Tenderlysharp

The definitions are not arbitrary, there are reasons for the differentiation. Ayn Rand redefined many terms to include the essential concept "Rational". Altruism defines any act of self interest as an attack on the collective, "Rational" Self Interest is designed to establish the value of self defense against Altruism. Ayn Rand puts altruists and thieves in the same category of aggressors, and gives only 'Rational' man the right to self defense. Ayn Rand defined man as a "Rational Animal". If man behaves like an animal by initiating an attack, he ceases to be a man, and becomes sub-human. The thieves/attackers are the reason Altruism has been so attractive through history, it was designed as control through guilt. Altruism and thieves/attackers are two sides of the same coin, continually attempting to justify themselves by trying to provide 'protection' against their opposite. Objectivism wasn't really written for parasites. It was written for those whom they are feeding off of, to let a producer know he has a right to defend himself. If the producers of the world refused to be fed upon, and were effective in defending themselves, the parasites would have to resort to their own rationality or devour each other. By rejecting Altruism an Objectivist asserts his right to his own property. Is there nothing for an individual to gain from positive relationships? A Rational Man doesn't see respecting another man's property as an act of altruism. He sees it as a nearly mathematical justice. Objectivists often refer to A = A. Property = Property. Respect = Respect. Rational = Rational. Theft is not equal, one individual believes it is a gain and another individual looses more than property. He looses the life he spent earning his property, he looses his benevolence, he looses his generosity, he treats the next stranger suspiciously. Earning your own living is good for one individual, and good in a universal, non-sacrificial way. A Rational Man sees respecting property as an act of his own self esteem. He thinks and plans long range. A sacrifice is trading something of value for something of lesser value. To a Rational Man stealing is of lesser value than his self respect, but dying is usually of lesser value than stealing. So, in a rare situation where he steals to survive, he will pay the cabin owner back in order to regain his self respect. This is the stable kind of world he selfishly wants to live in, these are the kind of men he selfishly wants to deal with. Had a previous man stolen food from the cabin, how would it be in the owners self interest to keep the place accessible or stocked? Doesn't the Grandmother have anyone in her life who sees her as a value worth preserving? Isn't there anyone in her life who would want to pay her back for the investment she made in him? Not as an impersonal act of charity or obligation, but a personal rationally selfish act of admiration and gratitude? Did she invest in the intelligence of the individuals who were close to her, did she inspire them to be successful in their own lives? A rational man does not engage in sacrifice, he trades value for value.

The bureaucracy of SS takes more than it gives. How is SS supposed to help her if it is bankrupt? Union workers and needy Grandmas don't have enough of a “self” to be interested in. Most people have an immense potential that they never tap into; a self that is 'worth' being interested in. How is it not in their self interest to discover what they are capable of, rather than mindlessly scrape by on what they can scrounge off of the effort of others? It is more than self interest it is 'Rational' self interest, not blind whims, it is about the greatest potential over the long range course of a life. A change in perspective could inspire Grandma to discover an amazing skill she didn't know she had, Grandma Moses didn't start selling her work until she was in her 70's: http://en.wikipedia....i/Grandma_moses The union worker would realize he could run a better business, and start his own company, and inspire all of the best workers in the company to come with him.

Wow, very inspiring.

If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is, in fact, causeless and arbitrary. If Ayn Rand's musical preferences are not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary, then Ayn Rand's disdain for non-objective art is not, in fact, causeless nor arbitrary. Yeah. Again with the 'impotent underground of subjectivity'. I am in fact attempting to bring non-objective art to the stage of conceptualization with the study of actions and attributes of art.

If businesses weren't being strangled there would be plenty of competing companies offering jobs for the worker to choose, the company would have to raise wages in order to provide incentive for workers to stay. Unions/governments have taxed the life out of people all through history. The Declaration of Independence established the first government that limited how much of their hand they could put in the pie. (At least they used to) And it began the greatest influx of new wealth, ideas, and technology history had ever seen. I don't know how anything can be in the self interest of someone who is dead. Being a parasite takes money out of the gross national product, working productively adds money to the gross national product. The value of money is based on the productivity of the country. Being a parasite makes each dollar worth less, being productive makes each dollar worth more. Safety net programs don't necessarily need to be scrapped, they just need to be voluntary. How would it be in the self interest of someone who will never need social security to pay into it? If Grandma would have been inspired to live a life of productive self sufficiency she would not need government pittance, which is usually inadequate. Not all Grandmas, some Grandmas have a clearly defined sense of self respect.

