As Landon Erp pointed out: "Keep reading" and implied: "Shut up" After a while I started to see the point of his advice, hence there were no more posts since they I kept changing my mind over and over.

This is the most amazing book I have ever read by far. Funny thing is that there was a lot that I already believed but to have it translated in words so eloquently helped to improve contrast in see things clearer. If seems it is written yesterday as I hear lines from the book spoken by politicians in the news daily!

It was great to have Rand's philosophy presented in a novel format but at times I found the novel to get in the way and at other times the philosophy got in the way of the novel.

For example the description of life in the Galts Gultch made me cringe. It seemed like a sweetened version of Heidi in the alps. Galts radio speech was ridiculous. If anyone makes a 3 hour speech using that language you'd have lost your audience in 30 seconds as he did lose me. I have yet to return to those pages of repeated waffle as I do want to take it all in. I suppose it is the same reason I gave up on the essay's from Rand.

Yet, I read about objectivism now but how to practise it? How to be true to it. I found many passages in the book where the interaction and dialog between the main characters was rather complex and often my initial gut feel reaction was proven wrong after I had time to think about the reaction of the character involved.

A tremendous amount of intellectual effort seemed to go into the interaction between the main characters and at times they were intellectually way ahead of me. So, is Objectivism only for those with fast razor sharp logic on tap? The ability to think things through right to the end before even opening their mouth? Damn, I get bored when I have to think beyond two moves on a chessboard. I hate chess.

I could not help to try to associate myself with one of the characters. Testing myself. Where do I fit in the picture. Am I a Jim Taggart or a Cuffy Meighs? Am I a Hank Rearden or a Orren Boyle? In the end I think I could associate best with poor old Eddie Willer. Smart enough to see what's wrong. Trustworthy to the end. Faithful like a dog but yet missing out when everyone moves back into the valley. I suppose he failed to rely on his own mind and relied too much on Dagny's.

I have a lot of thinking to do but first I have another attempt to chew through the bombastic 3 hour radio speech from God John Galt.

Things to do:

Review my "As good as it get's" article. I am not so sure about that anymore.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Thanks for the link! Non-fission small reactors? It's still not nuclear-powered vacuum-cleaners like prophesied in the 1950s, but damn that is cool and I hope it takes off!

That was a truly amazing link!! How flippin' cool is that?! That has to be the invention of the millennium so far!!

As reported on Slashdot "Toshiba has developed a new class of
micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs."

Dagny thinks she found this special electrical motor. It could change the world. I don't know. didn't get that far in the book yet so I wonder where this goes.

In the real world, a world changing invention can be much less spectacular.

As I mentioned in another thread. Our dependency of oil is a huge factor shaping today's western world.

What if we could break away from oil imports from the middle east?

What if we could change our habits just a little and use vehicles better suited to specific tasks?

I monitor technical progress on battery technology very closely because it will become our next oil. Electrical energy is a great universal format of energy and much more versatile than petrol.

This week a possible breakthrough in battery technology was announced. Thanks to nano technology Lithium Ion batteries may increase their capacities ten fold.

It suddenly means electrical vehicles are easy (Look at this guy ). It means that decentralised energy generation and storage becomes viable. It means increased efficiency of our current electricity generators. It means that other energy formats such as oil will shift to electricity. Increased demand for electricity will force NZ to look at nuclear power while the little guy will have practical ways to generate his own power in which ever way he chooses.

But above all it means that the political and economical climate in the world will shift in a dramatic way.

All it could take is this new kind of battery. Isn't that cool!

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

If you click on your name (or My account in the right section of the site) and click on 'Track' you can see the comments and other content that you have created. example

Wm

Excellent Paul.

(I know that 'jaded' feeling and how Atlas Shrugged can inspire, indeed, I think it well past time I re-read it: if only I could remember the friend I loaned my copy to about two or three years ago and who has not given the damned thing back. I keep lists now. Guess it's to Amazon for me.)

Does anyone have information on when the movie is due out? 

There is nothing more inspiring than to see sparks of thought catch fire. Well done, sir -- keep going!

Jennifer

P.S. The John Galt Line scene always gives me shivers.

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Well, they made it. The first trip on the John Galt line is complete. The train ride was awesome but the sex afterwards was pretty hot too.

Today I came to an important realisation thanks to this book. Since I was a kid, I have always worked very hard and I always gave things my best shot. But as an employee I didn't fare too well. I have always been able to sell my services in the IT industry. The problem was, that my jobs never lasted much more than a year or so.

