New blood is excited blood

welcome aboard, steel. Get those reviews done, and submit. you'll be glad you did.

Excited blood is exciting blood. Welcome to the Cult ! See you in the workshop !
kabol

Hi steel, nice too see someone so enthusiastic join.

Welcome to the best and most useful site for writers I've encountered. This is Mecca for those who worship the word. Friendly, smart, honest and driven--talented, talented folks abound here. Unpack your paper, your pens and whatever meds you require and make yourself to home.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Welcome to the best and most useful site for writers I've encountered. This is Mecca for those who worship the word. Friendly, smart, honest and driven--talented, talented folks abound here. Unpack your paper, your pens and whatever meds you require and make yourself to home.[/QUOTE]
You freak me out, man.

Hi - welcome. I thought you wrote my father is rather dead. I don't know where I got that out of writing. so anyways... hi.

Welcome? You want a Welcome?... How should I welcome you?

I don't know you.

How am I supposed to care?

eh.. Who is John Galt?

[size=1]Yeah, I didn't use that quite right, but you get it, Mr. Rearden, I'm sure. [/size]

you should be warned that masturbation, penises, ducks and various other odd things get discussed here a lot. Not really sure why. Just look around. Your bound to find something you like.

and welcome

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]masturbation, penises, ducks...[/QUOTE]

Oh my. If Chuck had written the Wizard of Oz??

You and your little dog, too.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]
You and your little dog, too.[/QUOTE]

Step back lady, he bites.

huh
stowell.

welome!

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Oh my. If Chuck had written the Wizard of Oz??

[/QUOTE]

it would be the coolest book ever.
also- i have no idea what you meant by that.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]it would be the coolest book ever.
also- i have no idea what you meant by that.[/QUOTE]

Dorothy, the Scarcrow, and the Tin Woodsman, arms linked, stalking through the darkening woods chanting "Masturbation, Penises, and Ducks! Oh, my!"

A duck waddles onto the yellow brick road....

And so I befoul one of the beloved stories of my childhood...but it was worth it.

hah! I get it now. thats funny.

[QUOTE=reardensteel]y writing has been rather dead since I was forced to leave college a few weeks ago[/QUOTE]

So whatcha do?

And welcome from abroad.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy]Step back lady, he bites.[/QUOTE]

You know, Vig, I was thinking of you...she said, her voice muffled by the attack-dog training suit she wore whenever venturing into the forum. It sounded more like "u o ig i z ikig uv u." The rest is lost to screams because puppies are not creatures known to tolerate muffled enunciation.

did we scare him off already?

if he's a bokonist then maybe chuck is the kan-kan that brought him to this karass. what memories for mud to have!

Welcome to the cult man.

he has the word steel in his name, I like that.

also yo.

does anyone even get the literary reference in his user name or is it just me?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]does anyone even get the literary reference in his user name or is it just me?[/QUOTE]

why don't you lay it on us, smartguy.

[QUOTE=snuffy]why don't you lay it on us, smartguy.[/QUOTE]
Readen Steel, developed by Hank Rearden in [U]Atlas Shrugged [/U] by Ayn Rand....

Hence my previous allusion, "Who is John Galt?" That's one of the themes in Atlas Shrugged...

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Readen Steel, developed by Hank Rearden in [U]Atlas Shrugged [/U] by Ayn Rand....

Hence my previous allusion, "Who is John Galt?" That's one of the themes in Atlas Shrugged...[/QUOTE]

cool.

Hi and welcome. Have fun and good luck with your writing.

Oh, and please post a photo of your corpse after we turn you into a kickass Frankenstein. I just hope you're not a 7-1/2-foot long, 54-inch wide gorilla we're putting an abby normal brain into.

[QUOTE=snuffy]cool.[/QUOTE]
you know it is, now if he'd only show up again and actually converse with us.. that would be super cool.

Hello. Don't be one of those new people that just introduce themselves and we give our number too but then you never call and we start to wonder if it was something we did or maybe something we said. Hopefully its just that you're busy or maybe that you died. I hope its not the letter...sort of.

Yeah...sort of.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again: Cultify, Cultify !

[QUOTE=JKabol]Ive said it before, Ill say it again: Cultify, Cultify ![/QUOTE]

speaking of which, i'm getting ready to submit, myself. I suppose the brass has to follow all the rules, too, huh?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Readen Steel, developed by Hank Rearden in [U]Atlas Shrugged [/U] by Ayn Rand....

