RoR: Forum

Post 40

Monday, March 3, 2003 - 11:07am

Link

Edit

Hehe! No thanks Philippe, I already asked Sciabarra if he could arrange to have me immersed in a kids pool at his local Greek Orthodox Church in Brooklyn (Did you see 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'?). You see, more than one baptism in a month might confuse the authorities. To make one conversion of this kind may be regarded as a misfortune, to commit to two such coversions seems like carelessness. :)

Post 41

Monday, March 3, 2003 - 12:01pm

Link

Edit

Philippe,

I copied this paragraph from one of your comments above:

"Wilde was far more reckless and naive than Rand, if you ask me. Besides, he was totally UN-philosophical. His essay on Socialism demontrates this. He makes us laugh in large part because he indulges in very amusing contradictions, which are the base of his humor. Yet because of this he could or would not think philosophically, since philosophy requires the elimination of contradition in favor of systematic thought. It makes you lose your talent for humor and perhaps fiction writing in general. (This explains in large part why Rand gradually abandoned fiction as she became more philosophical). Wilde prefered to keep fiction as his means of expression. Rand I do think is above all an artist. She basically admits that she writes on politics and philosophy out of necessity more than joy."

I wanted to let you know that I disagree with the notion that Wilde was "un-philosophical" as I disagree with the idea that thinking philosophically necessitates the loss of humor. Not at all, the loss of humor in life points toward the loss of the inner child and the ability to laugh in the face of life's great tragedies. Why must a philosopher give up humor? I suppose if you want to be a pure philosopher and go and live in some sealed off environment all of your life with little or no contact with the outside world, then you might become a stone-faced humourless person and the butt of men's jokes. But that is not what an Objectivist claims to want. Isn't the essence of JOY to be able to smile triumphantly in the face of sorrow? I don't think that Wilde was cynical at all. I think he loved paradox and played with language as much as he could.

I was watching the commentary of the movie "Wilde" and one of the commentators made an observation about Wilde's realism. Instead of asking for a glass of white wine he would ask for the "yellow wine". Why, because white wine is actually yellow, not white.:) It is little things like this that are trivial, but nevertheless show how his mind operated. According to W.B. Yeats, once when Wilde showed up at a London salon with a host of his admirers, he asked the astonished butler for a table for seven.:)

I know these are humorous observations, but they say a lot about the way Wilde thought. He was early in his life a great scholar and thinker. He wanted to synthesize the learning of his age and bridge the gulf that divides the scientific and the artistic. His sense of personal liberty was at odds with the social ethos of Victorianism and in the end he lost. I am not concerned with the idea of presenting Wilde as a great systematic thinker in the tradition of Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas. I simply want to demonstrate how he was not devoid of deep insight. I also want to present Wilde as an aesthetician (not an aesthete) who had more on his mind that sunflowers and blue china and playing the role of gay martyr for contemporary gay men. I think that he was in some senses a visionary and a millenarian. So was Rand. She identified herself as a bridge between the nineteenth century and the twentieth centuries (in art), and Wilde saw himself as standing in symbolic relations to the thought and art of his time. You yourself seem somewhat committed to this thesis by presenting Rand as a mystical thinker. What do you say?

Post 42

Monday, March 3, 2003 - 4:00pm

Link

Edit

Okay no dunking, but then you can't be fully enlightened...

About Wilde, well; I do like him very much and I am in general agreement with what you say about him. I do agree (how can anyone deny it?) that he was an extremely well cultivated man. But systematic thinking is not rooted in that kind of cultivation or any kind actually, it is a special gift. There is a good quote that Paterson got from Averroes and that she used (in a letter) to describe Rand, something like this "blessed is he who is gifted with a philosophical mind." You gently say that you are "not concerned with presenting him (Wilde) as a great systematic thinker." You are very polite. I simply say he was un-philosophical and I think I mean the same thing that you mean. Certainly you would not say that one actually can present him as a systematic thinker if one chooses to do so? Or would you? I do love Wilde but he loses a lot of points with me when he tries to speak seriously in essays like the one on socialism. I can only conclude that his brain was quite un-systematic and therefore un-philosophical. But this is not a crime, one is NOT required to be a systematic thinker to be great, one is merely required to know when one should be quiet or if one must speak then one can write another funny play.

