Nate_S

Sorry we bore you, I'll try to be more entertaining next time.

Modern history was invented by the West. Ancient Greeks during the Hellenistic period began placing man as the center of all worldly events. Prior to that the Hebrews felt History merely revealed the will of god, and prior to that early civilizations felt they had no power or control over their actions, that they were merely held to the whims of greater incomprehensible powers. Simply by putting man as the center of worldly events and gauging it in accordance to him you are acting on Western principles which are subjugated by a very strong philosophical foundation stemming from many of Aristotle's and to a lesser extent Plato's teachings. And of course many of Aristotle's teachings coincide with Objectivist values. It is impossible to study history rationally, meaning without mystical contexts or religious myths, without adopting a distinctly Western View. As such man as the center of the world as an entirely volitional being existing in a universe of order is a distinctly Western view, mystical ideology and religious myths are not. I don’t know what you specifically mean by this statement: “To analyze something Eurocentricly doesn't just mean that you favor the endevors of europeans, it means you veiw events with the values of the Europeans. Mystic self-sacrifice and all.” I’m guessing you are referring to cultural pluralism or contextual morality. Which if so, I agree are two of the most idiotic and detrimental schools of thought ever conceived. Both undermine the significance of values and their importance in gaining any knowledge of worth from studying the history and nature of cultures. As I was saying placing man as the center of Historical events is in some ways the practice of a value, that man is the most important factor in this world. To cast aside all values is a contradiction to the very nature of modern History and consequently destroys its relevance to our lives.

That’s great to hear. Not to diminish their efforts however, whatever principles available to these youths will most likely be systematically skewed, distorted, and ridiculed in their college years by the new socialists lefts strangle hold on America's Universities. I'm not completely sure an uncompromising vision of man as a Heroic being is as initially engaging to everyone as it was for me. Hopefully it's enough to instill an awareness of the fundamental significance of the realm of ideas, giving them an interest in enriching the philosophical defenses needed to withstand the influx of liberal vile they will be subjected to in their later years. And I guess I'm evidence of this possibilty. They will make fine Libertarians.

Yea, I mentioned that in my second post.

I don't really agree with your interpretation because in my experience Atlas Shrugged is anything but mainstream education and all evidence seems to conclude that that’s the general consensus among educators. But maybe this little series of events could be viewed as a swipe at the specific character of the sheriff as he is known to be an idiot and a bigot. However, the timing, as the closing comment of the episode, is a bit unsettling. [edit]

Slightly off-topic: I remember seeing a South Park episode about illiteracy. In the episode the town sheriff professed to being illiterate, to his shame. He went on to learn to read. However, after reading Atlas Shrugged (yes the exact novel was shown, with a mock-up of Nick Gaetano's cover art) he proclaimed I am never reading again after reading this worthless *bleep* or something along those lines....end of episode. I've also seen Futurama take a swipe at Objectivism. One episode took place in the cities sub-sewer where a mutant race of humans lived. The people of this realm lived off of whatever garbage was flushed into the sewers. When Bender observes the mutant's community library he notes that all that was there was Ayn Rand novels and something else (I forgot). I'm guessing the writers were implying that the novels were garbage. During the writer's commentary on the DVD edition they curiously make no comment on the little joke when its a pretty significant punch-line.

I never understood how someone could compromise the realm of ideas for such muddled emotional premises. Judging by his closing remarks though, I see him as a social parasite- someone who sees a ladder to be climbed. That I guess is the only supposed benefit to be gained from such behavior. I'm sure he will find condolence in the slimy embrace of those just as inept in living as him.

In a recent Interview I read (I can’t quite place which magazine it was specifically) Rob Lowe cited Ayn Rand as the woman he would most want to meet. He went on to say how fascinated he was with Atlas Shrugged. Hollywood trend?

Very exciting indeed. Great work. As a young Illustration student who is currently calculating how to move away from free-lance Illustration and into the realm of Romantic Realism I admire your conviction. The more and more my time becomes occupied by tightly constrained assignments regarding issues and ideas I care little to nothing about the more I feel the need to make my escape. Next year I construct my thesis, which is pretty open-ended. I'm going to do a series of Illustrations on the values of Ayn Rand. That way I can create a cohesive body of romantic realist work and at the same time get my degree.

Stuart Hayashi of Moorelies.com just posted a recent interview blogger Dean Esmay conducted with Cox and Forkum inspired by Dean's appreciation of their work and professionalism. Link: Dean's World Blog [edit fixed the credits]

Tzu's logic went something like this: if you attack from the west make them believe your attacking from the east, and other variations. Couple that with the belief that an effective army must constantly remain on the offensive and you have the jist of his teachings. Sure he dressed it up with pretty metaphors and similes but its all the same. He never made the affirmation of an objective reality with which absolute reason could be deduced. He never had the philosophical basis to understand the significance of man's life as a moral standard or the fact that his survival is dependent upon it. Your projecting a greater philosophical resonance to teachings that are far more rudimentary in realization and implementation. Tzu's teachings are all based on the physical manipulation of man's reality. Many of Tzu's techniques were merely illusionary fronts. Tzu's physical illusions and a substantial philosophical disruption of ones own reality are two very different things with implicit moral distinctions. Assuming that myself as an Objectivist would or should value his teachings on this premise is a hollow assumption. And what exactly is your enemies "mind-time-space?"

