OismForever
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by OismForever
-
-
You have basically offered only two justifications for your negative conclusion: a piece from her July 1946 letter to Rogers regarding the smear-review of FH in the Sun and the apparent offer to allow her space for a post-hoc response, and your personal intuition. As far as the letter to Rogers is concerned, please also note her comment aboutan exchange to the mutual advantage of both parties, like any proper exchange in a free capitalistic society (in which I believe). It would be to my advantage to have my name and article appear in a newspaper's literary supplement—and it would be to the newspaper's advantage to run an article by me, since there are readers interested in what I have to say. This is the only kind of proper and moral cooperation between men, cooperation that profits both sides.
In short, it is not the fact that the Sun also published something non-Objectivist, indeed antithetical to Objectivism, that counts, it is the fact of the direct blind-siding of her via a trashing of what was at the time her greatest work that matters most. A direct attack is special. If that point needs to be elaborated on, I'd be happy to oblige.
Now as for your personal intuitions, I have been reading Objectivism since 1971, so I have a bit of a time advantage on you. I do not share your intuitions, not do I share your meta-intuitions about Peikoff and Binswanger. I invite Drs. Binswanger and Peikoff to post their own views of what they believe Rand would have wished, and without posts directly from them, I propose that your Binswanger-Peikoff meta-intuition has no cash value.
I myself am not certain on this matter (see OPAR Ch. 5 on the world's most righteous explication of the concept "certain"). I invite you to point to an actual fact that supports your claim. My tendency is to put more trust in those people who spoke with Rand in their lifetimes. You have not given me any reason (have not pointed to any fact) that would cause me to believe your position.
What can you do about that? Anything?
The very first entry for "Sanction" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon is: "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it"
I believe that is what ARI is doing when it licenses Ayn Rand to appear in a calendar with Che Guevera on the cover.
I too would like for Binswanger or Peikoff to weigh in on it. But, I doubt that will happen.
As I said earlier...putting her in that calender is literally grouping her with a man that would probably have her killed if he had the chance and is the opposite of her in every way except for his belief in an almighty. If Hitler had been on the cover would it have been approved?
It is my conviction based on the totality of what I have read of hers, that she would never have allowed it. Of course I could be wrong. But, its a very educated guess.
But, I can see the points of those who would say that her message is not being compromised by her appearance. But, isnt she being somewhat insulted? He is the featured person on the cover. She is just "February".
O
-
OF, To you, as an Objectivist, seeing Rand on a calendar like that has immense negative symbolism. However, you have to step back and ask yourself what a non-Objectivist would read into it. What would a buyer of such a calendar conclude? "Rand was an Atheist", or "Rand supported Che", or "Rand was an important figure", or what?
If you were to see a calendar with Elvis on one month and other artists on other months, would you conclude that Elvis approved of those others? If not, then why do you think a calendar buyer would conclude that Rand supported Che?
The letter from ARI made a good point that someone buying such a calendar when Rand was alive might actually have a basis to conclude that Rand had approved; however, hardy anyone would draw that conclusion today.
That is true. But do you think that in some way grouping them together or allowing her to be in a calender with Chi on the cover is giving sanction to him being honored?
O
-
You know, I just noticed the interesting email is the one you didn't include. The first one you mailed to ARI. You started with their reply to you. The one that actually presents your case to them. I'd like you to post that one, just so we can see what the basis of your argument was.
You could clarify this for us all if rather than saying "I was only addressing this point" if you could restate your original argument. You've said you thought the concept of her being in the calendar was offensive. You spent an entire email pointing out that she would not have allowed her picture to be placed in such a calendar (with no statement about what that implies ARI should be doing). If it was not to argue that ARI should also not allow her picture to be included, then don't you agree that the email is entirely incoherent?
If you were trying to argue that ARI should not do this, then you made a mistake in thinking that Rand's opinion in how her name should be used while alive was the same as that after she died. It was your error, not ARI's. But after they pointed this out to you, you continued to argue about what Rand would have done. That was after the aspect of post-death use came up, not as you claim only before.