Not in the existence of non-objective art, but in the expectation of an individual to define everything and anything as art, regardless of whether he perceives any value in it at all. No, these things are not acts of social pressure, they are acts of self defense and self esteem, they are acts of personal conviction. If your personal conviction is not the same, it has no value in the collective realm of subjectivity. Your personal conviction has everything to do with who you are. That is why a person becomes so defensive when it comes to discussing art. From a collectivist view everything is an act of social pressure. From a collectivist view an individual act of conviction is perceived as a threat. Every non-objective artist can be open to every contradicting thing. But Ayn Rand, staying true to her own vision of quality must contradict herself in order to embrace a value for non-objective art that she did not have.

Ayn Rand never said she was the universal standard by which others should blindly judge, that is second handedness, that is a collectivization of her beliefs which she was not interested in approaching in that way. She never advocated an Objectivist utopia. But she WAS the universal standard by which she judged herself. “All mankind” is the non-essential part of the argument. How do “We” know that an insult to a man's self esteem is not going to work in “Our” favor? If a man is “aesthetically deficient” in one area of artistic understanding, lets say he is in fact deaf, it doesn't change the personal importance of the art he does find metaphysically valuable to himself. Telling him he is deaf is not going to make a point about music any more significant to him. But if you were to translate the music to him in a visual way he might be able to bridge the understanding that his senses lack.

Then why salt and pepper your argument with such non-essentials? Then speak of your knowledge without wasting time on personal attacks. The 'indoctrination' is involved in the collectivist/social approach to the subject of art. In the attempt to validate everyone's subjective opinions of the work by invalidating a personal individual objective metaphysical connection to the work. Maybe you could have, but not by calling her a dogmatist. I think 77 years is a long time for someone with a mind like hers to avoid a confrontation on art? I get the impression she was constantly surrounded by people who attempted to challenge her views. Here you don't prove anything, you simply call it all into question. I don't know the specific context of her response to the question during the lecture, or the reason Binswanger may have been unclear about the Fountainhead bringing together hero worship, architectural admiration, and art. You are not expanding “collectivism”, you are simply not accepting my attempt to label my(and Ayn Rand's) individual judgments as “personal” Or you can reject the “hypocrisy” of believing that everyone has to say yes and no one is allowed to say they don't like it. When you say do it “consistently” you are actually saying do it “collectively”. You can't disagree with the herd and value your own position too? Accepting non-objective art, if a man does not see any intelligence in it, means he would have to accept street noise as music, a mud hut as architecture, and the gyrations of a bar fly as dance. It is no use attacking his self-esteem in this issue because his self-esteem is more invested in his response to the work in question than it is invested in your opinion of him. If you value him enough, or you value the work enough to want to expand the perspective of the work in question you have to focus on more clearly defending the work. If you don't want to expand his perspective there is no crime in that, you are not required to do that. Because Ayn Rand loved art, and she presented a compelling argument against the contradictions I have seen in Modern Art and the way the position of subjectivity collectivizes a personal issue. The non-objectivist forum would probably love it if I did that. Ayn Rand had reason to believe it was not a contradiction to exclude a form of art who's very nature celebrates pure contradiction. A study of the actions and attributes of art sidesteps the issue of contradiction and focuses on the value of the specific details of the work. I believe avoiding contradictions and double standards are important to most Objectivists.

You can repeat the things you think I am ignoring, but i can't repeat the things I think you are not seeing clearly enough? What does that mean to you? Does not recreate reality? I tried to address it when I mentioned the corpse. Words recreate reality in a certain way, a figurative painting recreates reality in a certain way. Film recreates reality in a certain way. Architecture, music, and Dance do not recreate reality in the same way, but they do have an internal connection to the metaphysical reality of the individual consciousness who appreciates them. Emotions in a rational man are not causeless. Heroism is completely relevant and essential to this thread topic. Ayn Rand's book was called the "Romantic" Manifesto. She considered "Art" the creative work she could project a hero onto. She liked the kind of music she could see a hero triumphing in. She liked a skyscraper because it came from the mind of a hero. In performing arts she saw a hero using his or her body as a canvas of expression, and a hero involved in the choreography. Because she saw some redeeming qualities of intelligence in some of the work she did not like, doesn't mean she should be expected to accept the work she found no redeeming qualities in. She may be contradicting you by doing so, but she wasn't contradicting herself. And why is that? Because the craftsmanship involved is heroic. But you do disregard Ayn Rand's personal values. How does one point out contradictions and double standards without establishing the value he sees in non-objective art? I wasn't screaming. I am saying that externally, collectively, or from a Psycho-Epistemological point of view music is treated as "subjective", but internally, from an individual metaphysical view it is not arbitrary, on a personal level certain music makes a connection to the objective reality of a rational consciousness. “Screaming” that a man's views are subjective is not going to force him to project a hero onto something he doesn't see a hero in. Because art is a personal issue, not a social issue.