Yea I was definetely mixed up....I was referring to the OODA loop as Sun Tzu's creation. I fixed it in the previous post, but you responded before the final edit. Its late... And I was referring to Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' as a business application as gimmicky. [edit] It just puts a historical context on already established business practices...in essence its nothing new. [edit]

I've always found Sun Tzu's writings a little rudimentary. The O.O.D.A. loop is reminiscent of Tzu's tactics. What it basically boils down to is the establishment of a quick system of reactionary measures. You see and you act, rinse then repeat. Establishing an efficient O.O.D.A loop means you can barrage you opponent with an ever increasing stream of decisive measures. Of course [EDIT] Sun Tzu's measures [EDIT] in application, I'm sure, were nothing short of extraordinary in his era. 'The art of war's' reemergence as a business application mainly puts a warriors face on capitalism; an inspirational analogy...for better or for worse. Tzu's brand of ancient tactical warfare and its parallels with modern business models seem rather vague and indirect in application. It just seems gimmicky to me.

I agree. I just wish this whole ordeal was better documented. It seems extremely hard to validate sources. I have phone transcripts, recounts, supposed medical record summaries (all mainly from blogs), none of which I would feel comfortable posting on these boards as facts. The fact that the bulk of the media coverage is from independent bloggers, and some in-depth fox news bits, seems to allude to a curiously strong partisanship in the media. The only true measure of these allegations as of now is how the Kerry campaign reacts. So far all they have done as of yet is sidestepped the specifics and fall back on an ill-conceived republican party conspiracy theory. Perhaps the worst part of this whole ordeal is that it detracts from the very factual and very telling exploits of Kerry during his initial post-war political years.

And the signifigance of this issue not only partains to his character and integrity, rather there is also an issue of legality involved. Kerry opted out of his Vietnam service after four months only becuase his 4 purple hearts allowed him too, a technicality of sorts. If any one of those medals were to be found that without a doubt they were fradulent he could quite possibly be pinned as an illegal deserter (or whatever term the military commonly uses in this instance).

I can recollect one of those stories off the top of my head. Kerry was out on routine patrol (he volunteered for it) with two other soldiers. During the course of the patrol they encountered a group of Vietcong on the coast and proceeded to fire at them. In the confusion and panic Kerry misfired a Grenade Launcher, launching a grenade onto a bed of rocks near his swift boat (as deduced by the doctor who treated him, after his own research). A 2cm piece of shrapnel from his own grenade was embedded in his arm. The doctor who cared for Kerry recounts treating the 'war injury' with a band-aid and some antiseptic after removing the 2cm piece of shrapnel. Kerry's commander recounts that he adamantly dismissed Kerry's request for a purple heart nomination. The soldiers aboard the craft could not surely say if in fact they did encounter enemy fire. Later Kerry's commander, during the incident, could not understand how Kerry got his purple heart. The rest is speculation as to how Kerry received the medal. The most likely answer is that Kerry went around (or beneath as snakes often do) his commander and nominated himself in what I am sure was a glowing recount of his own heroism. However, could anyone verify the specifics of this story, as I'm not quite sure to the exact details but I am fairly confident that this is an accurate recount of the available information concerning this incident. There is an excerpt of this information in .pdf format but I can't remember where I originally found it. But both the doctor and the commander have validated their testimonies in the document.

You might also find Ayn Rand's short story: 'The Simplest Thing in the World' (The Romantic Manifesto) very helpful. It addresses a different sort of creative block that might also be attributing to your problem and is worth examining.

Well for some of the best 'selective recreations' of photographs see the Photorealists. Particularly Richard Estes. Many of the Photorealists like Charles Bell due exact point for point photographic recreations using oils. However, Richard Estes makes some very conscious and very dramatic decisions in the way he chooses to portray his cityscapes. For this reason I've always put Richard Estes in a category of his own. Check under artists, and then find Richard Estes Here is two better examples http://www.greatamericanpinup.com/estes It also happens that the leading proprietor and authority on the movement is an avid Objectivist: Mr Louis K. Meisel. He owns a gallery in NYC devoted entirely to modern realists and has written several articles in various publications defending the movement against an onslaught of initial attacks from the supposed 'artistic community.' He has also published a series of very successful books which promote the movement and is almost entirely responsible for promoting and nurturing it into what it is today. Mr. Meisel spoke at my Academy last year in support of his and Mr. Martinet's traveling exhibit of pin-up art. I pretty much sat there in awe hanging on his every word. He was a thoroughly engaging speaker and a breath of fresh air at my liberal cesspool of an academy. Don't get me wrong, the Illustrative and technical instruction is top-notch, but the liberal arts department is in shambles.

Ah, its all clear now. Another proprietor of the TOC's fallacious doctrine.