There are a lot of inconsistencies here. But if you want to try to restate your case, then I'd be happy to hear it.
This was my first letter to them.
Hello,
Can I ask why ARI would allow Ayn Rand to be featured on a calendar that also features communists?
Thanks,
**** *****
For the last time. I want to discuss the issue of whether or not it was apprpriate for them to grant permission for her name and picture to be on that calendar.
You are free to debate my decorum or approach to complaining. But, you can do so without my further participation. It is a peripheral issue that has nothing really to do with whether or not their decision is right or wrong.
I could have phrased things better to him, I admit. And he also could have been less pompous. I am passionate about issues like this.
OF
-
You are only referring to... but you are referring to that to make the case that ARI should also do the same thing.
Look at this. You've done this twice now. You've denied you're talking about the linkage in the first para, and then turn right around in the 2nd para. The 2nd para is what justifies your letter, and your anger. If you really wrote them to say "Ayn Rand would never have done this. But I'm not saying that that implies anything about what you should be doing" then your letter becomes incoherent. If what she would have done implies nothing about what they should do, then why did you write it? Why are you angry?
Instead you have to paste the two back together in a secone para in order for your argurment to hold together. You say that it doesnt' matter because the principles never die. Exactly! If it doesn't matter and the princpiles never die, then the fact that Rand would have done it means that ARI should also do it. Your arrogance comes from the fact that you presume to understand how Rand's principles apply in different contexts. You are saying that the contexts are irrelevant and that is how Rand would apply it too. It's not. You are wrong. You applied her principles wrongly. You presumed to know, even when provided with evidence to the contrary. That is the arrogance.
I am not a regular on this board. So I am not familiar with your posts or your reputation. But, you are not making a very good impression on me thus far.
You are doing your best to try and fit a square peg into a round hole and define to me what I was saying and thinking as if you know better than I do.
Whatever.
This threat has completely lost its topic and there is no point in continuing this arguement with you.
O
-
Uh, excuse me. Now someone is trying to weasle out of their position. Your original letter, your outrage. They are premised; they rest on this linkage. You provide no other justificaiton in your letter for why you should be angry and why they should not do this than the fact that Ayn Rand wouldn't have done it. You argue against ARI's claim by providing evidence of the fact that she would not have done it.
Do you really expect us to believe that you were angry and wrote to them without this in mind?
She obviously saw reason to feel differently, so if you cannot, then you must not know her mind as well as you thought. You really owe them an apology.
We have to break this down to the very issue of what you found to be "incredibly arrogant" in my letter. And, as best I can tell you took issue with me saying "I can personally guarantee you that not one person alive that knew her would say she would have given permission to have been included on that calendar."
I am only referring to what she would have done while she was alive. Because at that point the issue or arguement about her opinion post-death had not come into play. I never argued whether or not it would have been different post mortem.
But, I think the issue is splitting hairs. What difference would it make if she was alive or dead? Her ideas were what she was protecting and those will never die.
O
-
What you say is absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether ARI should allow it. What I am attacking you for is the dropping of context in jumping from that statement to your anger that ARI should not allow the picture to be published.
That statement is true but irrelevant. It cannot be used as an argument against ARI. The point of your letter was not to talk about what Rand would have done in an irrelevant context, but rather to argue that because Rand would not have done it, then ARI should not do it either, isn't it? In fact, they gave you direct evidence that agreed with your assertion and also indicated that Rand herself said she would not have done it, but that that doesn't mean she woudn't approve of it being done after her death. i.e. that things she specifically woudl not have done during her life, she might approve of after she is dead.
Do you see why this is presumptuous? You presume to know how she would have applied her principles and stood up to it even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.
I never approached the debate about how Ayn Rand would have felt about her picture being used after her death. But, I honestly cannot see any reason why she would have felt any differently.
