Great idea. In vino veritas.

Given what you've acknowledged here, I don't know why you had a problem originally. And I assume you understand why I'd have a problem with your finger-wagging at me re my inserting these issues into a music thread.

Picture this:

I have magnificent Mario in my ears via headphones, singing, among other things, I'll Be Seeing You. An all-time great voice, animated by an exemplary sense of life made manifest in exemplary diction. An outpouring of joy, "unclouded exaltation."

On my screen I have the Crusaders and the Chiefs, playing their hearts out, a good match for Mario's "I sing each word as though it were my last on earth."

At my lips I have a Napoleon brandy.

Life doesn't get much better than this.

But at a certain point I'm troubled. I haven't posted a KASS Music Gem of the Day.

I note that the current KMGD, the finale to Saint-Saens's Organ Symphony, another outpouring of joy, has elicited precisely zero response, and I think, "Well, why should I bother anyway?" Pearls before swine, and all that.

So I decide to re-post Mario's I'll Be Seeing You. With appropriate insults to the lumpenly unmoved.

In doing so I note your finger-wagging. Which doesn't get the connection between anal-retentive Binswangerism and organized Objectivism's failure to enlist Romantic music, the greatest, in its cause—about which failure I've been banging on for years.

Linz. Explosion. Inevitable. No?

Best outcome: since I'm in Auckland, come round for a personal spanking and lots of vino. Just let me organise for the whole gang to be available. Up for it?

My comment, as it was addressed to you, does need a reasoned expansion. As put, I can understand your response.

“I imagine some anal-retentive Randroid will now label me, yet again, an "emotionalist" for doing so. Frankly my dears, I don't give a damn. On the basis of stuff I've been reading right here lately I think I'm headed for a divorce from Objectivism anyway. If Objectivism truly means, in a way I hadn't tumbled to hitherto, acquiescence to the mindset of Binswanger, Schwartz and Hull and a commitment to The Virtue of Obnoxiousness as practised by those gentlemen and defended by James then I don't want to be anywhere near it.”

“Emotionalism” on my part to your “I think I'm headed for a divorce from Objectivism anyway” What was that!? Lindsay Perigo, an original driving force in introducing many, for the better, to Objectivism. First through radio, The Free Radical then maximising reach through the internet. Continuing, thankfully you qualified that with “If Objectivism truly means acquiescence to the mindset [..] then I don't want to be anywhere near it.”

Objectivism doesn’t have anything to do with the three mentioned, or any others: “I'm not affected by Binswanger's, Schwartz's or Hulls' 'Vatican.'” This means that, even if these three were the public personification of Objectivism, and were unfortunately mis-promoting Rand’s philosophy of rational self-interest, my ability to discern what I wished to gain from Objectivism would be unaffected. Especially in these days of free-market internet.

By independent reasoning I can and do ascertain for myself what to take from Objectivism. There's little to omit. You are correct to wish a shake-up in their ranks. That’s their business. I do not know enough to speak of their intrinsicist religiosity.

The schisms of Objectivists are unavoidable. Differing personalities and levels of commitment and/or understanding of Objectivism, and its vital applications to revolutionising the world’s culture from self-sacrifice/serfdom, will lead to civil disagreements between commentators. Errors should rightly be brought to light and discussed. The graver the error, the stronger the reaction required.

I see Harry has his fifty year plan to change the culture of the world: Ayn Rand and Today’s Culture, ~44min. He puts on a pretty good interview there at least. Paraphrased: "It's taken fifty years to see Rand appearing in the MSM and it may take another fifty for generations to pick up on it sufficiently to change voting and representation."

Of Rand he says: “Every minute of her life was important.”

To spend more than a minimal amount of time in the business of demonising the personalities involved with ARI, as against supporting and noting when they get it right, is counter-productive.

“I also wouldn't say obnoxious based solely on Ellen's Larry episode. edit: I see you throw all three in.”

I don’t get to see sufficient evidence to call the three obnoxious. I don’t know enough here. But if, as you said, Glenn Beck was to confront Binswanger on the ARI philosophy of individualism contrasted and contradicted by ARI pronunciations to avoid certain books, and tape deletions etc, then Binswanger’d better have a plausible explanation. (Which probably wouldn’t do.)

You, Lindsay, perform an outstanding service, in the best sense, and are an endearing figure. I don't mind being brought to task for "cryptic excuses for Randroidism." Of course, "knee-jerks devoid of substance, and implicitly treacherous, don't cut it."

Related posts:

Mon, 2010-02-22 06:35. I don't know the ins and outs of the Founders College saga, but this much I do know: the days when Objectivists, advocates of a philosophy of reason, have to tread on eggshells for fear of offending this or that luminary or faction, MUST COME TO AN END, as must the back-channeling and the backbiting. Leave that kind of stuff to the conventional world. Would Roark or Galt have a bar of it?

Tue, 2010-02-23 03:01. Harry says I'm an enemy of the ARI, but he doesn't seem to have told the ARI, or if he has, they've taken no notice. I'm an enemy of blind dogmatism and that whole "loyalty oath" thought-policing way of spreading (read: "damaging") the philosophy. Do you seriously think the ARI are in that category?

Wed, 2010-02-24 04:29.
In the meantime, ARI, without admitting it, had significantly loosened the stranglehold held on it by religious bigots.

I agree that the sooner we see the back of the Objecti-Taleban and its Stalinist revising of history and all the rest, the better, and I have certainly tried to play my part in helping speed the day. But don't kid yourself that the Objecti-Buddhists are a desirable alternative. There's only one place, if I may say so, where you'll find Objectivism that KASSes *and* is open to dissent and debate.

Wed, 2010-02-24 22:58.
the ARI does great work. But every time Binswanger appears on its behalf I get the collywobbles. This man is fresh from telling us not to read Burns and Heller because they'll corrupt our judgment, which clearly we're incapable of exercising properly on our own.

Thu, 2010-02-25 09:43.
The sad thing is with you ARI types, it's impossible to have a disagreement without accusations of evasion flying within five minutes. That is part of the very problem we're discussing here. I've explained what I mean by Stalinism in this context; you insist that I *have* to mean more than that. You're manufacturing an issue where there isn't one, exactly as Chris is attempting with his "drama queen" dribble.

Thu, 2010-02-25 10:21.
ARI is succeeding but could succeed better if it repudiated its Savonarolian past. This objective is not helped when the other James goes into denial about it.
I repeat: neither Objecti-Taleban nor Objecti-Buddhist be. This is not sound and fury signifying nothing; it's the culture and future of Objectivism we're talking about.

I did expect to see your cryptic excuses for Randroidism. You should learn to develop a thought into a whole essay. I'll publish it. But knee-jerks devoid of substance, and implicitly treacherous, don't cut it.

Well.. I didn't expect all that on a Gem thread. I'm not affected by Binswanger's, Schwartz's or Hulls' 'Vatican.' The outfit has moved on for the better from what I do see. I also wouldn't say obnoxious based solely on Ellen's Larry episode. edit: I see you throw all three in.

This is glorious. Mario's ennunciation and phrasing are spendid. I very seldom enjoy the interpretations of popular song by opera singers. Mario fits his voice to the needed color values. I appreciate also his 'acting' in it.

There is not the like anywhere today.