Jill

I was trying to comment on your blog but I can't get through. I really like this article and find it very helpful personally. I just disagree with the end note.

Why is it OK to insult non-Objectivists? Isn't that arrogance as well?

I was reading on British Citizenship and you cannot become a citizen if you pay tax or have criminal records. British citizens do not stop being citizens because they stop working or commit crimes. They are citizens because their parents chose them to. Is there a reason why this difference is morally right?

The Beautiful People quite fascinated me at the time because that's what I felt about the world. He rightly criticises religion but gives no positive alternative. His idea is that living ethically is not possible. To him, capitalism is evil but allows him to feel good. I have one T-shirt with his face in the front and the back saying "There is not time to discriminate, hate every motherfucker that is in your way" (from the Beautiful People lyrics) When I'm ready, I'd get one with Ayn Rand in the front and the John Galt oath in the back.

He's right, philosophically. I still him. The thing is, in depression the mind is constantly rationalizing to force the person to quit whatever purpose they have found.

The shield that hid the valley. The lock that when violated disintegrates everything inside without a noise. That's technology nobody invented yet, to the best of my knowledge.

But this is what I want to be. How do you become like those people? How do you create something new, something only you could have created and nobody else?

I'd love to paint like that.

I like my work, but not in reality. I like what it means to me. If I show it to others they see what it is in reality, not what it means to me.

(Edited to add some more thoughts) Myself, it's not about what others think. It's about what the work is in reality. When people say "it looks like so and so character of famous film" it's true, although I never intended it to be such or "your art looks dated and there's nothing new in it" it's also true. It hurts that it's true. I cannot be blind at what the rest of the world produces. Ifat, I'm not sure about some things you said. When I'm studying I often need the input to know how to improve and to correct obvious mistakes I might have missed. I can't pay for a course and it seems a good idea to take advantage of the free knowledge other artists offer in online forums.

There was no effort when I was a child. My mind just did things and I just experienced them. Yes, I did just sit and it happened. I felt an urge to draw and I did it, it happened, I was happy with what I did. I was surrounded by people that genuinely valued the creativity, joy and promise of children unless they are so bitter they cannot appreciate it. Now all the effort I put in things give me no rewards whatsoever. I find the most basic things in life very difficult to do. That's not I was talking about anyway, but I am not good at making myself understood and used a bad analogy. Nevermind what I said about sums. Other people won't see what I create it as I see it. What happens is I end seeing it as they see it and it's painful. They will connect it to their own experience. Sometimes they even comment "it reminds me of..." To me my characters are the sum of my creativity, my life experience, my ideas, my stories, in reality they are just lame characters with no importance whatsoever. I don't want that to be visible.

I agree. I'd love a patron.

So, by analogy, if I buy art instead of doing it, that gives me self-esteem? How, exactly? Maybe most, but not all. New ideas get developed. But if what I value is genius and originality, how can I be I satisfied with less?

Sigh. I know that. It's not about comparing with others. But even art has standards. New ideas can be created. Ayn Rand knew she was original and had something important to say. A person can please oneself doing wrong sums, it won't make the sums any good. If the person realizes one couldn't in fact do any maths, where does the person goes from there?

I wanted to learn more about the idea in this post, as I'm still somewhat confused. Thomas was mentioning how he likes to be admired by his writing and poetry, but I have nothing to be admired for. I like my art but I don't do anything that is original and worth admiring. I see it this way: if I was studying science and had discovered a theory on my own that had already been discovered, what would be the point of showing it? It wouldn't be new to the world. The same I see no point in showing my art, although I still feel compelled to at times, not sure why. Yes, it's just my own personal plaything, it has no importance to the world whatsoever. While insults take away the pleasure of enjoying my characters, compliments make me feel like a fraud. I never feel good by showing my work, yet I still feel compelled to do it? What are my thinking mistakes? Thanks in advance.

Welcome, Mark.

She explains that herself in the interview. Watch with more attention.

Ayn Rand used the word self-esteem.

At 1:12

Ok. Nevermind I used the word stalk. Imagine that there was no harassment. Camera was hidden and I was being very discreet.

I mean if the person sends more gifts. Certainly you are not suggesting that anything this person thinks of sending to my house from now on I have an obligation to return at my own expense?

I was thinking of making it clear in public that I am not this person's friend anymore and anything this person sends is in full acknowledgement of that and will be considered voluntary donations. Good idea?

He didn't say anything nice?

So one can stalk a person, take photos without this person's consent and blog about the person's daily life outdoors? Nothing wrong with that, as long as I photograph the person outside and don't touch the person or trespass said person's property?

And offend all those religious and socialist costumers...