Your arguement has evolved during this discussion to try to find a point of attack you can be right on. If that is what you want to do then fine.
I never intended for this thread to be a debate about who was more rude in their emails me or ARI. I just wanted to explore whether or not others believed it appropriate for her to be in the calender. You have made your arguement as to why you think it is and I have no problem with that.
O
-
Sure, because of the distinction that the ARI represntative gave you. She giving permission while she was alive amount to her sanction. Not simply act of association but that fact that she, the living Ayn Rand, gave permission.
Now that she is dead, the use of her image is a different thing. It is not a sign of her explicit sanction of anything.
Again, the last sentence has no bearing because this is not a calendar of Collectivists.
Following up on Mimpy's comments, if the purpose of the calendar is that important peole were atheists, then her absence from the calendar says that Che Guevara is a memorable atheist and Ayn Rand is not. Someday we hope that no one will even think that Che is a memorable atheist but the only way to do that is to compete for share of mind, to give an alternative. For those atheists who find association with Che distasteful, then Ayn Rand provides a positive alternative. I want her on that calendar, and I think it's appropriate that she's there.
You cannot on one hand agree that Ayn Rand would not have allowed herself to be in the calender and then also say that me stating that to ARI was "incredibly arrogant".
What you attacked me for was saying I guarantee she would not have allowed it. I stand by that statement and think most informed people would agree with me.
But, you make some good points. And I can almost live with that rationale. But, having Guvera, a communist revolutionary on the cover does not sit right with me. Maybe I am too touchy about it. But, I just have a very profound love for her work and her ideas. And, seeing her grouped with someone who probably would have had her killed if he had the power, makes me want to puke.
There are other people in the calender who I know Miss Rand would also object to. But, Guvera is in a special league.
O
-
Here is a response she gave once to being asked to allow an excerpt of her work to be printed in the Chicago Sun.
"I cannot let my name appear as that of a contributor to the Chicago Sun, because this would amount to an endorsement of its policy and an acceptance of its inexcusable insult to my book. I do not cooperate or collaborate with Collectivism."
The last sentence is the key.
The bottom line to me is, does anyone really believe Ayn Rand would have given permission to be included in a calender that has Che Guvera on the cover? I do not believe it is "incredibly arrogant" to say she would never allow it.
O
-
How have you come to that conclusion? The title of the calendar is simply "Atheists." For the same reason that you cannot judge someone to be good just because they are an atheist, you should not assume that a calendar claiming to feature only atheists is also passing moral judgement on them.
Good point. And that is true. But, I do think it is implied, or else the calender makes no sense. Think of the kind of person who would want to have it? Either an Atheist who wants to be reminded that great people were also atheists. Or a theist that wants to be reminded that there were bad people that were atheists.
O
-
I disagree Kelly. Looks at O's first reply.
He says
That is so stunningly arrogant and presumptuous, I think the ARI responder did a fabulous job of keeping his cool.
I make such a statement because I have spent the last 20 years reading ever published word she has ever written. And, I would be willing to wager that Binswanger, Peikoff any of them would agree that she would not have allowed her picture to be used in that context. It may sound presumptious to you. But, if you are as familiar with her work as I am, you wouldnt have much doubt.
Would it be presumptious to say "I can personally guarantee you that Ayn Rand would never have appeared at a communist meeting"?
If not, then what is the difference between the two statements?
One may seem presumptious to you and the second one obvious. But, to me they are both obvious.
-
It's a presumptuous response, amounting to "I have a right to be condescending because I really do know Ayn Rand's mind better than they do."
The believed correctness of any position does not give the holder of that position the indiscriminant right to be rude.
His first reply to that simply said, The Ayn Rand Letters are not the complete inventory of Rand's mind, which is correct.
No its a response that says "I do not neccesarily agree with you that I was presumptious" I do not think I was being rude.
And of course her letters are not a "complete inventory of her mind" but Ayn Rand was consistent and not prone to contradictions.
