jlew

Have you read any Alfred Bester? The Demolished Man and The Stars, My Destination are both great works. I love the work of Harlan Ellison, too. Essays, short fiction, teleplays and screenplays...the man does it all and does it very well. They just re-released his Strange Wine short story collection, as well as his screenplay for I, Robot. (Not the version that was made into the Will Smith vehicle.) How about Dan Simmons? Hyperion is a terrific science-fiction novel. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to the others in the series. Right now I am re-reading Atlas Shrugged. I am going back to college to get my undergrad degree in less than a week (I'm 33, so better late than never, I suppose!), and I want to get AS in before my time is taken up with school work.

I haven't seen I, ROBOT (and I really have no desire to see it), but I can wholeheartedly suggest that everyone go out and buy the Harlan Ellison script that was written in the late 70's. Obviously, Ellison's version of Asimov's stories never got made, but he was the one who finally completed a script that no one else could seem to lick. Asimov himself touted it as a special accomplishment and described it as the first truly adult (read: mature) science-fiction movie. What he would have thought about Will Smith's version I can only imagine...

Really? Where did you read that? (I'm not jumping on you...I just think that's strange...) I like Terry Gilliam...almost in spite of him being Terry Gilliam...if that makes any sense. He is a fantastically talented director, but I have to agree with argive99 that Gilliam's thematic flaws hamper his overall work. However, perhaps we can take Brazil as an attack on governmentally supported corporations? Would those billboards be needed under a free capitalist society?

I just saw Ocean's 11 for the first time the other night. Granted it was on network TV, so I don't know if I missed anything, but I thought it was pretty terrible. Not a single actor seemed "there"...they all looked like they were imaging their paychecks hitting their accounts at the end of the month. Watching actors who should know better (Clooney and Co.) mugging for the camera is not worth your time. If you want a good caper film check out Rififi, The Asphalt Jungle, or Le Cercle Rouge.

When I think about Atlas Shrugged or any other Ayn Rand work being brought to the big screen, I immediately think of something Terry Gilliam said when asked about filming Alan Moore's Watchmen. Gilliam said, "Not everything has to be a movie." Watchmen works because its a great story told very well...and also because of its medium: the graphic novel. Atlas Shrugged works not only because its a superb novel...but also because it is a novel. Ayn Rand was able to lay everything out to you because her characters were able to use introspection. You won't get that in a movie version of the book. (Its one of the reasons why I don't like The Fountainhead movie.) To do Atlas Shrugged justice (as far as I am concerned) you can't leave anything or anyone out. Its like the king asking Mozart to remove notes from his symphony because there are too many. "Which notes would you like removed, sire?" Everyone in Atlas Shrugged is there for a reason. To bring it properly to the screen would require a monumental effort on Hollywood's part...and probably every actor in town! I'd like to hear an excellent radio dramatization of it. Something where you could use actors playing the parts, but also have a narrator moving the action along. Of course, I realize that no one in the culture at large would listen to it...but I'd enjoy it anyway!

I was going through the back issues of Skeptical Inquirer at my local library when I came across this article: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/science.html (If, for whatever reasons, you cannot bring this link up, it is entitled "Science and the Public: Is Science Making Us More Ignorant?" by Austin Dacey, Ph.D. Its from the November/December 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, pp 35-39. My discussion of this article will be based upon my assumption that you can see it.) I usually enjoy reading SI for its defense of science and reason, but this article gave me pause. The beginning of it, with its bemoaning of science's knocking the supports out from under the public's "cultural understanding" (a phrase never quite nailed down with a definition by the good doctor), is bad enough. But the further along I went, the more the whole thing reminded me of something Dr. Stadler's State Science Institute might have released. Especially the lines: (Itlaics mine.) I must confess that I have only a rudimentary scientific education. When I wade into the waters of this end of the Objectivism Online pool, it is with all my energy that I maintain to keep my head dry. While most of you are breaststroking forward, I am puttering along with my rendition of the doggie paddle. And even then I tend to swallow more of the wet stuff then shove aside. But I have a great respect for science and an even greater respect for scientists, and this article disturbed me. Dr. Dacey speaks of "bridging science and culture", but I honestly don't know what he means. Does he want scientists to make more of an effort to bring their findings to the public? No. Dr. Dacey says that "[t]he subject of science and the public is realted to, but distinct from, the subject of public science literacy." So what does he want? Well, in the end he wants what Dr. Stadler wanted: (Italics mine.) I was impressed by Dr. Dacey's ability to jump from "science is making us more ignorant" to "public science will save us." The members of Cirque du Soleil couldn't have been more flexible. It seems as though what Dr. Dacey wants more than anything is a science lobby, a group of pocket-protector wearing thugs that will wring the money needed from federal coffers. Or am I just reading this wrong? Have any of you encountered anything like this in your travels? What is it that these people want?