Every time, after about one year in the job I became frustrated because every time I was pulled back by my peers and managers. For me the highest goal was to do the best possible job and offer the best possible solution to what ever challenge came along. I Never cared much for maintaining inter office relationships and went all guns blazing in meetings when I was convinced of me being right. It never paid off. The solutions were often accepted after lesser ones failed but I was always passed whenever a promotion opportunity arose because I was not so good with the staff. Appreciation always went to my manager rather than me.

Then about 5 years ago I finally learned how important it was to look after my peers and manager. I learned to shift focus from my work to relationships. I learned to make sure people would like me. The weirdest thing was that although my productivity dropped, I was appreciated a lot more. Things were easier and I felt a lot less stress. I lasted 4 years in that job which is a record for me.

But... my productivity kept dropping and I have reached the point where I actually can't be bothered to do any work at all! I have gotten really good at making a little look like a lot and am astonished on a daily basis that nobody sees this and no-one cares.

Today, I had a discussion with my wife about "Atlas shrugged" and told her about the virtue of mans productivity and how it never worked for me. Instead, my way of appeasing my managers was more effective. After a few minutes pondering this discrepancy between the book and my experience it finally hit me...

I allowed myself being pulled back into the masses. I have betrayed my real desire for excellence in exchange for the easy way which as it turns out led to a very low productivity and I don't like myself while doing it.

I am supposed to write spectacular computer code that will form the core of the most amazing medical procedure simulator ever build instead if thinking up excuses why things can not be done. I deserve a huge kick up the arse and need to get back to learning and coding. My days are not counted quite yet and the younger guys may be smarter coders but not smarter solution designers.

I can make this work and that realisation hit me today. So fuck everyone and get out of my way. I have a simulator to build. Thanks Rand.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

I actually got well beyond page counting and find the book hard to put down. Last night I went "Ohhh" and "Aaahh" out loud as I read some of the statements.

Times haven't changed as much as I thought. The books seems to talk about today's society. I can see a little where emotion plays a role in objectivism as it seems to lie on a much deeper level than the instant gratification we tend to seek.

I can see how Rand managed to slip in her philosophy theories into a novel but at times it seems shoehorned in a bit.

So, I think I got past the point of no return. It seems I will eventually find out who John Galt is too.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Good Tip William. In fact I found that you can make your own custom Google search box here 

That would be nice to have on Solo because the existing search function is rather slow and limited. Of course the Google search is only good for older stuff that has been indexed by Google.  

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Dinther says:

finding stuff back on Solo is very difficult

You can use Google to hunt down things if you have key words.

Like this: "key words here and site:solopassion.com"

A bit unwieldy, but it will find the post you want.

WSS

My personal policy on quoting Rand "as Holy text" is if I reach a situation where a point is brought up that was dealt with thoroughly by Rand herself. Usually so thoroughly that any original answer I could formulate would be hopelessly derivative and referential to Rand's with me basically regurgitating her own thoughts with a different wording to prove that I didn't just "take her word as gospel." But I've been an Objectivist long enough that I no longer feel the need to prove myself that way most of the time.

I'll admit that I do see what Paul is talking about from people occaisionally, but the truth of the matter is that in many cases Rand made statements on difficult issues that are by all rights definitive. She summed it up better than anyone before or since and in such cases it's preferable to post a definitive statement then to try to formulate one yourself that will be inferior.

This doesn't mean that you haven't spent a long amount of time on careful thought on her statements, it just means you've found no one else who said it better and know that you personally couldn't improve upon the original.

So far though I'd like to say I've agreed with what Valliant has said, as well as Ross.

Though Ross, the guy's not even up to page 100, I'd hold off on the references to the Valley and Wet Nurse until later.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

"Anyway, here is Hank Rearden and the book goes on about how he feels or actually how he doesn't feel about his family. Just like Dagny Taggart he seems to have given up on emotion in favour of reason at some point in his life."

Well, that view probably is more a reflection of your sense of life than of Rand's writing.

AS is full of narrative that makes it abundantly clear what the characters are feeling and, more importantly, *why*. The relationship between Dagny and Francisco is both lovely and heartbreaking, and indeed at the other end of the scale, so it is with Hank and the Wet Nurse. The scenes in Galt's Gulch are a joyful, uplifting glimpse into a sparkling world, and I always read those chapters with a smile on my face; as you must when you ride on the Taggart diesel, over the Rearden Metal bridge to enter Ellis Wyatt's domain. Spine-tingling stuff.

