had predicted. Her first projected hero,<BR/>Danny Renahan in _The Little Street_, is explicitly<BR/>Nietzschean in his sense of absolute superiority over<BR/>and utter contempt for nearly all of humanity, which<BR/>presumes to dispute his superiority by sheer dint of<BR/>numbers. He burns with "disgust . . . and with<BR/>humiliation" at not being able to crush "the mob"<BR/>under his feet. His superior intelligence "makes the<BR/>mob feel that a superior mind can exist entirely<BR/>outside its established morals," provoking "a murderous<BR/>desire to revenge itself against its hurt vanity. . .<BR/>He was superior and he wanted to live as such. . .<BR/>the one thing society does not permit." . . .<BR/>This Nietzschean hero, much more negatively disposed<BR/>than Roark, is an early prototype of Roark. The theme<BR/>of the disgustingness of non-heroic average humanity<BR/>would be a constant in all Rand's novels."<BR/><BR/>-- Jeff Walker, _The Ayn Rand Cult_, "The Roots of<BR/>Objectivism"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"[Joel] Kramer and [Diana] Alstad [authors of _The<BR/>Guru Papers_] observe that psychological authoritarianism<BR/>arises from a longing to submit to some near-superhumanly<BR/>moral or knowledgeable source, **or** to be that source<BR/>for others. Control was. . . for [Ayn] Rand, an obsession. . .<BR/>Recalled Nathaniel Branden, "Outside the territory where<BR/>she felt in full intellectual control, she was utterly<BR/>lacking in a spirit of openness or adventure." . . .<BR/><BR/>Rand insisted that everything in a man's life is subject<BR/>to his mind's control and that the worst tragedies result<BR/>from willfully suspending that control. She contends,<BR/>"There is no place for whim in any human activity -- if<BR/>it is to be regarded as human, . . . no room for the<BR/>unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the<BR/>non-objective in any human product. This side of an<BR/>insane asylum, the actions of a human being are motivated<BR/>by a conscious purpose," and when they are not, "they<BR/>are of no interest to anyone outside a psychiatrist's<BR/>office." . . .<BR/><BR/>Rand believed that her rational mind always dominated and<BR/>guided her emotions, and that this should be the case for<BR/>everyone. Barbara Branden remembers, "She often said she<BR/>understood **every** emotion she had and she knew<BR/>where it came from and what it represented . . . not so.<BR/>She didn't, . . . partly because she [thought] the process<BR/>is easier than it is." Rand never introspected. The<BR/>Blumenthals say she didn't believe she **had** an<BR/>unconscious, her mind having refused entry to irrationalities<BR/>so common to everyone else. So, presumably, her thinking<BR/>could never be warped by an unconscious bias.<BR/><BR/>Fired up in 1928 by plans for her misanthropic novel _The<BR/>Little Street_, she had noted in her journal: "The<BR/>secret of life: You must be nothing but will. . . Be<BR/>a tyrant -- no compromises with yourself. . . You don't<BR/>exist. You are only a writing engine," dedicated to<BR/>"individualism, . . . the theme song, the goal, the only<BR/>aim of all my writing." And so it was. In a 1945 open<BR/>letter to _Fountainhead_ readers she declared, albeit in<BR/>a romanticizing mode, "I have never had any private life<BR/>in the usual sense. . . My writing is my life. . .<BR/>My life has been 'single-tracked'. . . I have no hobbies,<BR/>. . . few friends." . . .<BR/><BR/>Rand outlined in her journal the basic character traits of<BR/>her most famous hero, Howard Roark: "His emotions are<BR/>entirely controlled by his logic." Two things dominate<BR/>his entire attitude toward life: "his own superiority and<BR/>the utter worthlessness of the world." He was "born<BR/>without the ability to consider others. . . Indifference<BR/>and an infinite contempt is all he feels for the world<BR/>and for other men who are not like him." Other people are<BR/>merely a convenience for his work. He recognizes only<BR/>the right of the exceptional (and by that he means only<BR/>himself) "to create, and order, and command."<BR/><BR/>Rand writes that "my life purpose is the creation of the<BR/>kind of world (people and events) that I like, i.e., that<BR/>represent human perfection." She likes neither reality<BR/>nor real people, inevitably imperfect as they are, but<BR/>still thrives upon the company of imaginary perfect<BR/>beings who represent variations on what she most likes<BR/>about herself. . .<BR/><BR/>Rand wrote in a letter that "all my life I have been troubled<BR/>by the fact that most people bored me to death." . . .