AMERICONORMAN

Yes, just as their is a career that fits me the most, so there is person in this world, given every person that exists, like me. The idea of most like me is an absolute because there are a finite number of people and as a human I can judge them. Now, even if I meet this MAN and he is not available, I still have met this man. Maybe we will only have a few hours of conversation. But to find him is immensly rewarding and reinforcing. So he has to go back to his lover ... but I found him! Maybe I will have to settle in the future. But the idea of the most compatible to me is always valid ... even in a communist dicatorship. I am not dropping context. I know what ideal means. Have you read Binswanger's essay "The Possible Dream" ? It's not a matter of finding this person, it's the principle that this person must exist, i.e., the human being living on this earth that is most like me. I will spend my life searching for this person. And even if I meet someone who I fall in love with, and never meet this "ideal" that you think I'm dreaming of, that person will be the best. Even when Dagny was with Francisco, and later Rearden, she still felt that there was something better waiting for her ... it did not diminish the love that she earned with the previous two men. There is a difference about Galt: 100% certainty. Americo.

Okay, so I'll leave it at that. I wouldn't like this guy the first time he called me "boy". I'M the only one that calls people "boy". There are so many wonderful people out there. It seems as if you have a mission to see this guy in Peter Keating's catastrophic scene. Remember that if Capitalism leave Communism alone, it will self destruct. So will this guy. You just don't won't to be around when he blows! (I'm sorry, I just couldn't pass the comment up). As a young friend of mine used to say, "Eea-sy!" Americo.

I do believe that there is an ideal lover for all of us out there. I don't believe that someone put him/her there for me. But I do believe that somewhere on this earth, even in my large city, there is someone that is the most like me. The reason is because I exist--why can't this imaginary person? At this point it is arbitrary but so is the idea that there isn't. It's like Dagny and Galt; there is someone who is on the same road as me, and driving the same "car", with the same power of "engine" out there for me ... I just got to make sure I don't die before I get to the destination where we will inevitably meet. This doesn't mean that I can't fall in love in the meantime. Yes, of course, once I'm in love, I must treat the relationship as if I've found this "Formula One" driver already. Americo.

Tom, Thanks for the clarification. My comments were greatly speculation and inspired by the "virtually everything" idea. I do still have to read Paterson's book. And this aspect of Rand's life is very interesting to me as most are. For example I did not know that Paterson was much older than Rand. Americo.

Now I'm curious. What types of things does he say? Give me some highlights and then I'll probably leave it at that. Americo.

I doubt that Rand learned virtually everything from Paterson. She probably learned somethings. I think that it was more like they were learning, inducing, the same political ideas, at the same time, and thus they could easily relate. You can find letters in The Letters Of Ayn Rand edited by Michael Berliner. Also there are scattered comments in The Journals of Ayn Rand edited by David Harriman. Ayn Rand was the originator and vanguard of a philosophy and moral code that challenged two thousand years of bad ideas. Paterson was simply not as rebellious and not a genius. That Ayn Rand wrote fiction was a huge value in developing her philosophy, since it is a sort of model building. The amount of thinking to create We The Living and The Fountainhead is a mother load, that I doubt Paterson could ever come close to. Americo.

But do not be afraid to talk to an attractive woman that you feel something positive for, while on the bus, subway, in the park, at the coffee shop, at the bookstore, etc. Have the attitude that it is a beautiful day, that life is wonderful, that you found something specific in the culture or in the media very interesting, for good or bad, and relate it to her. Most people are opinionated. It will be easy to go from there. Also remember, that people have bad days, and bad moods, don't take it personally. However, there are misanthropes. But it's simple with a few questions to figure out the misanthropes. Remember that Donald Trump fired Bren last week for claiming that his weakness is that he is afraid to take risks. The worst thing that could happen is that you'll get slapped in the face. (-:

Yes, you are seeking an emotion. But seeking the value is more fundamental because the pleasant emotion might not follow from achieving a certain value, i.e., condemning the actions of an evil father. The value is the primary value. With a healthy mature psychology it will be hard to split up the value from the emotion. This is all I'm saying. Americo.

Happiness IS the result of achieving one's rational values. For a young adult, for example, whose sense of life reacts positively to Objectivism, it may be painful to follow the right moral principles as he judges them. One may have been given the christian-altruist ideal all one's life and still has a subconscious guilt. One may have felt guilty about wanting pleasure and now in a state of rebellion one may indulge in one's emotions, whims. One of the first things one must come to grips with is the necessity to follow one's conscious convictions. Objectivism is a rare philosophy that says that if one follows one's principles one will eventually achieve happiness (pleasure). However, psychologically, this will take time. So that for our young adult, it may be painful at first to follow reason. For example justice may be a hard and painful principle to follow. Just think of all the people with whom one will now need to be just to, i.e., punish, like mother, brother, father, friend, teacher, priest, etc. What Objectivism promises is that if one retains one's integrity, over time, happiness will be the result. Check out Rand's essay Philosophic Detection in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT. Towards the end she discusses briefly the idea of "psychological Atlantis" if one accepts and understands five crucial points. (I.e., "Objectivism while standing on one leg"). Americo.