With the immense amount of conceptual integrations necessary to understand Objectivism, the most common response I have seen toward the novice is the encouragement to read more of Ayn Rand's books, because it is a way for a person to save themselves days of running around in circles with someone who doesn't 'get it'. And why should he spend his time if the information is already available somewhere else? Often a lack of response is not a concession that there is no defense, but a decision the opposition makes that his time could be better spent elsewhere.

Yes retaliation does always happen, maybe not immediately or directly to the perpetrator, but a conscientious man will stop working for the possessions that are going to be stolen any way, he will move away from crime infested areas, he will loose the enthusiasm necessary to maintain the business that is strangled by irrational demands made by those who do not know how to create their own business. And the parasites will be left with nothing more to feed upon. The greatest mind will seek a place where he will not be stepped on, he will receive a greater return on his investment with a man who is his equal. An Objectivist neither sacrifices himself nor accepts the sacrifice of others. Does a dictator behave in an individual way when he oppresses others? No, he depends on others to be there for him to oppress. A collectivist thinks in terms of using others an individual does not.

In the way that they belittle the judgment of the individual by attempting to force him, through social pressure, to accept the definition of art as all inclusive.

This is what a lack of context amounts to: I can see that you have a strong collectivist bent because you often use the words they or we, and rarely talk about ideas in terms of an individual unless it is to reiterate how all encompassing and non-absolute you are. In order for it to be defined as Objective it will not contradict the axioms of entity, identity, consciousness. Ayn Rand would probably relish the idea of redefining the genre of Abstract Art in order to remove it from the clutches of the mystics. But abandoning the arena of art to Subjectivism is not the way to do it. I have also found value in non-objective art, I have found a way to build a bridge between objective and non-objective art in an rational way, through a discussion of actions and attributes, and through a perspective of the value of mans projection. I can see a great deal of progress to make in the field of art from taking this position. I welcome anyone to challenge the argument I made for the significance of attributes in the Helvetica font. At this point whether or not non-objective art is “Art” is not an essential part of the argument to me. It is like questioning whether a dictionary is art or not. A dictionary is an immense achievement as far as consciousness goes, even if it is utilitarian, so is the development of my own visual language. Existence Identity Consciousness Reason Self-esteem Purpose A = A Existence requires Reason Identity requires Self-esteem Consciousness requires Purpose Why did I bring these up first when I came back to this argument? In recognition of the tactics collectivists use to attack, disregard, and disintegrate the consciousness of their opponent. What about the psycho-epistemological function of art? What about Normative abstractions?

On July 1st I said "I am not required in any way to enlighten you. I am engaging in this conversation because I love art, and I want to see if I am capable of expanding consciousness my chosen vocation." You are taking this out of context, as you have taken Objectivism out of context during this entire argument. I said I am not required to enlighten you because you accuse Objectivist“s” of being oppressive when “they” disagree with you. I am not required to be oppressive. I am not required to enlighten you because Objectivism holds that it isn't a virtue to blindly follow or expect anyone else to blindly follow. I am not required to enlighten you because each man must come to his own understanding himself, because choosing to see the deeper meaning is something no one can do but yourself. I am having this conversation not because I want to enlighten you, not because I want to oppress you, not because I am a dogmatist blindly following the Holy Bible of Rand. I have read enough to understand some broad concentrated integrations of concepts that I didn't understand a year ago when I was making the same mistakes you are making. Calling an Objectivist a stickler/dogmatist does not respect, recognize, or inspire the love he has for freedom. How exactly is a practitioner of Objectivism to place non-objective work in the same classification as a work that can ONLY be created by the abilities of a highly developed rational “Objective” consciousness who is successful in clearly re-creating reality according to his metaphysical value judgments. You are able to project a hero onto some works of non-objective art, and someone who cant or wont is somehow deficient. So the solution is to say that everyone who sees anything is right and everyone who doesn't like it is blind. Such is an argument based on non-essentials. The “non-essentials” are the peanut gallery. It is a mistake to approach art as a social issue, when art is a personal issue. Art is not a collective subjectivity, but an individual projection of values. Focus on the work, what the work means, what the work expresses. The “essential” of the argument lies in the work, not in a reaction to those opposed to the work. A greater clarification of the work, a deeper study of the work, rational arguments for the work, comparing the details of the work to similar work. Present compelling arguments to yourself for the esthetic value of a multitude of actions and attributes apparent in the work. Find more and more clear representations of your point. Non-objective art did not seem essential or necessary to Ayn Rand's vision of Romanticism. If it is essential to your vision of Romanticism then keep the millions of people who disagree with her out if it, and speak for yourself. If you present an argument speaking only for yourself you will have a better chance of convincing other Objectivists of the value of your position.