Hence my previous allusion, "Who is John Galt?" That's one of the themes in Atlas Shrugged...[/QUOTE]

ayn rand was an evil bitch. but fountainhead was still a pretty decent book.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]ayn rand was an evil bitch. but fountainhead was still a pretty decent book.[/QUOTE]

never read anything by ayn rand, nor do i know anything about (her?). why was ayn rand evil?

To clarify, Ayn Rand is evil. But her books are amazing, I loved Atlas Shrugged. Good pickup on the screen name, I didn't really know what else to choose.

Sorry it took me a long ass time to look back on this forum, im just trying to learn the navigation skills needed for this website. Lots of stuff to read and look at.

Yay for stimulation

dammit! why is she evil!

shes just one of those gals.

She does push an awesome philosophy in her novels tho...Its all about being selfish and almost monomaniacal to achieve one's goals, almost to the point of denying any religion. Whereas some people would thank 'God' for blessing them with say, the ability to score 20 pts a game, Ayn Rand would say 'fuck that' and recommend you show confidence, and accept the fact that you own.

Its really good stuff.
(read it plz)

Yeah, she's evil.

I think her philosphy is good to a certain point as well, but it breaks down when you psuh it to it's limits. This is most visible in Anthem I think. [I](snuffy, read this one if you want a glimpse into her philosophy. It reads in about an hour or two, unlike Atlas Shrugged, which is three novels in one)[/I]

I think the sense of ego is good to a certain end and oculd be useful for many people, but if the entire world were comprised of the type of character this produces in a person, it would be a hell of a place. It'd literally be every man woman and child for themselves.

I think ego has a place for sure, but it can't become the end and the means, which is how it ocmes across in AS.

Shall we discuss further? I'd love to.

Ahhh thats the easy way out.

I think she makes a great point. I say our society is already structured to provide for her philosophy, may the best man win. But like you said, if everyone were to adopt this hulking ego then it wouldn't be a very friendly place to live at all.

Moderation, in all things, is necessary. I am just trying to say that too often people lose sight of what they really want to please the better of some foreign entity. In the end, it all boils down to you. For example, in The Fountainhead, Roark never looses sight of his ultimate goal. It costs him his job, reputation, and more but in the end it pays off. He embodies Rand's hero- the one who says fuck the world. In this manner the ego creates the individual, which is something our society is in need of.

For example, turn on MTV. Music that makes it these days is basically just a few variables changed arbitrarily and pumped through an equation. Take one part hot chick, one part wealthy family, one part image department responsible for selecting target audience and viola- $$$$ and success. The people that say FUCK this cold equation are the ones she is writing about. The people that do what they want, no matter what anyone thinks of it. The people that never lose sight, even if it means losing face. The people that are truly passionate. They are the purveyors of Rand's philosophy- they are Rand's heroes. Sometimes such an ego has to be created, sometimes it doesn't. But I say hell yea, and more power to those who love something.

[QUOTE=reardensteel]Ahhh thats the easy way out.

I think she makes a great point. I say our society is already structured to provide for her philosophy, may the best man win. But like you said, if everyone were to adopt this hulking ego then it wouldn't be a very friendly place to live at all.

Moderation, in all things, is necessary. I am just trying to say that too often people lose sight of what they really want to please the better of some foreign entity. In the end, it all boils down to you. For example, in The Fountainhead, Roark never looses sight of his ultimate goal. It costs him his job, reputation, and more but in the end it pays off. He embodies Rand's hero- the one who says fuck the world. In this manner the ego creates the individual, which is something our society is in need of.

For example, turn on MTV. Music that makes it these days is basically just a few variables changed arbitrarily and pumped through an equation. Take one part hot chick, one part wealthy family, one part image department responsible for selecting target audience and viola- $$$$ and success. The people that say FUCK this cold equation are the ones she is writing about. The people that do what they want, no matter what anyone thinks of it. The people that never lose sight, even if it means losing face. The people that are truly passionate. They are the purveyors of Rand's philosophy- they are Rand's heroes. Sometimes such an ego has to be created, sometimes it doesn't. But I say hell yea, and more power to those who love something.[/QUOTE]
Well put indeed.

I agree, especially here "In this manner the ego creates the individual, which is something our society is in need of."

Please don't leave the Cult, engaging discourse is in short supply lately.

Leave the cult?

This is one of the best things in which I have invested time in a long time. You guys are stuck with me.

[I]
(muahaha)[/I]

RIP Mitch Hedberg also, that guy tore me up.

[QUOTE=reardensteel]Ahhh thats the easy way out.

I think she makes a great point. I say our society is already structured to provide for her philosophy, may the best man win. But like you said, if everyone were to adopt this hulking ego then it wouldn't be a very friendly place to live at all.

