Ninth Doctor

If you've never encountered this piece before, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Particularly the part about how the UK (and if you'll allow, by extension, capitalism) ended slavery.  Which is different from racism...though probably not from Fraser's perspective. 

I suppose this thread will do for posting a review. If there's to be a single thread for that here than this can be moved later.

I went to a 2:30 showing. There were 4 people there, including me, but there was hardly anyone in the theater period, so that doesn't mean much. I find that I'm in agreement with Brian Doherty's basically positive review:
http://reason.com/ar...lection-edition

Overall it's better than Part 1. The problem of clunky rhythm, particularly with transitions, remains in evidence, but I found it's less bothersome than in Part 1. I know I had less occasion to cringe, and more lumpy throat moments this time around, a better ratio. I remember in particular thinking there was some clunking early on, but then it hit a good stride and everything was really working, and then came the money speech. Now I thought Morales performed it very well, but the transition into it didn't click, I think too much from the book is cut there. I wish more of the speech itself had made it in too.

The new cast is better overall, I say Francisco, Rearden, Mouch, and James are upgrades, Eddie and Lillian are equal, and Dagny, well, someone was bound to end up in the minus column. Schilling was too young and lacked some for gravitas, Mathis is maybe too old, or maybe the right age, but simply isn't as nice to look at, and doesn't project that missing gravitas. So much screen time goes to her reaction shots, and she simply doesn't light up the screen, not enough. Quentin Daniels and Cheryl Brooks were both fine, Mr. Thompson was perfect. Jeff Allen hit a good note, though he's more gainfully employed than in the book. I thought they made a good adaptation move there. I know there were a lot of cameos in it but I don't think I caught so many of them. Biff from Back to the Future was in there (he really ought to play Cuffy Meigs, come Part 3). Teller got a line or two (such an ordinary voice! I figured he would sound like Kermit), and a long reaction shot. I didn't see Michael Shermer or Grover Norquist, though I know they're supposed to be in there.

I thought they did a good job with the climactic train wreck sequence, good buildup, nothing off to blunt its impact.

I felt the music was better this time around. But I'll trade Richard Halley's appearance for a more filled out wedding scene any day. His music sounded to me rather like a what if Prokofiev mated with Gershwin exercise. It was fine, but then again James Taggart seemed to be enjoying it (it's his date night with Cheryl); shouldn't he be listening to the parody version?

To wrap up, if you're reading this to try and decide whether to go see it: Go, and consider that the Doctor's orders.

I have a feeling it was this:
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/ayn-rand-front-page-ecuadors-major-newspaper

I have a feeling it was this:
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/ayn-rand-front-page-ecuadors-major-newspaper

If you've never encountered this piece before, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Particularly the part about how the UK (and if you'll allow, by extension, capitalism) ended slavery.  Which is different from racism...though probably not from Fraser's perspective. 

Dollars to donuts Dupin is Mark from ARI Watch.  Trying to drum up interest in his piece attacking Carl Barney.  There was some discussion of it recently on OL:
https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/17234-barney-tells-his-story/
My comment from over there:
In earlier discussions I came out as a Barney defender, since I felt Mark's attacks had a lot of unfairness in them.  But I don't have the time or energy for a rehash.  It's out there on older threads, and it looks like Biddle is covering the rebuttals well enough.  A sample:
First, to criticize a private college for accepting students’ funds that come from government loans and grants is almost as absurd as criticizing a private supermarket for accepting customers’ funds that come from government welfare programs.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/05/the-times-smiles-and-sneers-at-carl-barney-ayn-rand-and-private-colleges/
Note to any ARIan readers: think of this as payback for James Valliant.   Think you've got the high ground?  Review The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.
 

This came to mind, though she's not a psychologist:
If you know someone going through it, good chance this talk will be relatable. 
The transition from Catholic to Atheist is long in my past, so I'm more interested in people's thoughts/experiences with the social context of being a member of this particular oppressed minority.  Especially at work.  I avoid the subject at work, and when asked try to leave it at "I'm not religious".  But there's always some nosy parker.  I once had an outside consultant I had barely met tell me, intending it as friendly advice, that the only thing he knew about me is that I'm an atheist and that I shouldn't let people know that.  He was from a communist country and hadn't been raised with religion, so he was speaking as one atheist to another.  "Just tell them you're spiritual".  Up to that point I'd only had one person quiz me about my religion, starting with "where do you attend church?"; suffice to say she was not about to take "I don't" as a final answer, and she was one to make the most of her time around the water cooler.  And I didn't even use the "a" word.  This was years ago, and I didn't stay there very long.  Nevertheless, it rankles. 