The more I think about it, it could definitely be considered Communist propaganda. The film has an underlying theme of "all under one sun," as quoted by one of the film's presumably wisest characters. It refers to the emperors wishes to abolish or break the tribal practices of the feudal regimes in order to unite the country under a single political system. The system in mind is never specifically noted. However, many of us know that Chairman Mao was known as the sun. This could be an overly literal interpretation of this theme, as the film has a deeper philosophical premise pertaining to its lead character. Nameless (an assassin of the highest caliber) has assumed his responsibility to revenge his father as mandated by his tribal code. The fact that his name is in fact Nameless, alludes to his lack of individual identity or strong tribal unity. Yet in the end SPOILERS rather then upholding his tribal beliefs he is differed by the selfless (suicidal acts) of his assassin in arms. The film never wholly specifies if Nameless recognized the philosophical fallacy of his tribal beliefs or simply realized the necessity of a unified or collective Chinese existence. However, the fact that the films voice of reason finds it fitting to commit suicide unable to live without the existence of his fallen lover alludes to the latter. On the other side, there is enough in the plot to assume otherwise. The fact is the Chinese govt still has a pretty tight grip on the content and funding of its films. Chinese writers/directors have been known to sneak out a msg contrary to the government's beliefs through clever allegories. This could be one of those instances, and I could be terribly mistaken. Yet the film's premise seems too philosophically muddled for me to draw a definitive answer. It seems to be torn in that regards, maybe between the artist's vision and that of the government. I would really need to understand the revisionary process of the film to draw a conclusion.

I was perhaps a bit rash in making that judgment about outsourcing, simply because I haven't researched it enough. I was probably wrong to lump it in there with China's unquestionably immoral counterfeiting operations. However, Im going to do some research in order to validate my opinion. And to clarify, I believe I might have gotten the terminology mixed up. By outsourcing I don't mean bringing workers over from China, I mean setting up a base of operations in China. Perhaps thats something else? However, despite all of this I will stand by this: The Chinese economy is a parasite of monstrously unethical proportions, and I try not to contribute to it whenever possible

I've always had certain reservations when it comes to Chinese cinema. Mainly political ones. The Chinese government has recently, as of this summer, put a momentarily freeze on American film imports. The significance of this is that during the most profitable season of film sales China has seen it fit to give its counterfeiters, or intellectual looters, a nice chunk of time to flood the Chinese market with bootleg versions of American films. By the time the American films reach China the market is already saturated with bootleg films and the Chinese government essentially steals Millions from the United States economy. http://cinemocracy.blogs.com/cinemocracy/2..._blocks_bl.html Of course their are much more significant cases of Chinese counterfeiting, including Viagra with no active ingredients, baby formula which due to its lack of nutrients resulted in the death of hundreds of Chinese infants, and of course the list goes on and on. The worst part is The United States is continually outsourcing its work force to China, including my dads company which has downsized its US work force considerably. The Chinese economy is a parasite of monstrously unethical proportions, and I try not to contribute to it whenever possible. As for the film's premise here is an excerpt from a paper I wrote regarding the film: *VAGUE SPOILERS* "The philosophical premise imposed by the director in the production of Hero touches on a much deeper ideological parasite that threatens the sanctity of any human civilization. Soon to be Emperor Qin Shi Huang’s vision of a united China opposes the common, divisional practice of tribalist rule and in turn delineates the relevancy of ones own heritage or cultural binds that substantiate this primal system. His vision he believes is so clear and unyielding that despite the wide spread antagonism towards his views he is willing to take the lives of thousands in order to impose its validity. The goal is justifiably noble, because to understand the roots of tribalism’s ideals is to gaze upon the most blatantly ruinous results of altruist thinking. Also, to attach the notion that the one who would willingly sacrifice his own life to uphold the identity of another was in turn inevitably defeated by his own reason is a deeply insightful notion into the function of man’s realization of ones self-worth within this political context." Of course the film seems to have a noble premise, but like the majority of Chinese cinema it attempts to depict life as is, or in their opinion flawed and tragic (for the epitome of this practice see 'Beijing Bicycle', 'Girl from Hunan', 'Bathhouse', and many others). So in this tradition the film ends on a flawed and tragic note. The film however, unlike the likes of Beijing bicycle, is much more idealistic then most Chinese films and is commendable in that regard.

Full-time student and former ditch-digger (landscaping in the summer). I hope to be an Art Director for a major publication, right now I'm an Illustrator in the making.

I just want to make it clear that I am not in any way justifying legal or forcible intervention in this matter. I believe in the realm of actions that can only be (directly) detrimental to the initiator people should have the freedom to make mistakes and assume responsibility for their actions.

When I first started researching the likes of Branden and his exploits I felt that the damage he had done was somewhat blown out of proportion, seeing how he is such a blatant clown. But after reading this statement in that press release I would have to seriously rethink that assumption. It seems he has succesfully sold his little illusion to all those that hate the great for being great and hunger for something to substantiate their hatred- despite how hollow and improbable it seems.