It is not so much music's relationship to non-objective art that I question here, it is your method of arguing for your point. There are concepts that exist only in mans mind that are not subjective, they are objective concentrations of percepts. The number two is not a physical object, but it is an objective abstracted concept based on the existence of two of any thing. Two is an entity in the mind. Art, in order to be an objective abstracted concept, must be an entity, it must re-create the metaphysical existence of a rational mans consciousness, the way he sees the world and his place in it. What does 're-creation of reality' mean to a rational consciousness? It is much more than a head, a torso, two arms, and two legs. Those are present in a corpse. Where are the concentrations of percepts abstracted into concepts and concentrated in to wider concepts that exist as mental entities in mans consciousness. A re-creation of reality is not just the image of a man, but also everything reality means to a living rational consciousness. You seem to disregard anything I say about hero worship, which is “essential” to understanding Objectivism. Existence Identity Consciousness, Reason Self-esteem Purpose, Volition, Entity. These essential elements are self evident in good art, and are essential in the identity of a creator of art, because of the effort in craftsmanship involved. To say that Ayn Rand's opinions about art are just as subjective as everyones disregards the connection to her entire view of life and the reason's behind her perspective. It seems to imply that Hero Worship is just as subjective as and no more valid than worshiping a swarm of parasites. If this isn't true then where is the line drawn? Disregarding the value of music as nothing more than subjective is not going to establish the value of non-objective art. How would you differentiate music as art from what is merely noise or monotony? Some people may find great exultation in traffic noise. Is there anything that you do not consider to be art? Non-objective art seems to recreate the collective sum of any contradictory existence of everyone who looks at it. It could have been created by a genius or a lunatic, a scientist, a mystic, a child, or a committee. Who can tell the difference between objective and non-objective art, or between good and bad art? Who can tell difference between Chopin and Kandinsky? How does one attempt to validate any criteria of objectivity? What is the difference between a skyscraper and a mountain? What is the difference between ballet and the mating ritual of a dung beetle? Validating subjectivity means its every man for himself, so why is it necessary to attack anyone who disagrees with you about art? Oh, you don't? Does that mean one who disagrees with you doesn't have to be a solipsistic, smug, dogmatic, contradictory, stickler? Are you expressing a condescending certainty that no one can be certain of anything? Do you assume an individual may have no other reason for being concerned about your indoctrination? Do you think that you could have converted Ayn Rand herself to your way of thinking using such tactics? Do you believe no one ever tried to do that to her on any number of issues? A subjectivist school of art will accept your expansion of subjectivity with open arms, you can easily find a non-objective art forum and talk for days about everyone's “valid” subjective opinions. But why are you trying to do so on an Objectivist forum? How do you expect a man you seem to assume to be a dogmatist to be able to think about any of the words you are saying?

A book that I found to be very productive and inspirational was: The Natural Way to Draw: A Working Plan for Art Study by Kimon Nicolaides http://www.amazon.co...09194511&sr=8-1 His systematic approach encourages the reader to produce many drawings. His experience recommends that an artist has to be willing to make a lot of bad drawings in the beginning in order to become good. - I liked many of the exercises in 'The Artist's Way', by Julia Cameron, but she uses the word “We” excessively. I felt like getting a black marker and writing “I” over all of the “We's” in the book.

I know this is a rhetorical question, but if an art student is struggling in a class is it more productive to tell him to 'get more talent' or to 'exert more effort'? I am more interested in the volitional aspect.