This came to mind, though she's not a psychologist:
If you know someone going through it, good chance this talk will be relatable. 
The transition from Catholic to Atheist is long in my past, so I'm more interested in people's thoughts/experiences with the social context of being a member of this particular oppressed minority.  Especially at work.  I avoid the subject at work, and when asked try to leave it at "I'm not religious".  But there's always some nosy parker.  I once had an outside consultant I had barely met tell me, intending it as friendly advice, that the only thing he knew about me is that I'm an atheist and that I shouldn't let people know that.  He was from a communist country and hadn't been raised with religion, so he was speaking as one atheist to another.  "Just tell them you're spiritual".  Up to that point I'd only had one person quiz me about my religion, starting with "where do you attend church?"; suffice to say she was not about to take "I don't" as a final answer, and she was one to make the most of her time around the water cooler.  And I didn't even use the "a" word.  This was years ago, and I didn't stay there very long.  Nevertheless, it rankles. 

This came to mind, though she's not a psychologist:
If you know someone going through it, good chance this talk will be relatable. 
The transition from Catholic to Atheist is long in my past, so I'm more interested in people's thoughts/experiences with the social context of being a member of this particular oppressed minority.  Especially at work.  I avoid the subject at work, and when asked try to leave it at "I'm not religious".  But there's always some nosy parker.  I once had an outside consultant I had barely met tell me, intending it as friendly advice, that the only thing he knew about me is that I'm an atheist and that I shouldn't let people know that.  He was from a communist country and hadn't been raised with religion, so he was speaking as one atheist to another.  "Just tell them you're spiritual".  Up to that point I'd only had one person quiz me about my religion, starting with "where do you attend church?"; suffice to say she was not about to take "I don't" as a final answer, and she was one to make the most of her time around the water cooler.  And I didn't even use the "a" word.  This was years ago, and I didn't stay there very long.  Nevertheless, it rankles. 

This came to mind, though she's not a psychologist:
If you know someone going through it, good chance this talk will be relatable. 
The transition from Catholic to Atheist is long in my past, so I'm more interested in people's thoughts/experiences with the social context of being a member of this particular oppressed minority.  Especially at work.  I avoid the subject at work, and when asked try to leave it at "I'm not religious".  But there's always some nosy parker.  I once had an outside consultant I had barely met tell me, intending it as friendly advice, that the only thing he knew about me is that I'm an atheist and that I shouldn't let people know that.  He was from a communist country and hadn't been raised with religion, so he was speaking as one atheist to another.  "Just tell them you're spiritual".  Up to that point I'd only had one person quiz me about my religion, starting with "where do you attend church?"; suffice to say she was not about to take "I don't" as a final answer, and she was one to make the most of her time around the water cooler.  And I didn't even use the "a" word.  This was years ago, and I didn't stay there very long.  Nevertheless, it rankles. 

ARI has just uploaded all of Peikoff's FHF lectures, with the Q&A's, to YouTube. 
https://www.youtube.com/user/AynRandInstitute/videos?disable_polymer=1
This one was of interest to me, not for the lecture (it's the same as what Rand delivered) but for the material before and after concerning her illness and death.  It's been available before, but I'd never heard it.
 

Just that Dave Rubin has accumulated quite a history of excellent interviews over the past couple years.  Yaron Brook did an outstanding job particularly on his first appearance.
Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell (naturally), and Alex Epstein's appearances are particularly worth checking out. 
https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport/videos
Rogan is a new name to me. 

Are you sure it's not "everyone is fallible" instead of "everyone is irrational"?  From my experience with Shermer (and Randi), I expect that's the mix-up (/equivocation) being made by whichever reviewers you've seen.
 

