Your comparison was whether Rand's "justification" of assault equalled Lindsay's "justification" of Veitch's assault.

The press release in question didn't make any kind of "justification" of Veitch's assault. That was your own subjective leap.

You seem to hold that assault is the worst crime imaginable. I hold it to be wrong, and in terms of general behavior, a very bad idea. But I can think of certain instances where it could be deemed understandable, if not forgivable. Obviously, so could Rand.

Do I think that she was writing that passage in order to justify assault between human beings? Of course not. That would be a very silly conclusion to draw from what I've written.

...let me explain.

In "Veitch" and "Rand" someone hits someone. In both, there is assault. Your comparison was not that someone gets hit in both cases. Your comparison was whether Rand's "justification" of assault equalled Lindsay's "justification" of Veitch's assault.

"Justification" is used here as a short-hand for the whole debate as to whether Lindsay's saying the media's envy was more evil than Veitch's assault implied he didn't appropriately condemn assault. It's what use each author makes of an incident of assault. Just a short-hand, nothing more. 

Rand "justified" assault as a profoundly unwilling confession of the most intensely personal sort, but which was welcome to the victim because of what it confessed...Lindsay "justified" assault in comparison with gossip, gossip which was brought about by the fact of the assault! It is that comparison that I disparage.

As an aside, I believe Lindsay's purpose was to hold up envy as vilely destructive, all too commonplace, and as passing as moral righteousness, etc., great stuff, but his way of putting it implied more. (I hope that interpretation is right.) 

I'm going to re-read Schoeck's(sp?) book, "Envy" to write a book-review for a local paper. I will post chapter-by-chapter reviews of it here, for discussion, if anyone is interested.

As to my being a contrarian. I don't think that is a fair appraisal. But I do jump on significant philosophical errors, wherever I find them. There are many opportunities here to point out minor errors, if one wanted to nit-pick. I would think my other contributions would count for something. You didn't like the "Cut the Tall Poppy" poem???

I'm not aligned with individuals or organizations. I'm not thinking about helping or hurting anyone's reputation. If that makes me a "contrarian" to your purposes, so be it.

--Mindy

I must confess to being reluctant to engage with you simply because I'm yet to see that you are anything other than a contrarian (hence the term troll being leveled at you).

You were the one who brought a fictional character (Roark) into the discussion regarding Linz's press release about Tony Veitch.

I responded appropriately by pointing out that the same fictional character was the victim of assault, yet chose to interpret it differently, on which you have just elaborated.

You have a couple of contradictions going on in your post:

On the one hand you say this: How are the two comparable? Somebody hits someone? That's very far from equivalent.

Yet on the other hand you say this: It is Rand's literary genius that lets her take something almost similar to the Veitch incident...

Which is it? Is it similar/comparable or not? (I think you and I both know it is not "the same").

But I will say this: We don't know what went on behind the closed doors of Veitch's relationship with his ex-girlfriend. All we know is that a woman of substance ie.. a businesswoman (not some dependent wallflower) failed to lay a police complaint at the time of the alleged assault yet did so conveniently two years later when the case surfaced into the mainstream media, despite the fact that she had been given money as compensation for her injury (which may or may not have been a result of Veitch's actions) and had kept her silence for so long. If she were truly the victim of such a vicious assault, why would she not lay a complaint with the police when it happened?

I believe that a crime should have a victim and in this case, at the time and up to two years later, there was not one on record. That puts it in a very dubious light for me.

How are the two comparable? Somebody hits someone? That's very far from equivalent.

In Fountainhead, Dominique assaults Roark, who could have, justifiably, called the police and filed charges.

He didn't, because he understood why she hit him, which was that she cared passionately, and his awareness of her attraction to him was anathema to her, herself. (Just before she hits him, he says: I didn't think it would matter who came, or did it? {paraphrased})Dominique was insulted that he presumed to know of her attraction to him. He dared to be sure of something she hadn't even admitted to herself!

Why wouldn't she admit it to herself? She didn't want to be attracted to him, because that was emotionally dangerous. She wished to hold herself aloof from the world, so as to be safe from its destructive powers. She didn't realize individuals didn't need the "world." She believed that anything she loved could be taken from her, and she couldn't bear the dread, and pain of living through having that actually happen. So she acted first, to destroy (the sculpture, etc.) before the world could. By assaulting Roark, she was "destroying" him, and denying what he presumed to know about her. 