I would like to see a philosopher (a great systematic thinker) with the gift for light humor IN THE CONTEXT OF FICTION in the Wilde style. Philosophy does have a lot of humor and in fact I think that Rand is one of the funniest writers I have ever read. I would even say she probably is THE FUNNIEST, especially in her non-fiction. I was careless in saying that there is a loss of humor with the growth of philosophy. What I really meant is that there is a loss of the talent for comedic fiction. The two seem to be incompatible or very rare. But I would be happy to investigate further. For example, Rand gradually stopped writing fiction as she developed philosophically.

Yes Rand was a mystic in the exact sense of that term. Furthermore she was a mystic in the Jewish tradition of mysticism. You even saw her God so you have the proof. Now, do you know why that God is kept in the closet? There is a skeleton in that closet along with the God. Have you discovered it yet?

Post 43

Monday, March 3, 2003 - 10:27pm

Link

Edit

Hi Philippe!

On December 13, 2002, you wrote:

"Both history and Rand's individuality have to be adressed nonetheless, but they can only become fertile if a THIRD element is introduced, and this is the KEY to the whole problem. What is the THIRD element? Let's see if the "dialectical method" will help you. I will write tomorrow about the third element, I wanted to say it tonight but now I have said enough. Don't write a long answer to the above, just send short guess about the third element and I will see what it is. One word will suffice--this is a clue. I will tell you the answer no matter what tomorrow morning."

Again today you wrote:

"Yes Rand was a mystic in the exact sense of that term. Furthermore she was a mystic in the Jewish tradition of mysticism. You even saw her God so you have the proof. Now, do you know why that God is kept in the closet? There is a skeleton in that closet along with the God. Have you discovered it yet?"

Okay. Let us see. The third element, taking your hint of the dialectics, could you be referring to relationality or contextuality? Or in Ouspensky's language, the "neutralizing" force? Or do you just mean synthesis?

I am getting quite confused with all of these words, but they all indicate the third element, a tertium quid. I suppose Objectivism would call this "Identity" or perhaps borrowing from Scholasticism, "intentionality" (the idea that awareness is relational or contextual).

Didn't Hegel call the third element "Aufhebung"? That would be sublation, negation, or anullment. But Ouspensky says "neutralizing". I don't know, maybe I am far out at sea with no lighthouse in view.

Hehehe! I felt, "Shit, if I guess it right the Gods from Olympus will strike me with a lightening bolt, or like Old Simeon upon seeing the face of the Divine Child, I would say the Nunc Dimittis and keel over!!"

Post 44

Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 5:56am

Link

Edit

The mysticism of Rand and the third element are not related--as far as I can see anyway.

But going back to the Trinity let's first establish what we take as our Purpose and also what we take as element 1 and 2.

Say 1 is the individuality of Rand, 2 is her history (the history of her genes included). In this case 1 would be what she is fundamentally, her Self. Following Objectivist Epistemology, this is axiomatic. 2 would be what she is metaphysically given and socially given, both her body, including brain capacity, and her environment.

1 and 2 we get an idea of from reading all of her works and all the standard biographic research, but where do we get 3 from?

Now the first step in finding the 3rd element is to establish what the Purpose is. So what is it? Yo have to tell me.

You cannot simply find a word, like "neutralizing force," besides if you read Ouspensky carefully you see that in his system all the forces can shift, so that the neutral element (say our 3rd element) becomes the 1st element in the next sequence, the next triad. Father-Mother-Son. The Son, which is the "neutralising," later is also in his turn "Father" in the next triad. So anyway we are not dealing here with the search for a word from some philosopher.

Post 45

Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 9:06pm

Link

Edit

Greetings!