Hal, you're right. I was reading it wrong. However - and I may be guilty of pulling some quotes out of context - when I read phrases like... "...nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all." "Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole." "I am thus responsible for myself and for all men..." "...freedom is willed in community..." "...in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own." "I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as mine. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim." ...I start breaking out in the cold sweats. Sartre believed that existence in and of itself was unknowable to man. I remember reading in Nausea the scene in the park when the main character finally sees reality for what it is (how does he "see" it?), and he is repulsed by the squirming, squggling entities he sees. If reality is unknowable how can anyone make a correct choice? How can anyone know what is "the good"? What can man base his decisions upon? If I choose freedom, what does that entail? Freedom from what? For whom? To what end? What you're left with in Existentialism are just a bunch of free floating phrases - the good, freedom, man - without anything to base them upon. If you take away reality - according to Sartre - then all you are left with is man. Man alone and suffering. So, if I choose freedom, it isn't because its the way I want to live in harmony with reality, but the way I want to live with other men. Its like a reverse golden rule: do unto myself, as I would have others do unto themselves. It still ties men together falsely; its another form of second-handedness.

punk...I was trying to neatly summarize Existentialism for a post in another thread. (And if you've ever read what most Existentialist have written, you understand how tough that can be.) What you've written above helps a lot. Thanks.

dwwoelfel...I've tried to read Cormac McCarthy in the past, and after your last post decided to try again. I must say that my initial misgivings with Mr. McCarthy's writing style were well-founded. The man's work is simply a mess. I'm not even going to say anything about the lack of a single quotation mark and how that just breaks down the wall between the narrator and the characters - who is telling the story? everyone? no one? does it matter? No, the main problem for me is this forced sentence structure of his: "The hacendado placed the tin on the table between them and took a silver lighter from his pocket and lit the boy's cigarette and then his own." (pg 113) (And that's just from me randomly opening the book to any old page. You yourself could do it, too. With McCarthy, its easy. There's drivel on every page.) Why was it necessary to put that sentence togther that way? It could easily be written as: "The hacendado placed the tin on the table between them. He took a silver lighter from his pocket. With it, he lit the boy's cigarette and then his own." Why wasn't it written like that? More than likely because it wouldn't have sounded "writerly" if it had. Only the truly "gifted" can cram a bunch of simple words together to create a confusing mishmash of a sentence. And its for that very reason that I dislike the vast majority (if not the sum total) of modern writers. I can't resist...here's another example for the page facing the above quotation: "The man rose and folded the newspaper and crossed the kitchen and came back with a wooden rack of butcher and boning knives together with an oilstone and set them out on the paper." (pg 112) Are you kidding me? Or how about this...same page, next paragraph: "He was a spare man with broad shoulders and graying hair and he was tall in the manner of nortenos and light of skin." Tall in the manner of nortenos and light of skin? Who the heck talks like that? Apparently Americans do, because on the back of the book is a quote from Shelby Foote extolling Mr. McCarthy's book for its use of language: "The novel's hero...is the English language - or perhaps I should say the American language..." Perhaps you shouldn't say anything Mr. Foote. You're talking bollocks. I'm not saying things should be simple and spelled out for me. But neither should they be buried under a ton of "style" and then sung to the high heavens as a masterwork of the use of the English language by people who should know better. Give me a break. Or better yet just give me Harry Potter.