Instead of debating who was rude or arrogant in the email. What am I really interested in discussing here is the validity of the arguement. Is it appropriate for permission to have been given for Ayn Rand to be on a calender that has Che Guevera on the cover.
O
-
Yeah, you're out of bounds.
Especially your continued assertion that you know Ayn Rand's mind better than those who were with her did. Truly a poor basis for an argument.
They gave you a reasonable response, to which you called them sarcastic, which I don't see anywhere in his letter. If it is, then it is only after your concescending first reply. I'm surprised they responded to you at all with a second reply.
Perhaps. But, I am certain from her repeated and consistent denials to people asking for permission to use her name or material in "Letters to Ayn Rand" that I am on terra firma with regard to her position on such matters.
BD
-
I saw the following auction on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/2008-Atheist-Calendar-...1QQcmdZViewItem
It is a calender with Che on the cover, that features prominent atheists and Ayn Rand has her own month.
I thought the concept was offensive and emailed the seller, who informed me that she was on the calender with permission from ARI.
So, I emailed ARI. Here are my emails and their responses:
Dear Mr. ****,
Thank you for your email regarding the inclusion of Ayn Rand’s image in the Atheist Calendar, which features a known communist. Richard Ralston, who handles image rights and persmissions at ARI, explains: “for the same reason we would ‘allow’ Ayn Rand to be included in an encyclopedia with communists. If the calendar also ‘features’ a Frenchman, that would not imply that all atheists are French.”
Sincerely,
********
Archivist
AYN RAND ARCHIVES
MY REPLY
****,
I assume you are an Objectivist. I know for a fact you are familiar with Ayn Rand’s beliefs and practices. Therefore, let me ask you, do you honestly believe for one second Ms. Rand would have allowed herself to be on that calendar? I can point out several examples in her letters where she refused things much more benign.
And yes, they were both atheists. But, by allowing her to be on that calendar it seems to imply they were somehow similar. You and I both know that is not true. Their premises that caused them to be atheists couldn’t be any different.
It disappoints me when ARI, the custodian of her legacy starts to stray that far away from Miss Rand’s fundamental convictions.
I can personally guarantee you that not one person alive that knew her would say she would have given permission to have been included on that calendar.
*********
HIS REPLY
Upon what basis would anyone rationally induce that everyone included or pictured in a list of anything is equal or great, unless it is a list or "a calendar of equal and great people"?
The Estate of Ayn Rand enthusiastically approved placing Ayn Rand on a U.S. postage stamp in 1999. That did not endorse the idea that all persons on postage stamps were either equal or great. It did not even apply that their should be a government post office. As I recall, you were not available at the time to tell us whether Ayn Rand would have approved the stamp. We have supported entries on Ayn Rand in various general and specialized encyclopedias and books (on women, philosophers, etc.). That does not imply that we thought everything in them was correct or the personalities discussed were equal.
I have read all of Ayn Rand's letters in The Letters of Ayn Rand, before they were published, plus many more. I am not unsure about what Ayn Rand thought about the use of her name or image in her lifetime.
Ayn Rand did not approve use of her name in organizations or groups (such as "Ayn Rand Institute") during her lifetime, but indicated a completely different attitude about such matters after her death--and communicated that to Dr. Peikoff (note spelling). Based on your reading of her letters, do you know what her opinion would have been about permitting an "Ayn Rand Institute" in her lifetime? Would you therefore like ARI to close down?
I know the staff at ARI very well and have worked with them and Dr. Peikoff on this and similar issues for many years. Curiously, I have never heard of you.
But you are entitled to your opinion. However, I cannot give more time to debating it.
And my final unanswered email:
******,
I am dissapointed by your sarcastic tone and lack of willingness to contemplate that you may have made a mistake here.
This was a Calender. Each month featuring a different Atheist. The purpose of the calender was to show that great people were atheists. They were all grouped together in that way.
A stamp is nothing like that. She was alone on the stamp. No sane person would link her to other people on stamps.