That is correct Philippe, that we are not dealing with the word(s) of some given philosopher(s) because one's work is always one's own work, the voice of an individual, this I. That being established, we can understand the true nature and structure of power and influence. Right? Well isn't that where we started this?

I am now going to draw from James Hillman's insights in his book "Kinds of Power: A Guide to its Intelligent Use". There is a chapter on "Influence" from which I will quote a piece. First he talks about influence in the general way of speaking, "infiltrating into others by means of propaganda, punishment and rewards" etc. Then he turns to speak of another type of influence.

"Another idea of influence is far less active. We can be influential simply by holding fast to a position, to principles, to a way of being that everything around must take into account. No longer is it a question whether your influence is good or bad, but rather a matter of influencing all events simply by your presence as things flow around, through and by you. It is like a rock in a riverbed. The rock does not move, yet it influences the course of the river. The river must take it into account-go around it, over it, speed up, slow down, because of the stubborn presence of the stone. The stone doesn't manipulate the river, or convince it to share its ideology. It has no control over what happens. It merely says: I'm here too." (141-2)

I like that last statement especially, "I'm here too". It's not quite as forceful as Rand's "This God, I" but nevertheless it is to the point. A little later, Hillman quotes Henry Adams (1838-1918) who said "susceptibility to the highest forces is the highest genius". (142) There goes a good statement on the essential ingredients for a good recipe of mind, and chose your forces well!! Now all of this encompasses what you have said about the nature of influence above, particularly in the light of the "Son", the "me", the individual who captures and delivers the 3rd element. The third element can only be the "me", my own individuality that has consciously chosen to submit to the influence, but that also in turn becomes the influence, the rock in Hillman's riverbed.

You might have thought I was joking about the Nunc Dimittis above, but I was dead serious (in the sense of the personal archetypal concept of self and time)! Relating it to your Father-Mother-Son, (which I do not interpret in the literal but in figurative, I hope no one else does either) I will quote the Latin "senex puerum":

"Senex puerum portabat, puer autem senem regebat: quem Virgo peperit, et post partum Virgo permansit: Ipsum quem genuit, adoravit"

The idea is the same in terms of relationship with the third element, the metaphorical Son becoming the individual, the "I", the King! Cool! That's about as close as I'll ever get to becoming royalty:)

Philippe I am very appreciative of your insights into the nature of power and influence, particularly with regard to the way in which you highlight the individual as the third element. I really appreciate the care you take to reveal your ideas, although the method sometimes (whew) exhausts me:-) How much do I owe you now? hehe I am afraid all I will be able to give you right now is a new cotton turban, the which I promise, will not have a Maytag label attached:)

Post 46

Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 9:29pm

Link

Edit

Oh Philippe, BTW, my quote, the senex puerum, came from an Anglican Choral Evensong sheet:) That's about as close as I'll come to the Bible, via the Church of the Atheists (ahem, Anglicans).

Post 47

Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 6:53pm

Link

Edit

Yes, now you see. The quotes you bring up fit in very nicely too. Especialy Hillman. But look how difficult it is to see, to FEEL, TO REALLY SEE deep down the face of individualism even if you "know" it intellectually. Do you think dialectics helped? I am glad you appreciate my method despit its "exhausting' nature and I do need a new turban to go to the Ashram and the Vodoo temple. But now try to see why it was so difficult to bring a seasoned Rand scholar like yourself to the place (the unveiled face) of individualism and the God chez Rand. You see there is truth to the Platonic myth of the cave and even if "Truth is like the door in the proverb that one can hardly fail to miss," as Ari says, I have to conclude that one can actually bang oneself against the door and still not see it or feel it. Or would it be that one sees it but one does not comprehend its existence until one of the 2x4's hits you on the head?

Anyway I think there is a last (important) issue at hand. Why is the Rand God hidden? Or is it? And what to make of those who argue against the existence of God using (among other things) the idea that God is not a concept? Like George Smith. You know, the argument that runs--God is not a concept therefore He does not exist. As if, in order to exist, He could not simply Be, but had to be a concept too. Could you, do you exist without being a concept?