Moderation, in all things, is necessary. I am just trying to say that too often people lose sight of what they really want to please the better of some foreign entity. In the end, it all boils down to you. For example, in The Fountainhead, Roark never looses sight of his ultimate goal. It costs him his job, reputation, and more but in the end it pays off. He embodies Rand's hero- the one who says fuck the world. In this manner the ego creates the individual, which is something our society is in need of.

For example, turn on MTV. Music that makes it these days is basically just a few variables changed arbitrarily and pumped through an equation. Take one part hot chick, one part wealthy family, one part image department responsible for selecting target audience and viola- $$$$ and success. The people that say FUCK this cold equation are the ones she is writing about. The people that do what they want, no matter what anyone thinks of it. The people that never lose sight, even if it means losing face. The people that are truly passionate. They are the purveyors of Rand's philosophy- they are Rand's heroes. Sometimes such an ego has to be created, sometimes it doesn't. But I say hell yea, and more power to those who love something.[/QUOTE]

Anthem is the only one I got all the way through. And yes, ego is important, but what I didn't like was while she was describing a philosophy that said look out for yourself and ONLY yourself or you will sucuimb to the masses, even the character in her book didn't live that out. He fell in love. He went back for someone else and took care of her. Love doesn't have a place at all in her philosophy. You can't put yourself first when you love someone.

I like to interpret her ideals a little less brashly, without these completes you seem to be throwing out. She isn't insane; she doesn't want everyone to be Ahab. Just more Ahabbish. (new word?)

Take Dagny and Rearden in [I]Atlas Shrugged[/I]- which I highly recommend. All he cares about is his steel. All she cares about is her rail. But together they recognize the beauty of their plight. The admiration- the love- abounds from respect but matures with contact. You are saying that love is the highest calling, and therefore negates anything else? What kind of love ignores passion? What love worth anything denies dedication? What is love without respect for the individual's ego? Passion and love brood from one another.

What’s more are the characters you are bringing up find their higher calling to be love. There are degrees to any undertaking, don't think that Van Halen or Ahab or Hitler didn't have love. (yes I know one of the three is a fictional character)

Caring primarily for yourself does not deny a certain degree of health awareness just as it does not deny love. I think that people need love, and inherent within her philosophy is a vein for such. Just because you put yourself first does not mean there is no room for others. Sometimes doing what’s best for yourself means finding someone you truly love, sometimes love can run parallel.

Food for thought (chew).

And also....

Ayn Rand writes:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

She is saying that 'man' must exist without crutch. Man must not expect the help of others but give help if it makes him happy. Give love if it makes him happy. Kind of a "no sacrifice given none taken" type thing.

"The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

I guess it is just objectivism....but I am genuinly enthused by it. I say, more power to the people who don't let things stand in their way.

smash it all down.

First, I never said love is the highest calling. But let me think about it. Maybe I do believe that. I don't know yet.

I think her philosophy is just selfish to the core. I mean, if she was writing in an extreme to help people see that just following blindly is stupid, that would be fine. but she really did believe "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." So what happens when one person's happiness depends on the demise of another's?

Ultimately hedr theory breaks down. People NEED each other. And to give of yourself only when you get something in return is selfish and what happens when you are the person that needs something? Mother Theresa was a model of selfless giving. And yes, it made her happy. But she didn't do it because it made her happy. She was happy because she did it selflessly. There's a difference.

I think, Reardensteel, your ideas are well thought out with regards to Hank and Dagny, but the vital thing I look for in love (and so do many, I fancy) is putting the other before yourself. This, however, contradicts objectivism jut a bit. But I think it works when done properly and can still maintain the essence of the importance of ego without being overpowering.

I am able to put the one I love before myself because of the mutual respect we have for each other and the realization that we are intended to act as one, at which point Rands philosophy begins to work again. "We" instead of "she and I" are able then to put "Us" first, in that sense. We can also be proud of each other as individuals, but are always on the guard for the other person as well. Those we love can have the respect they deserve while I still get the respect I deserve, without necessarily putting myself as an individual first.

Or in other words, I'm looking out for the one I love as part of my life. A very important part of my life. Rand would tend to say that self is the most important, but then how can there really be anything more than love based on respect. I think love can be much deeper than that, and at the same time I believe that respect is the foundation of what love should be.

Respect is also an element greatly lacking in the way our culture views love. We are indeed quite selfish when it comes to love. We consider how a relationship will work to our advantage or happiness without any consideration for how we can make the other person happy, or if we are at all.

I wish I could write more, but I gotta head out for the night.