So I spaced the paragraphs in the quote below to make it easier for the reader. It was about time.

There seems to be two type of women of the same type of moral sense of life. There is the one who knows what she wants. There is the one who is still figuring out who she is at the deepest level. For the former, if I had taken the time and effort to woo her in various ways, and suddenly she hit me with "let's be friends," I wouldn't want a woman who took that long to let me know, if I were straight. Kevin, you seem to start from the premise that most men are fools. Maybe they are--but one of the best things I look for is brutal honesty. This is very sexy. Sure tests are fine. But if there is not sufficient honesty then the woman suffers from some sort of fear. People tend to be afraid to be honest. Certainly I want honesty in regards to me not being appealing. Granted that if a woman is interested in me, then part of the fun is not knowing all her intentions. It may be rare, but I don't think that the status quo should be that woman have to wait to be pursued. It would be extremely appealing, the idea of a woman actively pursuing a man. Then there is the woman who is conflicted and doesn't know what she wants. There can be much fulfillment in bringing this woman into one's value system. This type of woman will usually reject the deserving man. But the man shouldn't stop. Sure, he should stand back and strategize. But to turn this woman around should be one of his top priorities. There is a certain uniqueness that one wants in a romantic partner. If the conflicted woman has this uniqueness then she is worth conquering. There is much good advice you give, Kevin. But I don't like the way you make men seem, i.e., clumsy. I'm gay but most people are surprised. Women are not hard to get to know even before they know I'm gay, at all. The key is to be yourself (once one is comfortable with oneself) and to be honest. The response from women has been very promising in my experience. Maybe I have a special aura. But there is much in Objectivism that can provide men with that aura. Look at Francisco, Ragnar, even Roark. Look at Rostand's Cyrano. Look at some of Hugo's heroes. Look at Ayn Rand on video. Understand where the personal confidence comes from and your aura will shine. Americo.

Have you told this friend that you would like him better if he lost weight? Maybe he will make the effort then. Take way his intellect, though, and what do you have? Just a fat body. If he were skinny, it would merely be a skinny body. Intellect and sense of humor are very important to me. Obviously because he's big, he probably can't engage at physical activity, such as sports, at your level. Would it be touching if he made the effort and succeeded all so he can play with you? There is this guy that I just can't get to hang out with me though he thinks I'm wonderful. If he were to tell me that it is because of my beer belly, then I would laugh, get hard in a month, and then win my "date". Then I'll be free to bombard him with my character and make him see how silly it was to discriminate against me based on that. But of course it is always nice to look at yourself in the mirror and see a beautiful physique. A friend of mine who was tall and lanky once, began his body building with the idea, "I love the idea of scultping my own form". One can be one's own Michaelangelo. This is part of the delight in exercising. The other one is the euphoric runner's high. I really hate it when people say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is true in a way. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. But the eye is the nature of the human mind in its response to harmonious objects of this world. There is a whole science behind this idea that I am not yet prepared to validate but it is worthy of validation. Americo.

If you want more Ayn Rand fiction, then check out THE EARLY AYN RAND. I particularly suggest THINK TWICE, RED PAWN, and IDEAL in the aformentioned book. The first two I just finished reading after 8 years of loving Ayn Rand and her fiction. I was very pleased. I am shocked that I didn't take the time before to read them. Americo.

Andromeda, I will just say that reading your initial post he has made my temptations over the years or over the last weeks so easy to deal with. Ha! You have concretized the second-hander in romance. It's like Newton's Apple on my head. I will ride to work a happy man ... Maybe I'll have the opportunity to give a special serenade. Hmm... Thanks, Americo.

This advise should annoy madman: read Rand's essay The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made. I'll just say, without Objectivism I wouldn't have learned how to write art as well as I do, and will, and it is a heck of a ball. It's very enjoyable. I won't analyze my experience, though. But writing is something that can be done anywhere, anyhow. Just check out the movie Quills. The only problem, is that Sade, should not have stooped to using blood, or feces. He could have improved his memory and becoming a free style poet. What a crazy f. he was! Americo.