<BR/>And in a late 1940s letter Rand asserts that she couldn't<BR/>care less about the so-called 'average man': "What I am<BR/>interested in is the great and the exceptional. . .<BR/>I do feel something which is probably real hatred when<BR/>I hear somebody say he believes in the 'middle of the road.'<BR/><BR/>She declared that she could look around her levelly, but<BR/>couldn't bear to look down, and had wanted to look up.<BR/>But she felt there was no one at a higher level than her<BR/>to look up to. Rand's Kay Gonda in _Ideal_ (1934), asked<BR/>if she really thinks she's so much better than everybody<BR/>else, responds "Yes, . . . I do. I wish I didn't have<BR/>to."<BR/><BR/>Rand asserts that Roark "is the only genuine human being"<BR/>in _The Fountainhead_ "because he embodies precisely those<BR/>qualities which constitute a human being, as distinguished<BR/>from an animal. Keating is subhuman." Such remarks go<BR/>beyond disdain into hate. They also provide a clue as<BR/>to why her fictional villains are so unconvincing.<BR/>Their subhumanity puts them beyond foreshortened range<BR/>of the author's empathy. . ."<BR/><BR/>-- Jeff Walker, _The Ayn Rand Cult_, "The Dark Side of<BR/>the Guru's Soul"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"The sick are the greatest danger for the well. The weaker,<BR/>not the stronger, are the strong's undoing. It is not **fear**<BR/>of our fellow-man, which we should wish to see diminished;<BR/>for fear rouses those who are strong to become terrible<BR/>in turn themselves, and preserves the hard-earned and<BR/>successful type of humanity. What is to be dreaded by us<BR/>more than any other doom is not fear, but rather the great<BR/>disgust; not fear, but rather the great pity -- disgust<BR/>and pity for our human fellows. . . . The **morbid** are<BR/>our greatest peril, not the "bad" men, not the predatory<BR/>beings. Those born wrong, the miscarried, the broken --<BR/>they it is, the **weakest**, who are undermining the vitality<BR/>of the race, poisoning our trust in life, and putting<BR/>humanity in question. Every look of them is a sigh --<BR/>'Would I were something other! I am sick and tired of<BR/>what I am.' In this swamp-soil of self-contempt, every<BR/>poisonous weed flourishes, and all so small, so secret,<BR/>so dishonest, and so sweetly rotten. Here swarm the<BR/>worms of sensitiveness and resentment; here the air smells<BR/>odious with secrecy, with what is not to be acknowledged;<BR/>here is woven endlessly the net of the meanest of<BR/>conspiracies, the conspiracy of those who suffer against<BR/>those who succeed and are victorious; here the very<BR/>aspect of the victorious is hated -- as if health,<BR/>success, strength, pride, and the sense of power were<BR/>in themselves things vicious, for which one ought eventually<BR/>to make bitter expiation. Oh, how these people would<BR/>themselves like to inflict the expiation, how they thirst<BR/>to be the hangmen! And all the while their duplicity<BR/>never confesses their hatred to be hatred."<BR/><BR/>-- Friedrich Nietzsche, _Zur Genealogie der<BR/>Moral_, Dritte Abhandlung, Sect. 14, quoted in<BR/>William James' _The Varieties of Religious Experience_<BR/>("The Value of Saintliness", pp. 406 - 407)<BR/><BR/>James goes on to say:<BR/><BR/>"Poor Nietzsche's antipathy is itself sickly enough, but<BR/>we all know what he means, and he expresses well the<BR/>clash between the two ideals. The carnivorous-minded<BR/>"strong man," the adult male and cannibal, can see nothing<BR/>but mouldiness and morbidness in the saint's gentleness<BR/>and self-severity, and regards him with pure loathing.<BR/>The whole feud revolves essentially upon two pivots:<BR/>Shall the seen world or the unseen world be our chief<BR/>sphere of adaptation? and must our means of adaptation<BR/>in this seen world be aggressiveness or non-resistance?<BR/><BR/>The debate is serious. In some sense and to some degree<BR/>both worlds must be acknowledged and taken account of;<BR/>and in the seen world both aggressiveness and non-resistance<BR/>are needful. It is a question of emphasis, of more<BR/>or less. Is the saint's type or the strong-man's type<BR/>the more ideal? . . .<BR/><BR/>A society where all were invariably aggressive would<BR/>destroy itself by inner friction, and in a society<BR/>where some are aggressive, others must be non-resistant,<BR/>if there is to be any kind of order. This is the<BR/>present constitution of society, and to the mixture<BR/>we owe many of our blessings. But the aggressive<BR/>members of society are always tending to become<BR/>bullies, robbers, and swindlers; and no one believes<BR/>that such a state of things as we now live in is<BR/>the millennium. . ."