[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Am I an objectivist?
Title: Am I an objectivist?
Dear Zeldah,
I could not sleep. I was debating weather or not I should post this reply to you’re e-mail and had decided not to earlier but now I cannot retire without stating my own thoughts. I’m afraid we truly won’t know what Mr. Gould thought of Ms. Rand or her writings because he is not here, howrever because he had Objectivist qualities, does not make him an objectivist and likewise, one cannot use his name to uphold objectivist ideals.
I mean to say that he himself is the only person allowed to relate these observations to us, through some manner, and as far as the knowledge base available Mr. Gould and Objectivistism were not bedfellows. Also, personally, I think the socialism was a red hearing. It is quite evident he liked to throw these out to the press or interviewers.
As to your statements about A being A and A not being B, well I think that Mr. Gould quite astonishingly, and remarkably taught us all that A can indeed sometimes become B. Love is oft given away as charity to a total stranger, to a dear friend and I don’t think that Mr. Gould was one to smack anyone.
Your passion is an amazing quality, but you must temper it with your equally amazing intelligence. Mr. Gould did not just sheath his sword but he threw it into lake Simcoe. I don’t know of any instance where he expressed any violence. I’m almost certain and I’m almost certain you know this too, Mr. Gould would have opened the eyes of the blind with more cunning and genius than a smack could ever have done.
As for Objectivist thought. I don’t think that people who never think or move are useless. We are given free will for a reason and to say that someone is useless would mean that the person saying it has no use for them, which would be an grave error and mistake in reasoning. It means that a person’s usefulness is based on your need of their use. In which case it is easy to say that someone not of use to your goal is not moving and is useless when in fact they may be moving toward their own goal and are quite useful. We are not omnipotent and we cannot determine a person’s usefulness or uselessness completely. Further, our gauge of their competency is based on what we are shown and has really no bearing on their true adeptness. Mr. Gould could very easily have appeared “useless” to a great many people and we would think that completely absurd here on F-minor don’t you suppose?
Now I must also quote you:
“I know that Glenn moved with aim, and that he understood that one needed to be productive in life.
He understood the importance of thinking. His fascintation was with the mind!”
You cannot actually “Know” this, you believe this. Only Mr. Gould could know this and only his close friends and relatives could postulate with any accuracy and authority what he believed, but they would still be postulating on the most part unless he told them directly that this was what he believed.
“Ayn Rand preaches about the importance of a mind. Glenn also didn't expect to get anything for free, everything he
got, he earned truthfully”
Here again, consider you are trying to validate your beliefs in Ayn Rand’s philosophies by combining them with someone you admire greatly. All you need is to know that you are confident in it and it doesn’t matter who else believes it. Also to tolerate those who don’t believe it and engage in fruitful and progressive discussion toward your _expression_ of this belief. Here it just seems as thoug you are trying to make Mr. Gould the Poster boy or role model for objectivists.
Alas... This is what kept me from sleeping:
“Being an objectivist means to make a mark in the world, to move into the future for the better,
and to move around and past the ones who threaten human progression and reason - who threaten intelligence.
Glenn made a mark in the world, there was no way he was going to let his life remain unknown.
His contribution to progression in the music business and life was absolutely massive. He has the qualities
of an objectivist because he never accepted life as it was, he sought to make it better. And that
he did not only affecting himself for the the better, but millions of others in the process.
These are the qualities of an objectivist that you find so useless.”
You are correct, Mr. Gould did make a mark on this earth, perhaps (only the future will reveal it) on the universe. However I think it is interesting to note that he was not aware that anyone even really knew or cared much for his work as an artist. It would seem he had no real knowledge of his celebrity and influence. It would seem that Mr. Gould was not actively pursuing any of these goals of revolutionary, visionary, and so on. Most times that is left to people who end up in political life. (they can be artists musicians etc...) From what I can gather the progress made in the technical area of the music business were all aimed at one goal. Producing the sound. Not necessarily the best sound (those were by-products) but the definitive sound according to him. Everything else was just a by-product. Better canvases only make the paint stay on longer. Who but a painter would have use for such a tool? Who but he would bring forth it’s creation? (minding the manufacturing conglomerate warehouse of course).