All of the protagonists are in pain but they fight the agony of creeping irrationality by refusing to accept it as natural, and refusing to give in. They are heroic in the truest sense of the word. Hank's relationship with his wife, mother and brother are superb examples of the sanction of the victim, and anyone who is unable to feel for Hank's internal struggle must have led a cloistered life.

You see, Rand doesn't invoke emotion by throwing in gratuitous fluff, she does it through idea-driven action and dialogue. It's from the illumination of those ideas that she creates an emotional response in the reader.

Failing that, Atlas Shrugged is a top notch thriller with adventure and mystery in spades.

But I will be more vigilant in the future and make sure I write down the links when such posts come along.

Unfortunately the new layout prevents me from even browsing my own comment posts as I used to be able to do so finding stuff back on Solo is very difficult. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

A mere reminder that X was Rand's position doesn't do it, either. When the subsequent poster sensed the very issue you have identified and said, "take it back to reality," Gardner didn't argue. If you asked him -- and I don't know this fellow from Adam -- I suspect that he would take issue with your characterization. I need something similar to: "It's true 'cause Rand said so." I don't think that we can read much into this...

But fair enough James, there are several posts I have come across but finding them back on Solo proves one hell of a mission. On a recent thread I consider this comment to be representative.

"Take it back to Rand" By Mike Gardner

He joins in a discussion where Rands words themselves are used as the argument. I find that comment disturbing because the writer choose to quote Ayn Rands opinion rather than engage in reasoning himself. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Well, who exactly has "quoted out of Rand's books" in order to use it like a "holy text"? Please provide a citation. One will do.

If the quotation provides an argument for the reader to consider, and the quoter thinks the argument "definitive," this obviously doesn't count -- unless, of course, you deny the very possibility of sound logic and accurate conclusions.

If, however, you believe that some text is being used as a sacred and infallible revelation of dogma, let's hear it.

That's a serious charge and it needs some evidence to back it up.

Damn Mark, now you replied I can not change my stupid response anymore

So he means this credo why didn't he say so? It is not my fault I misunderstood Linz so I am not the one to blame (Yep made it to page 80 something)

But, yes Linz, I have read that. I am not ready to further a discussion about reason and emotion. I merely comment on what I pick up as I go along. James Valiant is right that it is better to read the book first but I want to remain critical towards objectivism and thought it would help by writing down a running commentary. The tone of those comments is likely to change as I read more.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

The Credo to this site. On this screen, above and to your right

I have a centennial edition (Blue and white cover). There is no credo and no link to it on any of the pages. The way Rand writes, I doubt if I make it through a single paragraph. In fact I skipped the introduction for the same reason. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

The book has been recommended strongly by various solo members who's opinion I value. The little I know of objectivist philosiphy appeals to me and I hope to use it better to justify or determine my position on various political issues.

I have no idea if reading Rand accomplishes anything. I don't like it how some people use quotes out of Rand's books as definitive arguments. That to me is as scary as quoting any of the "holy" books.

But as I said, the suggestion is made that the words of Rand might bring things into perspective and so I give it a go.  

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Did you even bother reading the Credo yet? In the blue strip at the top of every page here. The link that says Credo.

dinther,

What is your purpose in reading Atlas Shrugged? What are you trying to accomplish?

Rand denies any dichotomy between reason and emotion, Paul. Her work is consistent with, well... "passion." Her ideas on this topic are nothing short of revolutionary.

You might want to hold off on commentary until you have the whole thing to consider.

I'm just about ready for my second go-round with Atlas Shrugged. My first reading was difficult, and done before I met any online Objectivists. This time I have the ARI companion CD to go along.

Good luck with yer slog, Dinther. Hang in there, it's only 6,000 pages.

WSS

I agree with the assessments that this book takes about 200 pages to get going (granted on Subsequent reads I've enjoyed those first 200 or so pages more).

But the comment you're making now is akin to when sometimes I hear people complain about how much more of an ideal Peter Keating looks like in the Fountainhead than Roark.

Basically I'm going to use an example I hope you get to make my point. Your point sounds like someone who only watched the first 20 minutes of Psycho asking how Janet Leigh's character manages to avoid capture after leaving the Bates motel.

Basiacally my only response is "Keep reading."