Ted's sister just posted a reminiscence on OL.
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16758-ted-keer-rip/?do=findComment&comment=277620
The end is particularly memorable:
" May this parting bit hopefully bring a smile...He was buried with a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology minus a few pages from which the kids crafted origami boats and sent off some honorary ashes downstream where he often wandered. "
This calls to mind Leonard Bernstein being buried with his score of the Mahler 5th.  He performed the Adagietto at the memorial service for Bobby Kennedy in 1968, here's that recording:
 

Just that Dave Rubin has accumulated quite a history of excellent interviews over the past couple years.  Yaron Brook did an outstanding job particularly on his first appearance.
Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell (naturally), and Alex Epstein's appearances are particularly worth checking out. 
https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport/videos
Rogan is a new name to me. 

This is terrible news.  Ted was one of the best people to interact with in Rand-land.  Always so stimulating.  He stopped posting years ago, and has been much missed.  I'll let the folks at OL know.

"The sterile will sterilize me as their last form of reproduction."
Beautifully crafted sentence.  Do you aspire to be a writer?

Have you studied Edwin Locke's work?  Looks like there will be a good amount of overlap.

No true Scotsman would fail to capitalize Scotland or misspell Scottish. You're cover is blown, Joshua. You'd have us think you hail from the land of the heroic Calcagus, when Epimenides is your true countryman, deny it all you like.



In any event, Nicholas Dykes is from Herefordshire, that's pretty close to Scotland. Also, John Galt was Scottish, though I suppose that doesn't count for much.

Try looking into the history of the 18th century monarchs who were influenced by the Enlightenment.  Joseph II of Austria is a prime example.  With the stroke of a pen he freed the serfs and gave Jews equal rights.  There was a backlash, and he ended up writing his own epitaph: Here lies Joseph II, who failed in all he undertook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

IMHO this misses the point of myth.  The Example is hypothetical and Rand likely never really studied myth or was ever introduced to Jo's insights.  I do not recall of any Myth which was generated and perpetrated merely to represent inexplicable fear.  Monsters generally represent a fear which is eventually conquered or with whom there is reconciliation or which is revealed as illusory... i.e. fear often is metaphorically presented as ultimately powerless.  Other monsters might be used to dissuade children or the unwary from engaging in dangerous conduct like leaning over a rushing river and sometimes monsters are more effective at dissuading more abstractly harmful behavior, like the wolf in cry wolf lesson about honesty, the story about honesty could have been about a magic unicorn who chooses to refrain from giving out some delightful cookie to the liar... but it would likely be markedly less effective.
Not at all.  She is using myth here to mean something which is mistakenly believed possibly due to cultural influence, particularly, here it is used in the context of "men" of bad philosophies implicitly taking that rationality is a mistaken belief due to cultural influence and explicitly discarding it.
 
IMHO this misses 9th doctor's point.  This does nothing to address personal transformation.  You go to a lawyer, a financial adviser, or a doctor to ensure you are taken care of, all of theses are external.  In fact you don't even state that one should seek a therapist or counselor for "deterioration and death" counseling.  The implication is that it simply is not needed.  Somehow people just know how to make the personal transformation from vital flourishing adult to deteriorating and ever weaker senior.  Rand speaks much of how to become psychologically independent, how to achieve and grow... but the fact is once you pass your zenith, physically and intellectually, (this is context dependent.. some minds are more prone to this) you actually become less than what you were. Morally and experientially you may continue to grow but you deteriorate in productivity, mental acuity, memory, etc.  You come to depend on your savings (past selves) and others.  How to flourish while accepting that your trajectory is now downward toward the end of life is not as well developed in Rand's work... it simply was not its focus.  (nether is family or parenthood as far as I can tell) 
Stating, just hire some people to take of your affairs is not the answer.  Rand did provide some insight in interviews (see below)
 
Myth can never teach what the mythmaker does not already explicitly or implicitly know.  In order for it to be conveyed it must have been in he who conveyed it.  As such Myth does not cause the genesis of these insights, they can only bring them forth.  Since they are also received metaphorically they are often brought forth implicitly in the mind of the recipient. I'm not sure what you are asking for... and the myths convey a myriad of messages. 
Generally speaking for adults myth's value is not in getting at what is externally observable, this we can gain through explicit learning, philosophy, science, etc.  Coming to terms with "what it is like to be human" is not purely external and deals with many aspects of the psyche.  "Rationality" is a part of each of us but it does not constitute the whole of each of us.  Coming to know and deal with and experience the rest of us is an important part o what myth does.
 