Its just another boondoggle to tie men together. "No one's actions are their own. No one's life is their own." It remindes me of the society in AR's Anthem, or the plight of the sighted in The Day of the Triffids. If, through the choice of my own freedom, my responsibilty is to all of mankind, for how long do you expect me to continue to choose freedom? If you expand it and say, "I choose to be rich and successful," if (as Sartre says) "...my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind...," how many people are going to choose to be rich and successful? Why would you put in the effort if someone else's choice to be rich and successful is just as good for you? I dabbled with Sartre and the existentialists, but could never get beyond the obtuseness of their writing. Being confused - and being happy in that confusion - was something I never liked or understood.

Dude...WTF? Again this goes back to my original observation about Adbusters and their ilk: they do not want you to buy differently...they don't want you to buy at all. punk...why does it irk you so that Inspector buys what he buys? He seems to have a handle on the reasons for his purchases. And again let me reiterate: yes, it is a shame that some people are more concerned with keeping up with the Joneses (or the Inspectors) of our world...and...it is equally unfortunate that business and advertising recognize that envy and play upon it. But how is that any business of yours or mine? If you want to make a difference in people's purchasing power than you need to address the fact that some people buy things as soon as the want/need/desire strikes them. They do not examine that want/need/desire and attempt to explain it - or even check to see if it is feasible or not. [e.g., is it within their budget, does it even exist? (I work at Barnes & Noble...believe me...the people who come into the store demanding we order a book that they think should exist are pretty numerous!)] I can only assume, Inspector, that you didn't drop every cent you have in the world on a Kenny Cole jacket and a car. You made the purchases that were available to you, using the funds available to you. punk...try to raise people's ability to raise the bar of their standards...teach people to be more self-critical of what they think they should own...reach out to their reason... ...and if they still go out and blow their paycheck on a Playstation 2 when they should really be paying rent...let 'em do it...there's no reasoning with some people. But I still maintain that by championing Adbusters, you are doing no service to yourself or your argument. I agree with you, punk. People should be more aware of what they buy and why they buy it. But striving to create a world where nobody buys anything because nobody produces anything ain't gonna solve the problem! And just for the record, I'm a Coke man. Pepsi is just too sugery tasting!

Just give me any of the FIFA games and I'm a happy man. Forza Milan!

Personally, I consider the new trilogy to be the greatest "dropped ball" in film history. Never before have I been so excited for a movie (Phantom Menace), only to be kicked in the stomach for the trouble. George Lucas may be a good producer, but a good director he is not. Was Natalie Portman given any help with her role? I mean aside from, "Speak in a monotone voice"? Georgie, you can have all the fancy parlor tricks in the world at your command...but if there isn't anything backing it up...all you've got is a really expensive video game. And not even a very good video game at that. I'm going to see the last of the trilogy. But its as a man going to see the last breath of a sick friend.

Again, punk, I agree...but the main drift I get from Adbusters is not a pleasant little critique of "branding", but an all-out attack on production as such. Sure, there are business practices that I don't like - advertising being one of them. But I don't find it evil...I just find it plain dumb. And anyone with even half a brain can see through it. Adbusters, on the other hand, finds advertising an absolute evil. Therefore, they are anti-branding, anti-advertising, anti-consumption, anti-production - and anti-life. (Except, of course, for their little tennis shoe! Buy two pairs for the holidays!) Objectivism won't be able to make "real headway" in the culture by linking themselves (however tenuously) with a magazine like Adbusters. Skulls being spraypainted over models' faces won't show people what's wrong with modern advertising - reason will.

I agree with you, punk...but only to a certain extent. If a communist came up to me and said that people were working in unsafe conditions in a factory, I would agree that something should be done. But if his answer to these unsafe conditions is that the proletariat should own the means of production and smash the bougeoise...then I'd have to part ways with him. Adbusters is no different. They rail against advertising's effects on consumers...but their solution is to get rid of advertising, consumers, and ultimately the producers. This is sort of like those elementary schools who have deemed competition's effects on the losers to be a bad thing. So, instead of teaching people to be good winners and losers...they ban all competition. Like I said, I do agree that "branding" is a strange phenomenon of dubious merit. You are right to say that, "the question in consumerism is whether people find their own self-worth within themselves, or outside of themselves in terms of what they consume." But siding with Adbusters isn't going to solve anything. To paraphrase The Bard: The problems of "branding" lie not with the product, but with ourselves.

