From: natashavita@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 14:00:36 MDT
Have the threads mingled? Well, I'll post this under both subjects anyway and please use whichever thread you think it is best suited for, I'm going back to work -:)
Now, what the heck does this [Ayn Rand] have to do with extropians?
No, not because Ayn Rand was a rationalizing objectivist. But maybe because she was an imagistic engineer. The clear expression of ideas and emotions combined with “heroism” and phrases such as “Atlas Shrugged” calls out to me, and others, like a wolf’s howl.
Consider Terry Muggler whose magnificent photography and fashion designs creates images that resemble “Randian’ style artistically, but this does not mean that he is promoting Rand. Rand symbolized a certain style that reflects Greek Gods in her characters. She didn’t invent it, but she was highly recognized and reputed as top billing during the 20th century. Public attention for her characters grew and Rand was ascribed the stylistic nature.
Her _Anthem_ is a beautifully poetic piece of writing but I don't find her to be a person whose values I hold dear. Her image of woman is quite wanting; her idealization of men is cookie cutter, and she didn’t mention cats, dogs or children in her writings, *that I can remember*.
Looking around today’s styles, there are some movie directors who have done something similar with imagestic/symbolic engineering and who people deplore. Well-known film directors John Mctiernan and Roman Polanski come to mind. We can say something slimier about athletics – Dennis Rodman or McElroy – great sportspeople creating an imagistic engineering, but who are also known as dreadful personalities displaying who the public regards as having dreadful value systems.
We can separate a person from his or her work, but our work reflects who we are - out inner thread. My feelings toward Rand as an artist are bitter sweet. When I read her _Romantic Manifesto_, I threw the book down in absolute disgust at her narrow minded, fully flawed, and insipid views on Modern Art. This was all it took to help me realize that she was not objective and that she was inflexible. As an inflexible person, I didn’t not accept her as a futurist, and clearly not a transhumanist.
Because she was not a transhumanist, I found not value in her as an extropian.
So what if she isn’t really extropian.
For goodness sake, she was a writer who liked having people sitting at her feet. I certainly do not equate Rand with the extropian philosophy.
>!
Natasha
Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:34 MST