So someone who can better than I, must in a pointed summarized fashion reveal the evil of Catholocism. Lately, from me, you will only hear vulgarities. I'm to busy with writing a novel about sex without a condom, among men, one a boy but more adult than most, who doesn't feel original sin, and does not idiolize the life of Christ, and who respects science better than faith, and who is far more advanced than his brethren, and who advises his best friend to have an abortion because she will be a magnificent sculptor, and who decides to disrespect his father and leave his bording school, and who rejects the idea that he is a sinner ... because, hell no, there is no god .. based on the necessary physco-epistemological basis.... God Bless America. Americo. And damn that Polish cripple ... who came to my city and dared to tell millions of my youth to sacrifice. The irony is that IDOMO, who is furniture store close by, but found that because of the multitude, close by, his futons were drenced in shit ... how appropriate. It actually really happened. Americo..

I'll add this: I like Gwynplaine, thought not as severe, and not as Ayn Rand once commented of Jimmy Carter, I have a permanent smile. It's always there but it often happens when someone is yelling at me or reproaching me--because as a fact I don't feel guilt and am not guilty, however, people take it as if I am belittling them. In a way I am ... but only because I know I am not guilty ... and often know I am just doing my job or just acting as a rational human being. You should see these people's angry faces and irrelevant comments and intimidations ... hence I "laugh". Same in romance, and though not as extreme but a nearing reaction. I guess, some people don't find me funny. But often when I smile it is serious, and I am suppressing my anger (since they are angry at me), because very few people have seen me fuming angry. They would probably cry ... Anyways, Americo Norman.

It is this: 1. Ayn Rand loved Allan Greenspan, not romantically, but still. If it is true that she called him the undertaker because of his premise that one cannot prove one exists, and often asked N. Branden whether he has decided whether he exists yet or not -- I find this extremely funny. Now, she and Frank, fell in love in their twenties, when Rand still had some Nietzschean premises. I could easily imagine similar humour among the two at varous levels of their improved understanding of philosophy. Like she always said, it is one's sense of life that one falls in love with. The rest is up to reason, it backs it up, supports it, and helps it grow, i.e, reason. I would find it absurd to tell someone who matches you more than any other human being, that because you have not accepted a certain premise we will not have sex. It will be more like, the best of you I love, but some part of you is silly... and I joke about that. I don't condemn you because I know you're potential. And just think about dirty talk in sex. "Oh, you still think that life is doom because the people you meet are evil mediocrities ... well, take that! how much happiness is possible in this world, tell me ... tell me ... scream it ... That's just my opinion, but I've never fallen in love so correct me if I'm wrong. Americo. P.S. And/or send this to the trash can .... (-:

There is something about the Dominique type that really turns me on ... a shade of Schopenhauer ... the kind of one one wants to sex the malevolence out of ... the sense of life but the naivete ... the waiting but not waiting ... the reality that one doesn't have to wait as long as Howard Roark ... the philosophical talent required to seduce and conquer ... the dedication to one's work and his frustration at it ... and his attempt to attempt the same type of thing ... but his thing is flawed and thus doomed in the context of our love ... I don't know--I just recently fell in love again with the Dominique type. And there are so many out there to explore. Maybe it's because I'm a fiction writer. When I do fall in love, I'll let you all know, which has never happened. Americo.

I won't tell you what my father's last name is, I'll just say that my first name is Jose. The only problem with the name is that it is associated with rejection in popular culture, "No way Jose!" However, one take ownership of the name and make it a conquering name. My mother's maiden name is Gainza. Pronounce it with me: Ga-een-saa. I for a few years have considered changing my name to Paine Sailor. Yes, Paine, as in Tom Paine. But also a play on words with "Pain". And sailor, well, there is so much meaning there. However, I have recently realized that I love my name as Jose Gainza. And I'm actually proud of many Gainza's. However, I'm still wondering whether I should change my name to Cyrano D'Anconia. I doubt it ... we'll see. But I do love to name my characters and am often jealous of their names, like Americo Norman. But Jose Gainza should be fine because a man's work makes the name not his blood line. Americo.