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

As I said, I comment on the book as I work through it. It is a slow read but I don't have heaps of time either. I made it to page 47 only. (Normally I can work my way through 2 or 3 books a week)

Anyway, here is Hank Rearden and the book goes on about how he feels or actually how he doesn't feel about his family. Just like Dagny Taggart he seems to have given up on emotion in favour of reason at some point in his life.

Often I find the same emotion dismissive cold analytical reasoning on Solo. So the question raises in my mind. Is emotion and objectivism incompatible? Anyway, the book isn't that bad to read so maybe I find out. Hank is about to give $10.000 to I think his brother and I am sure it will somehow bite him in the ass.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Right. Rand's psychological depths are similar to what you find in Dostoevsky, only presenting a much, much healthier view of humanity. Her plots always make both psychological and thematic sense -- another very rare virtue.

What makes the Bard so wonderful is his use of language in drama, which is unexcelled, except, perhaps, in Cyrano. Yes, he takes on Big Themes, but he's worse than the Ancients in his view of humanity.

This may sound strange coming from an Objectivist, but I love sublime language -- including the great poets from Donne to Emily Dickinson -- even when I am total disagreement with what's being said. Donne is a nightmare of meaning, and, equally, a subtle master of imagery -- but no one surpasses the power of Emily when it comes the power of a single phrase.

One day, Rand will get the recognition she deserves in this regard. As the reviewer of The Fountainhead for The New York Times wrote, she was a masterful writer, and both the beauty and the bitterness are made, by her hands, something exalted. Fun for a certain type to snigger at, but this is the rarest of all values to find in a writer.

I know Rand did not like Beethoven, but I agree with Newberry, with Rand one must be prepared to experience the emotions of a god, just as one must with the art of Beethoven or Michelangelo.

...a doubt, Jim has nailed it.

"Rand achieves a density of meaning and beauty which is VERY hard to find in any literature I know."

Rand wrote long but tight. Her narrative style is intensely personal, quite contrary to what the uninitiated might suppose. She is constantly exploring the inner workings of her characters, and in that respect she reinforces my view that so many of her observations in fiction as well as her non-fiction are psychological, derived, of course, from her reliance on tabula rasa and the importance of her agreement with Montessori's idea that the child makes the man; that what we are taught early informs all of our later deeds.

thing I always encourage chaps who are reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time...(albeit a bit late for Dinther)...is to do so before talking to anyone else who has read it.

I want people to read it, with an open mind, and draw their own conclusions...(which may well be negative)...as it leads to a more 'balanced' debate on the merits of the book.

"I create nothing. I own"

"being efficient with words.
Rand achieves a density of meaning and beauty"

That kind of tightness with words is what tripped me up when I had one of her essay books. A single paragraph has so much crammed into it that it was overwhelming.

I read a page and realised all I read was a jumble of words and I didn't have much of a grasp of what was being said. Atlas Shrugged is a lot easier though. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

and her message and theme cause extreme infatuation.

I posit that 20% of Atlas Shrugged could have been eliminated with virtually no ill effect. As only one example, the authors I find most pleasant to read have much more organic/realistic dialogue rather than so much soliloquy-ism. Another criticism is that though she draws extremely vivid and memorable characters, one might more readily call them caricture than character.

She is a better writer than I, and I have never written a novel, and you know what they say about people who do not "DO" but only criticize. I dont like pissing on things I enjoy, but neither do I pretend that they are perfect if they aren't. I only bring this up because you and Linz seem hell bent on daring me to find fault in Rand's writing. With my penchant for authority-challenging, this is a no brainer.

Preferences in writing style, if the writing has any style at all, is a matter of degree, and of esthetics. I take esthetic preferences to be much less premise-revealing than other Objectivists (i.e., I enjoy some headbanging caterwauling).

You may contrast this position with Michael Newberry's position that "shit on cardboard" is in some way superior to people who earn a living with their art.

Still, I am right and everyone else is wrong.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

No, and thank goodness he didn't. It is my least favorite piece of Rand fiction.

Shakespeare is a bona fide literary genius writing in a different age altogether. I agree, he can drag on in places.

I actually enjoy her 'tight'-ness in her non fiction. Much more talented non-fiction writer in my opinion.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Maybe I wont since its not an option on previous posts.

Point taken Ill just go and edit that post.

I mean something quite specific by "tight," and what it comes down to is being efficient with words.

Rand achieves a density of meaning and beauty which is VERY hard to find in any literature I know.

Do you ever read your stuff back, Michael...? Because I wish the hell you would.

Don't give up, Paul...