I strongly urge you to read this book... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books ...its a great attack on the mess that modern prose is in. I depise 99% of the new fiction that comes out every year. Its boring, unreadable crap. I thought I was the only one who felt this way until I read a trimmed down version of the aforementioned book in Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. Cormac McCarthy, Don DeLillo, Annie Proulx, Toni Morrison, and a few other critics' darlings are put to the sword for the obtuseness and faux-intellectuality of their writing. The bit about Oprah and Toni Morrison is worth the price of admission alone. (It's quoted in the review above.) If you can find this anywhere, I suggest you pick it up. Sorry to come on like a late-night K-Tel Records commercial, but...I think a lot of people need to read this book. Modern writing is so bad that someone has to point out that the Emperor's duds seem to be see-through. When I read authors like Cormac McCarthy I think of Peter Keating reading that Gertrude Stein-ian novelist in The Fountainhead..."If I don't understand it...it must be art!"

Yes, but Adbusters won't be happy until you make no purchasing decisions. Watch the CNN video and look at the glee on his face when he talks about people not buying anything. Its chilling, I tell you.

I agree, Mr. Speicher. The "ingenious political science professor" was the first thing I locked onto, too. The rest of the article is pretty horrible as well. How is it that every college newspaper columnist in the country sounds exactly the same? When I lived in Pittsburgh, I'd pick up the Pitt student paper just to check out what was happening. The writing was atrocious. Sentences clanging together as if they didn't even belong in the same story, let alone paragraph. Down here in Savannah its just as bad. The movie reviews are what kill me. "This movie was funny. I laughed when I saw it." Spare me the tight prose, Hemingway! Anyway, back to the business at hand... Miss Mengisen's advice to get back to the original spirit of Christmas is telling. What is the original spirit? "Shame, or conviction maybe." Like, this would be, like, you know, funny, if like, you know, it wasn't so, like, sad. You know? Her inclusion of Buy Nothing Day is also telling. (Those of you unfamiliar with this should check out the Adbusters thread. Right now I can't recall which heading its under.) And if I hear one more sociology nut (who I rank up there with astrology nuts) tell me about how the the top one percent has more wealth than the bottom ninety-five percent I'm going to vomit DayGlo! Why Bill Gates and the Jesus freak who walks up and down the streets of Savannah with a placard in his hand should make the same amount of money is beyond me. How that would make society "better", I'd love to know. Now, I must agree with her on one point. (But not for the reason she or her "ingenious political science professor" would like me to.) There are people out there with serious problems when it comes to shopping. Those who would rack up monumental credit card debt so Granny can have that combination nail gun/bidet she's always dreamed of are to be pitied in a way. But putting the kibosh on the whole Christmas shopping (or any-day-of-the-year shopping for that matter) experience isn't going to solve things one little bit. Those people, to whom dropping a couple Benjamins at Wal-Mart at the crack of dawn ain't no big thang, are without any sense of responsibility to an hour from now, let alone to tomorrow. They will eat their acorns before the first big snow of the winter no matter what. Nailing the doors shut at Target ain't gonna do the trick, Miss Mengisan and Mr. IPSP. This all comes down to one thing - which, as all of you here at this forum should know by now, is the most important thing. It comes down to the choice of thinking or not thinking. People who shop until their credit ratings drop are not thinking. People who stampede other people so their child can have a piece of anatomically incorrect plastic (which, more than likely, will be thrown into the bottom of their closet after a month or so of play) are not thinking. This isn't about too much stuff. Its how we view and relate to all that stuff. The feelings of self-esteem, self-respect, and self-love must be present in an individual before they go out and buy themselves a pair of $100 boots. I must feel that I am making those boots worthy of me - not the other way around. I cannot expect these boots to magically affix me with greatness as soon as I pull them on - no matter how comfy they are nor how well they go with those $150 pants I just bought. Miss Mengisan ought to ask her "ingenious political science professor" what would happen to those bottom feeding 95% if everyone stopped buying material goods. Who depends on the purchase of those goods more - the top or the bottom?