Imagine if someone had a calender of "Great Germans" and one of them listed was Adolph Hitler. Do you think the family of Ann Frank would allow her to be on it if asked? To share a stage with him?
To Ayn Rand it wouldnt have been much different. Because there was nothing on this earth she hated more than communism. Communism had the same effect on her family and life as Hitlers did on the Frank family.
Your analogies about encylcopedias (which don't need your permission) and other publications is just not the same context as this.
You are trying to belittle me and minimize my opinion because you "never heard of me".
Why don't you judge me on the merits of what I am saying? I am only complaining because I value Ayn Rand's message and work and do not want to see her face next to a scumbag's.
******
Am I wrong about this? I am curious what some of your points of view are on this..
O
-
Very interesting.
My copy has a red cover like the first one you linked to. And it also differs from the First Edition by the fact that the dedication to the architectural profession is also on the same page as the copyright notice.
I noticed that the First Edition also lists "The Cornwall Press" - because of the paper rationing I would suppose.
Do you know what the listing means by "Second Issue Green Cloth" ? What is the difference between an edition and an issue?
Any idea when my copy and the one in the first ebay listing was produced?
I am somewhat inclined to suspect that the false claim on the listing might not be so much of a scam as a reflection of the person's ignorance. I see all sorts of bizarre claims being made about very common and mostly worthless 78 rpms that people list on ebay - and I am sure the same is true for people who happen to find an old book and list it on ebay. I certainly figured that my copy was a First Edition so I am sure others would as easily make the same mistake.
The first edition was done in red and in green cloth. They are from the same first printing run though, only differing in the color of binding.
Then came the larger one in Red, Green and Blue with the "errors" it is a second edition.
Any bookseller who knows their trade has the ability to find out this information. This particular seller goes out of his way to insist that this book is a first edition, first printing. If he did any research at all, he would know that it is false.
You are right though, there are a ton of auctions on ebay that also falsely make this claim. I wish there was a way to stop them. I am sure many people have paid way too much for a $10 copy of The Fountainhead.
--Oism
-
Because a real first printing of The Fountainhead is smaller in size than the copy listed here and the one you purchased.
It says "First Edition" inside the cover page and does not contain those "errors"
Here is an example http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=160003586106
-Oism
I am curious why you would say that.I have what I presume to be a first edition that I picked up several years ago in a used book sale for $2. The errors that are mentioned in the ebay listing are also found in my copy. The only thing different is the seller spelled "Dominique" correctly in referring to the error on page 480. The error in the book is spelled as" "Domininque"
There is no listing of it being a second printing or anything in my copy - which is what makes me assume it might be a first.
The one thing that makes me wonder if it might not be a first edition is the fact that I do have a first edition of Isabel Patterson's The God Of The Machine which was published the same year. Under the copyright notice is the following wartime statement: "This complete copyright edition is produced in full compliance with the Government's regulations for conserving paper and other essential materials" - a very humorous statement I think considering all of the things talked about in the book with regard to wartime and government regulations.
No similar statement appears in my copy of The Fountainhead.
The God Of The Machine was published by G.P. Putnam's Sons. However, at the bottom of the page with the wartime statement it says "Manufactured In The United States Of America" Van Rees Press.
I know that during the war things such as paper for books and shellac for phonograph records was rationed according to a company's pre-war usage on a certain date. Thus there were some small record labels and book publishers who happened to have a big hit on their hands that gave them significantly larger than normal materials usage when the pre-war rationing benchmark was set. Thus the Gennett record label, which was killed off by the onset of the Depression, briefly reemerged during the war because the parent company continued to manufacture sound effects records for radio stations under the Gennett name up until 1941 and ended up being purchased and revived primarily because of its allowed quota of rationed shellac. I know that book publishers made arrangements with other publishers who happened to have a larger quota than they were able to use. Thus I have always wondered if there was some sort of similar arrangement with the Patterson book and that Van Reese Press ended up printing an edition because Putham's ran out of their paper quota while Van Resse had some extra to spare - and perhaps that is what the government regulation notice means with regard to it being a copyrighted work.