[I]To be continued...[/I]

First, sorry, but I feel as though you implied as such, and would have guessed you thought it anyway.

What if a person’s happiness depends on the demise of another? If it is the sole factor for moral happiness, and I do use the word moral, then hell yea. Kill the motherfucker. You must have a godly reason if it is the sole purpose of your life, but if it is the only thing in this world that will make you truly happiest then I’m all for it. Does that make me a maniac? Maybe….

If your #1 thing is say, rape. And you rape and rape and love your life, it is your own responsibility to understand the ramifications of that path. If nothing can make you happier than rape, that sucks but hey, that’s you.

Her theory does not break down, in fact it holds strong. What’s to say the ultimate aim for someone isn’t doing things for others? Mother Teresa’s gig was helping people. She was happy because she did it selflessly; you are trying to tell me her ego wasn’t satisfied by this? She did what made her happy and sacrificed her own self in the process, is not that the ultimate objectivity? Is she not a perfect model for Rand’s philosophy?

You are being too narrow-minded here… Doing whatever it takes to achieve your own perfect happiness does not forsake the idea of helping others, and it does not deny love.

People NEED each other, sure. Although that is a somewhat inconclusive statement, I’ll respond again by saying her philosophy means being an engine for yourself, not sapping from the basin of others. If being alone all your life is what makes you happy then that’s what you should do. However, not many people are like this (as you noted). Thus, we are left with the option of deciding what it is we truly love. This is human nature at its best. To give selflessly might be your thing, or it might be making porno. Whatever it is, you can’t let preoccupations and frivolous constructs deny you. Moreover, this does not deny love or compassion but is actually a PART of these things in the aspect that if you do what you really love then happiness will fill you. These things are inherently intertwined with compassion towards others….one will sprout from the other most likely.

Let me put you in my freshmen year. I came out of Maine riding a full scholarship to The University of Vermont. I came from a small school, mostly boys. I had never touched an ounce of booze or a gram of any drug in my life. All I wanted was to go pre-med all the way, and I still entertain dreams of working in the medical field. But it didn’t take long for me to notice the girls. It didn’t take long for the drugs and the booze to start in. I lost sight of my goal; I let things which made me more immediately happy take over. I became something I had always hated, I became a loser. But in this I found comfort. In the drugs I had found an escape from my feelings of homesickness, of longing. I was accepted by a clan of people whose nucleus was getting messed up; a myriad arrangement of cynics, pot heads, and defeatists. I ate up their philosophy and became a part of something that would inevitably lead to my dismissal from college, diagnosis of acute depression, and prescriptions of medications thereof.

If only, IF ONLY I hadn’t lost sight of what really mattered I would be in much better spirits today. But this is not to say that I wouldn’t have made friends, wouldn’t have had sex, and wouldn’t have helped others. I just couldn’t be strong to see what would make me ultimately happy. Instead I turned to what felt good.

This is what Rand loathes. I take from her philosophy dedication. And I do not believe that it denies love. The world needs more selfish people, they get things done. They live how they want to live. So, I say inflate your ego if it helps you get where you want to be. The world is yours, and you can take it without being a dick.

A little long winded I have been...but basically.

Being happiest doesn't deny love. Rand doesn't say "put yourself before everyone else" she says "put your happiness before everything else". If you are a smart and sensible person, being nice should make you happy. Falling in love should make you happy. Respecting others should make you happy because you arent a bastard. Being a human being is job #1, up until now it looks as if you guys think I am forgetting that. Love and happiness go together (they are buddies). The only place where I think I follow her and not you guys is when it applies to someone who rejects other people, who rejects society. If that is what makes them feel the best, then I support them 100%.

Loving others and living with equality and respect are inherent within all of it.

have you ever looked at any of her non-fiction/philosophy stuff? thats when i decided she was evil.
she more or less says you should be an ass to anyone you dont love. i dont dig that at all.
i read fountainhead and then anthem and decided she was pretty cool. her whole thing about "you dont owe anyone anything" creeped me out a bit cuz thats not the point of being a selfless giver.
i did like her stance that we should do things the way we want, but should never force it on anyone else. At least i thought I did, until i read at [url]www.aynrand.org[/url] a terribly stupid endorsement of the invasion of iraq. Now i try to seperate myself completely from her philosophy and all of its trappings.

also - the weirdest thing happened today. yesterday, i guess it was, people started talking about the "whos john galt thing" here. then today, as i was walking to the BART station from work, i saw a car with a "who is john galt?" sticker on the bumper. I couldnt remember where i had heard that before till i got back here. coincidences are odd things.