I guess I'm looking at the story beyond the end of the book. Judging from the book itself, I agree with you, Thoyd Loki - it was too late. However, imagining Peter Keating as a real person, I still believe that it isn't too late for him. All he has to do is choose to think. (And not want to commit suicide when he actually understood everything he'd done by not thinking.) I'm not saying that he wouldn't come out of it unscathed. I agree with what you say about not being able to recover from a life such as his with impunity. But if you accept the responsibilities with a reasoning mind, then your life can be your own again.

Friendship between men can never be shown in modern movies without some kind of "winking" towards the audience - as if to say, "They're not really gay...but you just know they are!" If two men show affection for one another, the audience automatically starts to giggle. That's why you always see men immediately begin discussing sports after an "unsettling" moment. I've always shuddered to think what the makers of ATLAS SHRUGGED the movie would do to Hank and Francisco.

Thoyd Loki...but couldn't Keating "come back to life" if he accepted Roark's philosophy? Sure, to go through life the way he did, then up and decide one day that he was going to paint again - that was an impossibility. But if he looked back at his life, saw what he had done to himself, and consciously decided that he'd had enough, then couldn't it not be too late? I'm not saying its a matter of seconds - "I'm going to think." - and then - BOOM - everything is all better. It would've taken years and years for Peter to come out of the woods. BUT if he was intellectually honest with himself, if he worked hard at being responsible, self-aware, and proud of himself and whatever achievements he could gain in the time remaining to him, then, and only then, could he come back from the brink and becoming something. (As opposed to the "nothing" he had become by the end of the book.) Whatever he had attained would be a testament to his life. To say, "It's too late" ignores free will as its understood by Objectivism: the choice to think or not to think. If Peter Keating had chosen to think (and with that choice accepted all the responsibilities that go with it), then it would not have been "too late." As long as one chooses thinking over non-thinking its never too late.

Angelina Jolie "discovered" Ayn Rand? Good...maybe she'll "discover" acting lessons next. I picture Cate Blanchett as Dagny. I picture Brad Pitt as John Galt. Emma Thompson as Lillian Rearden. Indian Jones-era Harrison Ford as Hank Rearden. I don't have a specific Francisco in mind. It wavers amongst a young George Hamilton, Lorenzo Lamas, and Raul, Real Madrid's star Spanish striker...maybe even Francesco Totti from Roma...

In reference to the posts on page one of this thread... DNA is attempting the same old bamboozle that his been tried a myriad times before. Namely that because humans rely on their senses of perception, and because those senses are fallible, that can only mean that humans can never be "certain" of anything. All of which leaves us in an unknowable universe, skeptical of everything around us, afraid to make any decision whatsoever. What we are left with is a false choice between "Certainty" and "Skepticism" - "Certainty" being the ability to know everything at any time without the aid of the senses (because they cannot be relied upon). Which breaks down the boundaries between man and the universe, between subject and object, between the knower and that which is to be known; "Skepticism" being the ability to not know anything at any time, with or without the aid of the senses. Which breaks down not only boundaries, but man and the universe, too. Objectivism refuses to choose between them, because neither position recognizes that the path to knowledge starts with a single step, a choice: I will think. Which means I will be conscious, I will integrate the information given to me by my senses of perception, and I will make my decisions based on the context and breadth of my knowledge. The key phrase in the above is "my knowledge." I cannot be certain of that which I am not conscious. I cannot be certain if the earth revolves around the sun or its the other way around if I don't know what the earth or the sun are. And to "know" what the earth and the sun are is to know their nature, their relationship, and other facts. But first I must make the decision to focus my mind and my attention to the facts at hand. To use DNA's example - the plane flying in "weather" (good weather? bad? in an atmosphere? a vacuum? and how do we know what those terms mean?) I cannot be certain of what to do if I've never been in a cockpit before, or I've never even taken lessons. (I've never in fact done either.) To be aware of what airplanes are doesn't make my ability to fly them appear out of thin air. (Excuse the pun, please.) Even Karen Black had to rely on ground control for help - and she worked on an airplane everyday! I must first make the conscious decision to learn about flight in order to have any certainty about my ability behind the stick of a plane. The more lessons and practice I acquire, the more certain I become. But man is fallible. He can make mistakes. Does this make me any less "certain" of my abilities? Not if I am intellectually honest with myself in those abilities. I may make a mistake in simulator that I may correct. In other words, I can - by using reason (which is based on my senses of perception) - move from certainty, to uncertainty, back to certainty. If I design a plane - based on the context and breadth of my knowledge - I can be certain it will fly. So, I test it. It crashes. Suddenly, I am uncertain. What happened? Where did it go wrong? I go back over all the data - my design, the materials I used, the maintenance, the pilot, the flight conditions, etc. If I find something wrong, I can correct it and become certain again. All this depends on the fact that reality exists and that I know it. People who choose between "Certainty" and "Skepticism" want man to be infallible. One wants him to be infallibly right, the other infallibly wrong. But the truth is that he is fallible. He makes mistakes. Some honest, some not so honest. But that doesn't mean he takes a "leap of faith" into the world. He senses, he perceives. His senses are his link to the world. And that is the only true "certainty."