If that is what the notice means, then perhaps my edition could be a first edition and Bobbs-Merrill, the publisher of The Fountainhead printed it using their own paper quota. On the other hand, if that wartime statement appeared on all[/i] books published during the war, that would be strong grounds for me to doubt that it is a first edition.
Anyhow, if you have any specific knowledge why the ebay listing is a scam, I would be very interested in knowing. I am very capable of dating vintage 78 rpm records but dating vintage books beyond the obvious dates listed is not something I am educated on.
-
-
Dagny was blonde.
-
Dagny is Gwyneth Paltrow. She is perfect in every way.
-
-
A pirated book and a forged signature!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ayn-Rand-Atlas-Shrugge...1QQcmdZViewItem
As if Miss Rand would have signed a pirated copy of her book to begin with. Hopefully no one is dumb enough to bid on this.
--O
-
I mostly agree. I don't think the movie was ruined -- it's still better than most movies.
But yes, Cooper just did not get it. It wasn't that he read the lines without feeling, it's more than the feelings portrayed weren't what Roark's would have been. The only scene I can point to (without re-watching the movie) was when Roark was finally offered a commision... on the condition that he make major changes. In the movie Cooper's Roark agonized over the decision; the real Roark, though maybe heatbroken, didn't have to think for a second. The decision was a foregone conclusion.
Etc.
Cooper just didn't get it (which was a shame. He was great in High Noon, among others.)
Dont you think he was too old to play the part as well? He was 48, Roark was a man in his early 20's to 30's. His facial gestures are what bother me the most. I just feel it had a chance for greatness and it was ruined by Cooper. Anyone who watches that would get the wrong impression about the spirit of a man like Howard Roark.
-O
-
Does anyone else think that casting Gary Cooper as Howard Roark ruined the movie?
He was 48 years old when the movie was filmed, he read the lines without any feeling...He just didnt get it.
I wonder how Miss Rand could have made such a big mistake casting him in that role. Cooper never came close to capturing the spirit of Roark. Or the youth, the passion and the vision he had in her book.
--O
-
It's definitely a forgery.
Even though it looks like her signature, she would never sign a book in that way.
Most of the forgeries are in books with otherwise little value, as in this case.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ayn-Rand-Signed-The-Fo...1QQcmdZViewItem
What do you think about that one?
-
I have gone back and researched the topic. Particularly from Piekoff's view. Here is what he said in his book. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:
The irrational man gains his form of metaphysical satisfaction from his kind of art. The concretized projection of "What fools these mortals be," for instance, gives him not fuel to act, but consolation, reassurance, a license to stagnate. On a lower level, as our own century's trend illustrates, art may satisfy the lust of the life-hater, giving him the sense of his special brand of triumph: the triumph over all values and, ultimately, over existence as such.
Whether men are good or evil, they characteristically react to art in profoundly personal terms. When an art work does objectify his metaphysics, the reader or viewer experiences a confirmation of his mind and self on the deepest level; the perceptual concrete functions as an affirmation from reality of the efficacy of his consciousness. "Your approach to values is right," the painting or story implicitly tells him, "your grasp of the world is right, you are right." When an art work clashes with a man's metaphysics, by contrast, the experience represents a denial of his efficacy or even a war against his consciousness. The implicit message is: "Reality is not what you think, your values are a delusion, you as a person are wrong, wrong in every way that counts, wrong all the way down." To messages fraught with this category of meaning, responses of passionate embrace or violent recoil are inevitable. OPAR Pages 421-422
I am certainly not calling you a liar. But, I have doubts that Piekoff would have ever said that he "likes horror movies" can you provide a definitive source?
O.
FA: 1st Printing. The Romantic Manifesto. HC DJ
in Marketplace
Posted
Ebay Auction Link