<BR/><BR/>And in a paragraph just prior to the Nietzsche quote,<BR/>James says:<BR/><BR/>"Reenacted in human nature is the fable of the wind,<BR/>the sun, and the traveler. The sexes embody the<BR/>discrepancy. The woman loves the man the more<BR/>admiringly the stormier he shows himself, and the<BR/>world deifies its rulers the more for being willful<BR/>and unaccountable. But the woman in turn subjugates<BR/>the man by the mystery of gentleness in beauty,<BR/>and the saint has always charmed the world by<BR/>something similar. Mankind is susceptible and<BR/>suggestible in opposite directions, and the<BR/>rivalry of influences is unsleeping. The saintly<BR/>and the worldly ideal pursue their feud in literature<BR/>as much as in real life. . ."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"I dislike Nietzsche, because he likes the contemplation<BR/>of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because<BR/>the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory<BR/>is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the<BR/>ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against<BR/>any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic,<BR/>lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to<BR/>emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel<BR/>it the motive power to all that I desire as regards<BR/>the world. His followers have had their innings, but<BR/>we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end."<BR/><BR/>-- Bertrand Russell<BR/>http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Tale%20Of%20Two%20Moralities.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Nazi scribblers never tired of extolling him.<BR/>Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar<BR/>and publicized his veneration for the philosopher<BR/>by posing for photographs of himself staring<BR/>in rapture at the bust of the great man."<BR/><BR/>-- William L. Shirer's take on the Relationship<BR/>Between Friedrich Nietzsche and the Nazis<BR/>From William L. Shirer (1959),<BR/>_The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_<BR/>http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"To make matters worse, the Boomers' arrival on<BR/>college campuses was immediately preceded by<BR/>Walter Kaufmann's rehabilitation of Friedrich Nietzsche,<BR/>the Patron Saint of Political Narcissism.<BR/>Beloved to the Nazis, Nietzsche's philosophy had<BR/>consequently suffered a precipitous decline in prestige<BR/>in the West, until Kaufmann unearthed previously<BR/>suppressed writings that revealed Nietzsche to be<BR/>a virulent critic of anti-Semitism. <BR/><BR/>It was a pity these revelations did not come years<BR/>earlier, when our forbears could have gleefully<BR/>rubbed Nazi noses in them.<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche is to be commended for his hatred of<BR/>anti-Semitism. He is likewise to be commended for<BR/>his inspiring aesthetic philosophy, his remarkable<BR/>powers of observation and his extraordinary prose.<BR/><BR/>But his ethics and his politics are nonetheless vile,<BR/>irretrievably so, because they are so pathologically<BR/>narcissistic as to lead inevitably to totalitarianism<BR/>and its abuses."<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche: The Patron Saint of Political Narcissism<BR/>http://journals.aol.com/madison721/TheViewfrommyKitchen-APoliticalB/entries/8<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"I think Nietzsche is just pietzsche."<BR/><BR/>-- One of the founders of the Extropians' Mailing List,<BR/>in a personal communication.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-82356692786476760052008-03-13T03:41:00.000-07:002008-03-13T03:41:00.000-07:00The word "mehum" (for "mere human") derives from W...The word "mehum" (for "mere human") derives from Wilson & Shea's Illuminatus trilogy - which also contains a parody of <I>Atlas Shrugged</I> called <I>Telemachus Sneezed</I>.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-20878227160288869622008-03-13T03:37:00.000-07:002008-03-13T03:37:00.000-07:00giulio said:I am ashamed to confess that I did not...giulio said:<BR/><BR/><I>I am ashamed to confess that I did not even read Ayn Rand. Many years ago I tried to start Atlas Shrugged but gave up after a few pages because it was too boring.</I><BR/><BR/>Although I have read some of her other works, a friend and I also I tried to start Atlas Shrugged but both gave up after a few pages because it was too boring.