The CNN/Adbusters spot is mind-boggling. There are just so many wrong arguments in it that it pains me to watch it. The very fact that they have given him airtime - and given it to him without demanding that he PROVE any of his so-called arguments - is infuriating. He proudly points out the fact that Buy Nothing Day is "celebrated" in over 65 countries around the world. Which countries, Mr. Lasn? Could they be the very countries where people can't afford to spend any money at all? Which doesn't help them create growth and wealth in their own countries. Mr. Lasn just doesn't see ANY connection between spending and the growth of wealth in general. He doesn't want people to over-consume...he wants them to STOP consuming... ...except of course for their fabulous new sneaker with the "anti-logo"... Mr. Lasn seems to think that the only way to keep people from maxing out their credit cards is too create a society WITHOUT credit cards...or even the need for credit cards. The glorious look on his face when he speaks of millions of people not buying a single thing is the look I imagine to be on Jim Taggarts face in Atlas Shrugged. Frightening. Mr. Lasn admits to confusion over the fact that people, after the "spiritual" holiday of Thanksgiving, choose to go out and spend money. Perhaps, Mr. Lasn, that is the best way the people can give thanks to those that are actually responsible for pulling them out of the muck - to the producers of society. He described Thanksgiving as spiritual - he's closer to the truth than he thinks. Man's "spirit" is in the things he produces and trades value for. What would we have in place of that in Mr. Lasn's glorious non-consumer (therefore non-producer) world to come. Well, you do the math...my stomach is too weak for it. Then, Mr. Lasn goes on to explain how consumption is the root cause of terrorism. Why? Because our ability to create wealth makes them "feel bad." Also, "we" consume 86% of the world's wealth and leave 14% for the rest of the world to fight over. Where does that wealth come from, and was it there before we "took" it like the little piggies Mr. Lasn thinks we are? He doesn't really say, but I doubt if CNN had given him an entire day to come up with something he would have come up with something - anything - that would make sense and prove his point. (If he had one.) There's so much more wrong with this, but why beat the aforementioned dead horse? (Even if it is so easy and fun.)

What's great is that Adbusters is now in business. They are trying to market their own brand of sneaker, which is essentially a Chuck Taylor All-Star with a black dot on it. The black dot is their "anti-logo" ...which, last time I checked, is still a logo, people! Adbusters is trying to open a shoe factory in either Asia or Eastern Europe, which are the places where evil capitalists exploit their workers by paying them two cents a day. Adbusters claims that they will treat their workers humanely. (Whatever that means.) I can't wait to see how long they remain in "anti-business" by paying bloated wages to their workers. Its a blast watching these people backpedal and use capitalistic terms to defend their actions. The only way they can "refute" capitalism...is by becoming capitalistic? ...right... ...and redfarmer?...remember...a thread is never too dead to toss in one last kick into the belly of a dead horse like Adbusters!