But Rand had already slam dunked me with "The Fountainhead"

Atlas Shrugged builds up slwly but persevere its worth it.I read Atlas before The Fountainhead and thought Atlas Shrugged was better.It tajws untill about half way through to really get into it

Shakespeare could have done with a good Editor.

My main criticism is this...(and I need to go off on a tangent for a moment)...

Sydney, Australia is well known for having the World record for the lowest number of prosecutions for 'armed robbery' in the World.

There is an "Urban Legend" as to the reason why...which is whenever there is an armed robbery, and when the Police finally get the offender to give himself up...instead of the cost of a trial, the Police throw the gun back to the offender/s and say "okay you scumbags, have a go, c'mon, have a go" ...(with predictable results in view of the 50 police marksmen pointing guns at the heads of the offenders)

Anyway...that is my beef with Coriolanus..why Shakespeare did not have him standing his ground and saying "I hate the idea of poor people voting, so f**k you!" when they banish him from Rome.

But yes...I digress

"I create nothing. I own"

I don't know about the tightness, old Will could write a pretty good sonnet, and you don't get much tighter than that. Although philosophically he could not have written Anthem, albeit his mate Francis may well have been able to while chewing the bacon. Would have been burned at the stake after doing so, however.

Interesting question as it happens: there may well have been the Libertarian in Shakespeare, so long as God was cast out - he certainly believed in the consequences of ones actions coming home to roost.

She's a hell of a thinker, and a leader and visionary. And given that English is not her native language, her skill is remarkable. She does the job. I enjoy her writing. That's as far as it goes. She aint no Shakespeare, aint no Jack London.

You know, I was watching a DVD of Romeo and Juliet the other night, and it struck me anew how Shakespeare needed a good editor, as I, the supreme arbiter in these matters, have always maintained. Galt, the superfluous dribble! And I'd not fully noticed before in this particular play the nauseating self-pity of the characters. Damn good theme and some exquisitely beautiful and clever dialogue almost ruined by self-indulgent mawkishness.

Perhaps Rand didn't quite reach the heights of Shakespeare at his best, but yup, she was "tight." What would you edit? And actually, could Shakespeare have written Anthem?

Linz

Stick with Shrugged now you have it. The story's even more powerful. She rolls out the speech of all time - so don't you dare skip ahead.

I believe you suggested that to me Sandy but the store didn't have it so I got Atlas Shrugged. Is it a kind of Sequel? Fountainhead first and then Atlas Shrugged ? 

carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Since I have NO IDEA what you mean by "tight." I think she is a good writer. So our differences are esthetic and are a matter of degree.

"Tight writer" is one of those sort of ambiguous compliments that could means anything. Like "Say, that's some hat you're wearing!" Could be hideous but the recipient probably feels complimented.

Or the old "your singing has a definitely quality to it"--but the quality might be garbage!

She's a hell of a thinker, and a leader and visionary. And given that English is not her native language, her skill is remarkable. She does the job. I enjoy her writing. That's as far as it goes. She aint no Shakespeare, aint no Jack London.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Rand is the tightest writer you'll come across, my friend.

But if you can make it to page 200, you're hooked. Like a train pulling out of the station, it builds momentum slowly but it is a very rewarding one to read!

Have fun!

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

The Fountainhead just blew me away completely. I couldn't put it down. I spent the entire weekend reading it and nothing else. I remember getting out of bed early on the Sunday morning just so I could dive back into it.

When I finished I had to vent and spilled a major gush all over Ross.

He advised me to take time with Atlas Shrugs and so I did.
Absolutely loved it as well, but it just wouldn't be the same without having read "The Fountainhead" first.

good to see you are reading it, Dinther!

Well done...and I am pleased you are happily expressing opinions on what you read.

Keep us posted on your progress.

"I create nothing. I own"

Yes! I made it through the first pages. It was less horrible than the essays but the 60 writing style seems to be like the movies in that same time. Slow and drawn out.

I'm afraid that at the Solo party in Auckland I pissed off Julian and I was rather unkind to the writers style.

The "Who is John Galt" bit starts to piss me off already after seeing it quoted several times now and each time totally out of context.

But, I like the decisiveness of the lady (I forgot her name already) At the same time Taggart comes across as a artificial unbelievable personality who's sole purpose of existence seems to be to create a contrast and to make a point.

But the story has captured me. What will happen with the Rearden steel? Someone has got to be first to use it and if it looks like a good product then the gamble is likely to pay off. I am looking forward to the next time I have some free time to read some more.

Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at the re-newed carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.