Llama Dama—By Jose Gainza “Let me be your flame, Dame, So I could spark and burn, Consumed by passion without blame, Near you dancing as I turn. Deity, I’ve praised your name— By you endlessly I yearn.” Thus spoke my Romantico to me, his Nina, Before I blushed and took his hand. I let him sip wine from my cantina Before he sang then with his band. “I have searched the world for none like you: An oasis to a past now considered tundra. Many joys I did manage to construe From a life fulfilled by mind’s Utopia. Virtue, values, dreams, and work All combined and made my happiness. Now suddenly my pathways jerk, And halt before the flower of your beauty bliss.” Thus continued Tico with smiles sanguine, Sending notes up to the wind’s embrace, Blowing words in swirl scented by my wine, Twirlings in the sand did his body trace. “I dance for you to help you feel my beats, And tell you what you mean to me to win, A life with you earning daily treats, That grew so ripe from all that I gave in. I claim that there’s a part of you that swears Allegiance to the happy minded seers, And will avenge the torches all your years.” Executing eyes of mine, how Tico saw, Willing to condemn the evil men, That dare to poke me with their law, That makes our love forbidden. “Francesca isn’t outraged just for me, And your Papa is fuming not for me, They hate the fact that we can find a joy, Felt by all yet, O, so hard to get. Don’t you know their anger is a ploy? To hide the blatant evil they beget: Hatred for the good for being good— The why of life so misunderstood!” And soon he swept me far away, And my past dust to the wind. Here we are in San Francisco Bay, Winning life we never have to mend. “The white dress that you wear, How it stands for a soul the purest. And your joy that I must bear, Is the cause of our love the surest. And tonight when I own you in our bliss, It will be heaven you will kiss.” Thus we stand here both, Reciting the same verse, In a sacred form of oath, In a style just terse, To reveal our burning lust, Sanctioned by god Reason’s cast, The halo of our trust, And the blessing of our past, That brought us here, To feel this thing, And know it without fear, And promise you to bring, The joy that always stays Somewhere within me, Even if you leave our days, In death and cease to be, But please don’t die, No, don’t dare go, Don’t tempt me, dear, to die, Though you know how I’ll still grow, As in allegiance to our life, A life committed thus in love, Shrugging off the strife, Because peace is not above, It’s here below and on this earth, It’s been here since our birth, It came with our straight minds, And it’s the force that binds, Us forever And ever …

The quotes do indeed jive with Socialism, if it is a socialism whose central principle is altruism, an altruism where one's moral duty is to live for others, where one is an means to the ends of others. Because economics is a way to change society for the better ...because, as an example and indication of a wider idea, a bar owner can refuse entry to who ever he like, accordinng to true natural law. An owner of a highways can prohibit entry to those who drive too slow. A private school university, in an atmosphere where private schools compete against each other, where a school of Objectivism, and Nietzsche, and Marx, all compete with each other as possibilities to a fulfilling life long life--will win out and change the electorate and thus the nature of politicians. The point is is that money is an instrument of peace and not the root of all evil, as Francisco had to remind Rearden of. Americo. Americo.

Two definitions of Capitalism: 1. A social system where individual rights, freedom to think, freedom to act, freedom of metaphysical beliefs, freedom from physical force, freedom of trade and commerce are mostly upheld, unless the government in power, manages to pass laws that would violate any one aspect of the idea of individual right. This definition can be applied at anytime since parliamentary England up to the present. It allows for a number of different names isolated according to how much controls and in what way and for how long, a basically free nation allows. What the second definition, that follows, allows for is the distiniction between two fundamental attitudes to governement. The agent in power can initiate force against its citizens in order to dispose of their production, for the sake of himself or of society; or the agent in power can never ever initiate physical force against its citizens no matter what the reason, including economic reasons. Why is it that an ideal such as communism which has never existed either, because if it did, it would destroy itself, as it actually did, be considered logically valid? (Seems an enigma, I know) But a concept such as capitalism requires a mixture of Altruism to be taken seriously, merely because there are altruistic citizens? Second Definition: The social system that recognizes and upholds individual rights. Keep your word for the moment, until it is rescued by the future majority? Call what Objectivism holds as a political ideal "A Happy Republic" or a "Free Republic" --but the Pope does not and cannot advocate "Laissez Faire Capitalism" he would go insane if he did. The system that Ayn Rand talks about is the ideal one for a rational human being; Christiantity--or mysticism period--cannot advocate such a human beneficial system: it would be an oxymoron. Once again, it comes down to epistemology as other posters have indicated at. Americo.

Welcome, So what's the philosophic branch, or specific issue, that interests you most or inspires you with the most passion? Americo.

I assume that the Pope's justification for ending Communism, was to increase religious and intellectual freedom, so that citizens can freely choose their own religion, and thus choose Catholicism. Perhaps the Pope has a better sense of life than his position suggests, otherwise, his antagonism against communism is hypocritical. I mean, to exchange political tyranny for a form of a psychological tyranny, which is what consistent Catholicism is, whose ideal political translation is that of Jesus or a Mother Teresa: If it was not his goal, then the man was a hypocrite, a pragmatist, and perhaps more admirable than in his position as the Pope. To propogate that human beings live the consistent life as a Catholic is to insist that these humans live a tortured life. The only loophole is the idea of forgiveness which allows people to live the life proper to a rational human being ... but then one is condemened to a life of perpetual guilt. He surely does not propogate the values of self-esteem, reason or purpose. I wonder what is the actually the political ideal of the Pope? Does anyone know? By the way, it is a sad day to see the world flocking to Rome, and flocking to churches in blind sadness for this man, and I mean "blind" psycho-epistemologically. Americo.