<BR/><BR/><I>From the little I know about Rand's work I have formed the impression that she was a second or third league writer and thinker who, for some reasons, has made a deep impression on one or two generations of Americans. Over here in contemporary Europe, most learned people do not even know who she was. Among all forums that I use to read, this is the only one where her work is regularly mentioned. She must have made a very deep impression on you guys indeed! I think perhaps I should try reading her again. What should I read? Atlas Shrugged again? The Fountainhead?</I><BR/><BR/>I suggest you read <B>The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism">The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism</B>. It's a 1964 collection of essays and papers by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. The book covers several issues of the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Some of its themes include the identification and validation of egoism as a rational code of ethics, the destructiveness of altruism, and the nature of a proper government.<BR/><BR/>But until you actually get your hands on a copy and read it, I suggest you watch the following:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k " REL="nofollow" TITLE="Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1"> Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0" REL="nofollow" TITLE="Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2">Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI" REL="nofollow" TITLE="Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 3"> Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 3</A>VDThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01496647346219341625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-40224494049185393272008-03-13T01:08:00.000-07:002008-03-13T01:08:00.000-07:00If you are contemplating reading La Rand may I sug...If you are contemplating reading La Rand may I suggest you turn instead to the novels (in much the same vein) of Harold Robbins? He is, at least, one of 20C literature's true giants, as James Kirk once confidently attested on a visit here to the Bay Area from the future.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-27618738396290825312008-03-13T00:45:00.000-07:002008-03-13T00:45:00.000-07:00I am ashamed to confess that I did not even read A...I am ashamed to confess that I did not even read Ayn Rand. Many years ago I tried to start Atlas Shrugged but gave up after a few pages because it was too boring.<BR/><BR/>So I have nothing to repudiate, because I never even took Rand seriously enough to read her. But of course from your point of view I will remain a filthy Ayn Raelian. Ah, identity politics.<BR/><BR/>From the little I know about Rand's work I have formed the impression that she was a second or third league writer and thinker who, for some reasons, has made a deep impression on one or two generations of Americans. Over here in contemporary Europe, most learned people do not even know who she was.<BR/><BR/>Among all forums that I use to read, this is the only one where her work is regularly mentioned. She must have made a very deep impression on you guys indeed! I think perhaps I should try reading her again.<BR/><BR/>What should I read? Atlas Shrugged again? The Fountainhead? I just did a search on The Fountainhead and stumbled upon <A HREF="http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/characters.html" REL="nofollow">this page</A>. It has a list of the main characters, for example:<BR/><BR/>"Ellsworth Toohey - The villain of the novel, and Roark’s antithesis—a man with a lust for power but no talent. Since his boyhood, Toohey has despised the achievements of others, and he dedicates himself to squelching other people’s talents and ambitions. He is a small and fragile-looking man, but his persuasive voice and knack for manipulation make him a formidable opponent. He encourages selflessness and altruism to coax others into submission. His philosophy is a blend of religion, Fascism and Socialism, and he at times resembles the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin". See also Ellsworth Toohey (In-Depth Analysis)Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-44416479465444135952008-03-12T23:33:00.000-07:002008-03-12T23:33:00.000-07:00Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but this video...Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but <A HREF="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZKjfaAAlqIA" REL="nofollow">this video</A> may be of interest to some readers. It's informative and funny and scary because it's true!Anne Corwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-78047108277450897952008-03-12T23:28:00.000-07:002008-03-12T23:28:00.000-07:00anonymous said:Interesting fact: Thiel endorses a ...anonymous said:<BR/><BR/><I>Interesting fact: Thiel endorses a universal basic income in one of his talks on this site:<BR/>http://www.bigthink.com/<BR/>OTOH, so does Charles Murray.