From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 22:26:35 MDT
At 09:42 AM 6/3/02 -0700, Max More wrote:
>it is not these shortcomings for which [Rand's] work is recommended --
>it's for the positive and healthy ideas I listed in an earlier post.
In that post, Max said:
>which *part* of Ayn Rand's basic philosophy (not personality,
>philosophy) do you despise? Is it her rationalism? Her anti-religious
>views? Her realism? Her optimism ("benevolent universe")? Her defense of
>freedom?
Let me answer that equally rhetorically. Which part of, say, THE BOOK OF
MORMON and Mormon practise (pace, John Grigg) do you despise, Max? Is it
the emphasis on family and loyalty? The imaginative scope of its invented
history? Its transcendent optimism (every saint a god in a new universe)?
Its unabashed capitalist zeal? The audacious undergarments?
>So, if you reaction to her monochrome, romantic, uncompromising side is
>your reason for not being an extropian, that just doesn't compute. The
>reading list *does* explicitly say that a book's listing there does *not*
>mean that all of the work accords with extropian thinking.
The discussion seems to have split here into two parts.
I cited Olga's comments on Rand's inclusion in the read-this pantheon as a
*gesture* or *metaphor* trying to convey my distance from extropianism by
contrast with generic transhumanism. I mentioned an interest in
experimental parapsychology; if I found that a certain gathering of
parapsychological specialists provided me with lots of useful information
on that field, even though some of its sponsors swore by the magical feats
of Uri Geller and fondly recalled their own UFO-abduction convictions, I
would participate without signing up for the package.
Commenting on the defects of Rand's fiction per se is a somewhat separate
issue. However, if your list included THE BOOK OF MORMON for all those
bracing qualities it contains among its absurdities, fabrications and the
thought-policing character of its disciples, I'd be equally taken aback.
>>To the extent that Rand's ideas have validity [...]
>>I'd prefer to see them deployed--on a list of
>>recommended books--in the form of philosophy or sociology or whatever--not
>>as agitprop comic strips.
>Do you mean replacing Rand's own writing
>with philosophers and sociologists who have been influenced by her
>work? If that's what you mean, I think that might be workable for the
>reading list.
I can't make recommendations of this sort, of course, since I'm not an
extropian and in any case I find much of Rand's comprehensive world view
simplistic, often untrue to reality, often antagonistic to values I regard
as crucial to mature human development and enriched human community. But
really, I'm not here now to gore anyone's oxen, and I'm not really
interested in discussing the details of Rand's strange picture of the world.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:35 MST