I think it helps to understand that Ayn Rand is a product of Soviet Russia, from roughly the World War II era, up through the Cold War era. She saw the ultimate failure of socialist and communist systems that attempt to impose equality by squashing property rights and treating people like herd animals that should be blindly loyal to the state.

Rand latched on to the American Dream, that long-lived if sleepy notion of rugged individualism and relentless pursuit of a personal dream -- within a free society -- as the key to all happiness.

On the question of Love: Yes, it's built right into the equation. Romantic Love in particular (as opposed to Agape, or spiritualized love) is the Jewel in the Crown of Capitalism. It's an essential thread within the fabric of the myth we are all living out on some level. The myth tells us that we live in a free society and therefore we get to choose who we mate with. Marriage is no longer arranged by parents or tribal elders, it's a personal choice. Within the myth of Capitalism and the American Dream, the basic accomplishment for a man is to cut his own weight as a producer of economic value, and from this accomplishment, to carry the stature of a man who can choose any woman he wants. His supreme accomplishment is to use this stature to marry and mate with a woman of good social breeding and high character, who loves him for the particular man he is and who bears his healthy children.

Rand bought the American Dream but discovered that not enough Americans did. She saw something of the extent to which we have re-created socialist oppression in our country, with taxation and regulation from the government and the forces of organized religion marshalling together to bring comfort to the meager and unambitious, while straping down the true producers, reviling them as evil, and milking their vitality for the sake of the herd.

The Myth of Capitalism is not a Lie, it's just the story we are living in. It's not a perfect story. It has a dark side.

Rand's reading of unrestrained Capitalism as the ultimate good is naive in the extreme. It's a reaction borne out of her resentment of bread lines in Russia. It's understandable and forgivable, but not the soundest system of philosophy.

Calling her own philosophy "Objectivism" is arrogant in the extreme. Rand believes in "objective values" and seems to posit herself as the one person objective enough to know the true value of all things. One thing for sure in a Capitalist society, the Value of all things is bought and sold daily and the dollar amounts are constantly changing. Values are subjectively assigned and collectively bargained on.

"Collectivism" is the one thing Ayn Rand hates above all else. This is any system of top down, mimetic control--secular or religious--that tells you your own ultimate value is in the sacrifice of yourself to others. I think it's healthy to have a reasonable distrust of ALL the big stories that tell us the BEST way to live. But I don't think Rand has the last or best word on it.

There is a much more eloquent expression of the most important themes in Rand's work in the works of Nietzsche, who was easily twice as smart as Ayn Rand and never claimed to have the "objective" truth of all values neatly summed up.

And all of it is prefigured in the Greeks. Read Epicurus on Rational Self-Interest and the value of Friendship.

VP

"There is a much more eloquent expression of the most important themes in Rand's work in the works of Nietzsche, who was easily twice as smart as Ayn Rand and never claimed to have the "objective" truth of all values neatly summed up."

Amen to that.

I'm just trying to defend her. I guess I am a little out numbered here. Im not saying she is perfect, I just like her writing, and I most def respect her philosophy, for what it is worth. Being a product of that era does a lot to explain her bullheadedness...but I just cant help but love her gall.

Thanks for the amazing convo, lots to think about.
Goodnight.

"I just cant help but love her gall." R.S.

Yeah, I can appreciate it too. The lady had some attitude. And she's always got an enclave of loyal followers, a cult of her own, one place or another; mostly 20-somethings and self-styled libertarians. Nothing wrong with that. I think that as you read more and experience more--keeping an outside frame on Rand's philosophy--there comes a point where you might not want the whole package.... a point where it looks like fascism and oligarchy are the logical entailments of her system of thinking. Ugly stuff. But you can take the parts that are useful for you and move forward.

I really like what you had to say about losing your goals and your sense of purpose, getting derailed by the lure of easy pleasures, the wrong set of friends, etc. and [B]needing an antidote[/B] to that. If you use Rand's philosophy as part of your toolkit for keeping a refined sense of purpose in your life... that's a [B][i]great[/i][/B] use for it. Even if you're just tapping into her "gall" or her idealistic spirit to reconstitute your own attitudes, strengthen the ego, regain your purposes....nothing wrong with that at all. Much better than fatalism.

And I didn't mean to bust your balls before saying, Welcome to the Cult!

VP

P.S. No, wait! Actually, I [i]did[/i] mean to bust your balls first!! But don't take it personally.

PPS You are the lucky recipient of my TWO THOUSANDETH post. And it's taken me a long, long time to get here, being very selective about the conversations I join and generally having other work to do.