Not that it was a thought-out act, her hitting him. Why didn't Roark file charges? Because he understood her actions meant she desired him. He didn't yet know her history, he didn't know about the sculpture she'd destroyed, but he knew of her extreme ambivalence. Extreme ambivalence implies extreme feelings. 

So her assault on Roark was an unwitting admission of adoration. Recognizing her psychology, he knew he had to act as he then did, and that her tortuous ambivalence meant he had to fight her to make love to her. (Your odious and childish description makes a romanticist cringe, when applied here!) It is important to note that Rand is careful to tell us Dominique could have called for help. Her ambivalence kept her silent, and yet it made her fight him.

It's her ambivalence, her uncertainty, versus his knowledge, his certainty, his willingness to act, to risk, versus her fear and resistance to risk. (As an aside, it's great fun to contrast Dominique and Dagny. Dominique won't take a chance on life, though it's safe, and Dagny won't give up on "this life" because she is so filled with what Dominique lacks--certainty of her own efficacy and that life, that winning, are possible.) 

His fighting her to make love to her was symbolically a demonstration that the good was powerful enough to win in this life. He acted with supreme self-confidence, confidence in himself and in her. He acted "alone," that is, without her direct consent, so certain was his knowledge, and thus so penetrating his ability to know and judge for and by himself, independently.

All of this was a demonstration that it was safe to love, and safe to live. (Of course, Dominique didn't get it for a while longer.)

I trust you don't suppose, Olivia, that there was something of this sort going on between Veitch and partner. 

It is Rand's literary genius that lets her take something almost similar to the Veitch incident, and turn such a horror into a drama about the most exquisite heights of human interaction. In devising a context that makes assault a step towards love, Rand deliberately (I claim it was) took totally opposite elements, and used the taboo of the one to heighten the importance of the other. THAT'S drama.

For you to say Rand's story, in this part, justifies any amelioration of an outright assault is disgusting. Comparing the two is unbelievably against an Objectivist sense of life, or maybe very, very desperate. 

--Mindy

Whom do I remind you of? I'd like very much to make their acquaintance.

--Mindy

said the 2nd Billy Boat Gruff.

She needs a good f...bucking!

That about sums Mindy up in my book, currently. I am unconvinced that she is anything other than a fake identity of a previously banned SOLOist. Kind of you to try to engage her, but it appears that any such attempts are rather fruitless.

If she wants answers to her questions, one might suggest to her to write her own articles positing questions and laying out their context for answering and further discussion. Evidently, it is more satisfying to her to complain that no one answers her questions posed in the middle of discussions on unrelated threads.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

I don’t think it demonstrates a sanction of assault, anymore than Linz’s press release demonstrates a sanction of Veitch’s alleged assault.

A growing fondness for absurdity is surely a warning sign...so, you're probably better off without it. 

--Mindy

I didn't write either. Doesn't that matter?

I have exercized restraint in not simply explaining the book's events you refer to. I didn't want to seem patronizing, but I'm lost as to what are actual issues, and what is just hostile noise.

Do you actually want Roark and Domique's meeting on her ride explained? Do you actually think it demonstrates a sanction of assault?

--Mindy

"If he considered assault to be society's lowest ebb..." I didn't write that.[Mindy]

And I didn't bloody write that... I wrote morality's lowest ebb.

Actually, Little Miss Shape Shifter, you stated ~ "I agree that envy/tall poppy syndrome is bad, just not that it's morally worse than assault."...

and then wondered aloud what Roark would think...

"What would Roark think of this thread?"

I didn't give you a straw-man, I gave you a considered answer. But if that's how you wanna be... troll on babe.

I got fond of it's absurdity.

Response? What response?

It started out to be a discussion, turned into a dissertation...

I know you aren't missing it!

--Mindy

"If he considered assault to be society's lowest ebb..." I didn't write that.

I guess your post is supposed to be ironic. Try a little harder. A straw man isn't an argument.

--Mindy

What happened to "Invariance in human cognition?" Did you delete it? That's one way to kill all response.

Maybe you can start with a reply to this one Mindy.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4987#comment-55502 on page 2 of the discussion. (for some reason I can't get the link to go straight to the comment)

Mindy.

I wager that had he seen even a hint of TPS emanating from her being, he wouldn't have touched her with a barge pole.