In all cases Zeldah, I do hope you have slept well.
Cheerio for now,
G
On 9/4/01 9:19 PM, "LoveGlenn" <slw@CAPE.COM> wrote:
I don't care what you think about Rand. I care what Glenn thought about her.
And if you called Glenn socialist to his face when he was alive, I believe he would've
smacked you for being so blind. Glenn was an objectivist in many many ways...
which I will explain in my message.
But what I have to ask you is:
How can teaching productivity, the importance of thinking, the crucial fact that A is A,
A is not B, - that love is only something that can be earned not given as charity - the preaching
that reason, purpose and self esteem are qualities one needs to have to be truely happy -
.....how can these be useless and terrible?
How can teaching that the ones who are usless in
life are the ones who never move, who don't think, who try and drag down intelligence because
of their jealousy-and lie just to impress each other because they only care what others think,
not what they think of themselves....How can this be the writings of someone who drags on
about nothing important?
Because if you don't believe in any of that, then your just as bad as the ones she writes against
in her novels.
Is this a useless and terrible phrase? (one you obviously didnt grasp while reading her works)
Mans mind is the basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His mind is given to him, his content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and the purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and a way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim, and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
Dont you think it is evil to wish without moving or to move without aim? What malevolence is it that creeps through the world struggling to break the two and set them against each other.
Saying that an objectivist is useless is also saying that it's alright to move without a purpose.
I know that Glenn moved with aim, and that he understood that one needed to be productive in life.
He understood the importance of thinking. His fascintation was with the mind! Ayn Rand preaches
about the importance of a mind. Glenn also didn't expect to get anything for free, everything he
got, he earned truthfully.
Rand teaches that nothing should be obtained dishonorably.
Yes, Glenn was an objectivist in many ways.
Being an objectivist means to not take anything as it is. One should always question everything,
distinguishing the right and wrong of people, situations, or any ways of life. If one is not an objectivist
this means they accept everything as it is, and they see no reason to change it, or acknowledge it.
Being an objectivist means to make a mark in the world, to move into the future for the better,
and to move around and past the ones who threaten human progression and reason - who threaten intelligence.
Glenn made a mark in the world, there was no way he was going to let his life remain unknown.
His contribution to progression in the music business and life was absolutely massive. He has the qualities
of an objectivist because he never accepted life as it was, he sought to make it better. And that
he did not only affecting himself for the the better, but millions of others in the process.
These are the qualities of an objectivist that you find so useless.
But if you don't understand a word that Rand said in her novels, I don't see how you can
understand my message either, or her relation to Glenn and his theories.
And in no way do I think this message is off topic to the list because it relates to Glenn in all
the ways I have mentioned above, in the honor of productivity, life, progression, and purpose.
Zeldah
----- Original Message -----
From: Paige Poe <mailto:Viviandarkbloom3@AOL.COM>
To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Ask glenn?
I don't seem to recall Gould ever saying anything that seemed remotely
"objectivist," or else I would have banished him from my record collection
altogether. Of course I don't get into an artists' philosophy when
considering their music, usually--one half of the Minutemen was libertarian
and so are one-half of their lyrics, but I still think they're amazing (the
other half--Mike Watt--was socialist and more agreeable to my personal
views). But with Gould it is definitely an important issue, as I not only
enjoy his music but also his theories and writings. Didn't it say somewhere
in that Ostwald biography that Gould said he was a socialist? That, to me,
makes more sense in terms of his moral and aesthetic views (see: "Glenn Gould
interviews Glenn Gould about Glenn Gould").
Am I the only one here who thinks that Rand's so-called theories--resulting
in long, terrible pseudo-philosophical romance novels--are drivel?
paige.