Some of the messages I like speak of "eternity" of the "one" is now, that you are more than what of nature you came from and what of nature you will return to, and answer to the question "what is the meaning of a flea?" being "it's just there" and its implication that the universe does not have a purpose or meaning for you but that only you give rise to purpose and meaning.
One of the most striking mythical revelations from Rand I have personally heard was spoken during an interview.  This has the quality of myth because it is metaphorical (not literal) and it is about the first person experience - "the world will end":
https://youtu.be/dfyEzJqEMy4?t=2m42s
 

I’d say Myth spawns Art.  It’s a crucial element in how Myth is communicated.  But Myth also spawns Ritual, and you couldn’t say that Art does that.  They’re different concepts, with a lot of overlap in their referents.
Let’s move on to enumerating Campell’s four functions of Myth.  I’m pulling these from Occidental Mythology:
“The first and most distinctive – vitalizing all – is that of eliciting and supporting a sense of awe before the mystery of being."
“The second function of mythology is to render a cosmology, an image of the universe that will support and be supported by this sense of awe before the mystery of a presence and the presence of a mystery.”
“A third function of mythology is to support the current social order, to integrate the individual organically with his group; and here again, in the long view, we see that a gradual amplification of the scope and content of the group has been the characteristic sign of man’s advance from the early tribal cluster to the modern post-Alexandrian concept of a single world-society.”
“The fourth function of mythology is to initiate the individual into the order of realities of his own psyche, guiding him toward his own spiritual enrichment and realization.”
There’s a whole lot here.  I was thinking of using The Lion King to draw illustative examples from (particularly for functions 3 and 4), and now that I’m typing I find it a headache-inducing task.  For a Sunday night.  BTW The Lion King was crafted by a group of screenwriters who were given a “Monomyth How-To” guide drawn from Campbell’s ideas. 
Under functions 3 and 4 comes something vital: myths provide the metaphors to inform the great transitions we all go through in life.  Often via Art, often via Ritual, or both.  What are these transitions?  We start out like any other mammal, utterly dependent on our mothers.  Then we start to individuate, and after quite a few years (and stages) we’re ready to be fully independent.  Then we find a mate, procreate, and have to focus much of our energies on caring for our own offspring.  Then they go off to college.  And hopefully don’t move back in afterwards for an extra decade of remedial nurturing, but if they do, we have to deal with it.  Then we retire, our health fails, and we go back to being dependent.  And finally die.  Each of these stages calls for a transformation of consciousness.  And there are Myths to inform each stage, and the richer the Mythology, the more stages are covered.
Digression: IMO Rand’s stories are especially good at informing the later stages of the transition from dependence to independence.  But don’t do much for any of the other stages.   
To be continued.

Campbell produced a large body of work, which I’ve studied quite a great deal.  Be careful to distinguish between when he’s being descriptive and prescriptive.  You’ll find that he was indeed an individualist in his prescriptive mode.  Are you just now dipping into his work for the first time?  Only Hero with a Thousand Faces so far?  The Masks of God series is a good place to go next.  Though the video series Transformations of Myth Through Time is also excellent, and easier going.  Unfortunately it has never been made available on DVD; I taped it (VHS) off the air decades ago. 
In the last chapter of Occidental Mythology he spells out the functions of myth.  You (maybe) should make a beeline for that chapter, it has important material (important for understanding him) stated in an accessible and succinct manner.

Yes I know.  But the character was likely a composite, since the "real" Leo (Lev Bekkerman) didn't have the war hero father.  Which the person from Rand's school, that Shostakovich knew, did. 
In any event, there's really not much to see here, no great revelation.  Maybe they (Rand and Shostakovich) were acquainted, maybe not. 
Here's the photo of Bekkerman:
 

Stuff I forgot: Shostakovich was acquainted with Zamyatin (though Rand probably wasn't), he had a school friend who sounds like a model for Leo in We the Living and who was executed, and Rand's middle sister attended the Leningrad Conservatory a year behind Shostakovich. 
I checked Anne Heller's Rand bio and found she claims that the Stoyunina Gymnasium was for girls only.  Maybe the sexes were kept segregated.  Or maybe Volkov has it wrong.  I lean toward the former.
I was pretty surprised late in the book that Shostakovich is documented (privately) saying/writing antisemitic things in the 1920's.  Obviously he completely changed his tune later (e.g. the Babi-Yar symphony).