</I><BR/><BR/>Not too long ago I was arguing in the Moot that, in a desperate attempt to "save" consumer capitalism, the Right would slowly but increasingly start co-opting BIG discourse so thank for providing me with some examples.VDThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01496647346219341625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-50826286935004626752008-03-12T23:15:00.000-07:002008-03-12T23:15:00.000-07:00"Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) dona..."Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) donations to the<BR/>Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, seems to have purchased a full-time research and development arm for Clarium Capital Management."<BR/>This is just silly. First of all, when you hire R&D staff their salaries are expenses that reduce taxable income, so there's no tax advantage to outsourcing research in such a fashion. Second, a nonprofit can't transfer its IP in a non-arm's length transaction to a for-profit entity. Third, the SIAI is certainly not doing AI work that will be relevant to financial analysis any time soon.<BR/><BR/>"Jim suggests that the answer may be the usual one that occurs to anybody who follows the money: "not wanting to alienate potential sources of funding, like Peter Thiel or Jimmy Wales."<BR/>Interesting fact: Thiel endorses a universal basic income in one of his talks on this site: <BR/>http://www.bigthink.com/<BR/>OTOH, so does Charles Murray.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-151511313000334632008-03-12T16:17:00.000-07:002008-03-12T16:17:00.000-07:00Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) donat...<I>Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) donations to the<BR/>Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, seems to have purchased a full-time research and development arm for Clarium Capital Management.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll believe it when you show me that Thiel has invested comparable funds to tap into the stunning research intelligence resources available in the local George Lucas Fan Club.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-51922938758620984512008-03-12T15:47:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:47:00.000-07:00Anonymous "thanks" me "for the 'Robot God' phrase"...Anonymous "thanks" me "for the 'Robot God' phrase" saying of it that it is "accurate enough and I've adopted it in my own dialogue." No doubt, no doubt.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-74521465929702632762008-03-12T15:26:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:26:00.000-07:00> In order to do this effectively, global macro ma...> In order to do this effectively, global macro managers rely<BR/>> very heavily on computational models which take raw data inputs<BR/>> and churn-out either programmed trades or trading alerts. . .<BR/>> Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) donations to the<BR/>> Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, seems to<BR/>> have purchased a full-time research and development arm for<BR/>> Clarium Capital Management. . .. Along with this purchase,<BR/>> one might assume, goes also the right to employ SIAI's most<BR/>> interesting algorithmic results in Clarium's proprietary<BR/>> trading programs.<BR/><BR/>That seems like a stretch to me.<BR/><BR/>I would guess that the code for a (not "generally" intelligent)<BR/>programmed trading system is highly tailored to the<BR/>application domain (though I've never seen the "guts" of<BR/>such a system).<BR/><BR/>If all SIAI has now is (somebody's idea of a) "seed AI" --<BR/>a subintelligent progenitor for what they call an "Artificial<BR/>General Intelligence", then I'd guess that any actual<BR/>code they have is about as applicable to security<BR/>or commodity trading as would be the code for Microsoft<BR/>Word or Adobe Photoshop.<BR/><BR/>Now **after** the AGI "wakes up" -- but wait a minute, then<BR/>we have the Singularity, and who cares about Clarium Capital<BR/>Management's trading prowess?jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-23008676977321545452008-03-12T15:21:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:21:00.000-07:00Now that you mention it, I repudiate Objectivism. ...Now that you mention it, I repudiate Objectivism. I just never took it seriously enough to do so before.Nick Tarletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16226303578512704501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-77448047785857204182008-03-12T15:18:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:18:00.000-07:00I've been a "techno-utopian Transhumanist" for fif...I've been a "techno-utopian Transhumanist" for fifteen years or so but never thought of Rand as more than a marginally entertaining novelist. I do recall Randroids flocking about in the old Extropian days though.