I tried drawing in High school, it didn't look like much to me, and I lost interest. Later when I was 23 a friend encouraged me to take a beginning drawing class with her at Santa Monica College, and the daily discipline of practice brought a 'talent' out that i hadn't known existed. It still wasn't masterful but, with one charcoal drawing of a pear, I fell in love with the light I captured and I fell in love with art, and that love brought me through a great deal of crap. I still produce crap, but the work I love is becoming more frequent. Could the latent unknown ability within me before that time really be considered talent? I think of art the way an Olympian thinks of their chosen field. I work on it every day, even when I am not drawing or painting, I am constantly looking at drawings and paintings and making notes to myself about them. The winner of the gold medal may be the one with the greatest talent or he may be the one who put in the most effort, but at least the ones who loose are willing to put themselves in the arena. Is it possible for someone without talent to make 10,000 drawings and still have no talent? It seems to me that talent and effort have a symbiotic relationship.

I believe reason and rationality are right. Objectivism is a philosophy that is geared toward reason and rationality. Objectivists are human and are not infallible, they have various levels of skill in communication and understanding in various aspects of the philosophy. I believe Objectivists are open to changing their mind in the face of a rational argument. I think this is an Objectivist forum by default, and those with differing views ought to respect the context of offense/defense. This is what the philosophy is trying to do, but an Objectivist can only do so much. It is in the power of each individual to form wide conscious volitional abstractions. An integrated understanding of Objectivism can not be given to you, it has to be earned by your own effort. That is one reason why it is not a moral imperative for Objectivists to promote the philosophy. I am not required in any way to enlighten you. I am engaging in this conversation because I love art, and I want to see if I am capable of expanding consciousness my chosen vocation. In order for you to get them to be consistent you have to be consistent by looking at your own double standards, and vague definitions. You are asking them to do something you don't seem willing to do yourself.

The music, architecture, and Dance that qualify as art require an immense amount of objective knowledge to achieve. Education, math, engineering, dynamics, focus, blueprints, tools, practice, communication, coordination... In the fountainhead the Character Howard Roark is essential to the understanding of Architecture. A great many works of Modern Art could have happened on accident, a skyscraper could not. There are a great many modern musicians whom I love, who would probably not have qualified as art to Ayn Rand. But if Objectivists want to speak intelligently about the subject, they can't do it from a purely subjective position. The development of a conceptual vocabulary for music is an immense objective undertaking. Ayn Rands belief that such an undertaking was possible, and that such an undertaking is already happening on a pre-verbal level in man's consciousness is pointing toward the 'open-ended' nature of objective knowledge.

This contradicts what you just said about a work of art expressing the exact opposite of the values that I listed. And it is not true, she did classify work that she did not like as art. Apparently neither of us know the exact extent of Ayn Rand's knowledge of music, dance, and architecture. It seems to me that it is more than nothing. Which is why I said not primarily. Her defense of consciousness that she perceived as under attack from non-objective art may have distracted her from value that can be found in the actions and attributes of art. But even with her criticism she does not close the book on the issue. In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology she clearly presents all knowledge as an “open-end” and in her own words:

If Ayn Rand could have projected the ideal man better in music or visual art than she did with words she might have chosen them as her vocation. Existence, Identity, Consciousness, Reason, Self-esteem, Purpose, Volition, Choice, Decision, Freedom, Communication, Values, Virtue, Morality, Fair Trade, Productivity, Justice, Accountability, The Pursuit of Happiness, Investment, Standards, Incentive, Ambition... The more concepts pertaining to consciousness a piece of work can express the better the work of art. That is a bit of an oversimplification, it doesn't include aesthetic mastery, or the immense amount of Objective understanding of reality that it takes to produce such works, which include the above listed positive values that the artist uses in the process of creating the work. What she is saying here is that the subjective analysis of the work is irrelevant to the Objective evaluation of the work. From what I have read on Kandinsky his work was based on an idea called “pure subjectivity”

This passage suggests that you do not have clear definitions in your mind regarding: Subjectivism: http://aynrandlexico...bjectivism.html Objectivity: http://aynrandlexico...bjectivity.html In the previous passage you said Subjectivity is a good thing, now you say it isn't? Assuming Objectivism is out to oppress you disregards all of the tenants of Objective ethics. Freedom of speech, volition, individualism, consciousness. Disagreeing with you is not the same as oppressing you. Subjectivism has been used as a defense against the whims of mysticism and the whims of society, by making the whims of the individual supreme. It is an attempt to save the individual from the burden of oppression, but it also shelters him from the 'burden' of achieving reason and moral certainty. It takes an immense amount of volitional effort for an individual to figure out why Objectivism disagrees. A wealth information has been supplied in Ayn Rand's writings, and no one can give that to you but yourself. I scratch the surface of it here, but you seem to disregard key elements as unimportant.