<BR/><BR/>Thanks BTW for the "Robot God" phrase, it has just the right "I don't take myself too seriously" ring to it while at the same time being accurate enough and I've adopted it in my own dialogue. Keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-24629852530479681852008-03-12T15:10:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:10:00.000-07:00Jim suggests that the answer may be the usual one ...<I>Jim suggests that the answer may be the usual one that occurs to anybody who follows the money: "not wanting to alienate potential sources of funding, like Peter Thiel...</I><BR/><BR/>Let's connect a few more dots, and perhaps indulge in a bit of Mundist conspiracy theory, shall we?<BR/><BR/>Peter Thiel, the benefactor of the Singlarity Institute, runs a global macro hedge fund known as Clarium Capital. <BR/><BR/>Global macro funds invest in asset classes across the world based upon macroeconomic trend analyses. For example, current indicators might suggest that US inflation is trending higher as the dollar is weakening against other currencies. If so, Clarium might direct capital to Euro-denominated bonds, or go long gold and other commodities to take advantage of the declining purchasing power of the greenback. <BR/><BR/>The number of possible investments a fund like Clarium might consider at any one time is absolutely staggering. Narrowing them down to a select few with good odds of making money requires an enormous computational effort to extrapolate trends, calculate fair values, volatilities, the fair value of corresponding derivatives, etc. There is a vast amount of economic and price data that must be analyzed to do this well. So, for the fund to make the right calls most of the time, the fund managers must be able to absorb and digest in real-time a veritable torrent of raw data.<BR/><BR/>In order to do this effectively, global macro managers rely very heavily on computational models which take raw data inputs and churn-out either programmed trades or trading alerts to be reviewed by managers for action. The smarter and more flexible the computational model, the better the trades. <BR/><BR/>Some readers probably already see where this going. If not, let's put this observation another way: <BR/><BR/><I> The smarter your computer is, the more money you make.</I> <BR/><BR/>Puts a few things in perspective, now, doesn't it? Thiel, with his magnanimous (tax-deductible) donations to the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, seems to have purchased a full-time research and development arm for Clarium Capital Management's flagship global macro fund. Along with this purchase, one might assume, goes also the right to employ SIAI's most interesting algorithmic results in Clarium's proprietary trading programs. <BR/><BR/>If I were a contributor to the non-profit, 501c SIAI I would probably want to know more about the relationship in question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-7653616682006920932008-03-12T14:09:00.000-07:002008-03-12T14:09:00.000-07:00> [A]s it happens, only "Grey Gardens" and "Whatev...> [A]s it happens, only "Grey Gardens" and "Whatever Happened to<BR/>> Baby Jane" come close to the filmic adaptation of Rand's novel<BR/>> "The Fountainhead" as cinema's high camp apotheosis. . .<BR/><BR/>I still remember the first time (long ago, back in the 70's) that<BR/>I caught "The Fountainhead" on TV. I sat there, with slack jaw,<BR/>thinking "can this possibly be for real?" as Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal,<BR/>and Raymond Massey, faces fixed, fire in their eyes, pummelled<BR/>each other with lines like:<BR/><BR/>"Hans! I love you!"<BR/><BR/>"Of course you do, Fraulein! You could not **help** yourself!"<BR/><BR/>(Actually, that dialog was from an aftershave commercial,<BR/>but you get the idea.)<BR/><BR/>I still prefer Bette Davis in _Baby Jane_, though.<BR/><BR/>("Yer such a liar, Blanche! Ya always were.")jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-56660062393677296972008-03-12T14:02:00.000-07:002008-03-12T14:02:00.000-07:00> . . . mere humans -- sometimes described derisiv...> . . . mere humans -- sometimes described derisively as "mehums," . . .<BR/><BR/>Yes, **gay** humans being, of course, "hohums".<BR/><BR/>;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com