Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:47:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:25:03 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.

>
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
a forum in which to showcase their works.

>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
>
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.

>
You are devaluing Wynand.  Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time.  Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.

>
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Nietzschean, whose only
motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
"crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.

>
Hmm...
>
I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
with that version of Wynand.
>
I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book
version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
>
"Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand,
he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the
world's cynicism."
>
That's pretty close to my description of him above.

>
I'm glad you're googling.

Of course I am.
If I'm presented with information that conflicts with my current
understanding of a given topic, I fact check/research to determine
whether the new information  or my current understanding is incorrect.

The only thing the descriptions have in common
is that they're sympathetic to Wynand (which makes sense, since Rand
made him a sympathetic character. The difference is that the analysis
pointe out that Wynand is thoroughly corrupt, while you insist on seeing
him as "noble" and having "principles" and "ethics" though there's no
evidence of that. Like Toohey (and you) Wynand presents as exclusively a
"creature of the outside world," without any visible self.

I suggest that you reread the analysis.  It says that "His youthful
idealism has been crushed by the world's cynicism."  Generally, one's
youthful idealism is a pure representation of their basic values -- it's
who they see themselves as (often in an overly idealized or romanticized
form).  This is the nobility at the heart of Gail Wynand -- much as Sir
Galahad represents the youthful, untainted nobility of Dorian Gray.
When examining The Fountainhead, one should also bear in mind that the
protagonist of the book is Dominique Francon (a literary stand-in for
Rand), and that Francon/Rand would not be married to a man who had no
redeeming characteristics.

(Later we learn that he does have a self - symbolized by his private art
gallery - but the world is never allowed to see it. Once he finally does
come public with him, he

You've broken off in mid-sentence again, George.  I'm therefore unable
to determine what point you were attempting to make.
Wynand was inspired by William Randolph Hearst, who was also the
inspiration for Citizen Kane -- and the similarities between Wynand and
Kane are so strong that they might as well be the same character (which
they, in fact are; both having been based on the same real life person.)
 Kane's youthful idealism (which is also corrupted over the course of
his life) was expressed in his newspaper's manifesto, which promised to
provide the public with an honest daily newspaper,
to use the press to expose corruption in government, business, and
politics;
to be a champion for the rights of citizens and human beings; and to
campaign for the poor and underprivileged.
Wynand/Hearst/Kane all share the same noble principles, and all equally
fall victim to corruption -- with Wynand alone finding redemption.

Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.

>
Or perhaps I should watch the movie, or, even better, google. :)

Don't snigger too much about the movie, George.  The screenplay was
written by Ayn Rand, who also oversaw the film's production, and whose
contract stipulated that not one word of her screenplay could be altered
or removed.  IOW: The film version is just as much Ayn Rand's vision as
is the book upon which it was based.  Arguably, it is even moreso, as
any differences from the book would represent changes in Rand's
perceptions/beliefs.

This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy
of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.

>
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.

>

Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation
confirms).

>
No, the quote you googled does not confirm that. According to your
googled quote, Wynand was already thoroughly corrupted "by the time we
met him" in the novel.

LOL!  Is that what you're harping on?
His past is part of his character.  You can't dismiss a character's
backstory just because it happens outside of the narrative's timeframe.
As you're a writer, I can't believe that I'm having to explain this to
you.

You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character --
but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of
black-and-white terms.

>
I am getting that you identify with Wynand.

And, once again, you're mistaken.
You should really stop trying to read things into my statements.  I
choose my words carefully, and say exactly what I mean.
I do not identify with Wynand in the least.  Wynand is everything that I
am not: rich, self-made, successful, powerful, dependent upon public
acceptance, and willing to compromise his ideals.
I do, however, *understand* the fictional character better than you, as
your understanding of both Rand and Nietzsche is faulty, and you seem
incapable of grasping any concept in its full complexity, having to
pigeonhole it into simplistic, black and white components that often
undermine its original intent.

So it's fair for us to
identify you with him; the thoroughly corrupted power seeker - not
beyond redemption (since there probably is a real person under all those
socks, and it may show itself one day) - but not redeemed at present.

Wrong again.
1) Whether I'm corrupted is a moot point as my basic ideals (youthful
and present day) stem from a Luciferic belief system (similar to those
of both Nietzsche and Rand).  Since, in such a system, "Good" and "Evil"
are seen as relative to the individual, words like "corrupted" become
meaningless.  Unless you want to argue that one could become "corrupted"
into accepting the standards of conventional morality.
2) I am not a power seeker, insofar as I do not actively seek to become
empowered.  I believe that I would make the ideal Philosopher Prince (as
per Machiavelli) or Philosopher King (as per Plato), and believe that
the world would only benefit from my leadership... but that is purely a
matter of speculative masturbation.  I am content to remain a working
class peon in society, and to devote my writing to exploring the eternal
truths of one's inner soul.
3) Since there is no difference between any of my so-called "socks"
(apart from their names), the "real person" is not hidden underneath
them in any way.
In Marginalia  194:1,2, Poe wrote that:
"If any ambitious man have a fancy to revolutionize, at one effort, the
universal world of human thought, human opinion, and human sentiment,
the opportunity is his own — the road to immortal renown lies straight,
open, and unencumbered before him. All that he has to do is to write and
publish a very little book. Its title should be simple — a few plain
words — “My Heart Laid Bare.” But — this little book must be true to its
title.
"Now, is it not very singular that, with the rabid thirst for notoriety
which distinguishes so many of mankind — so many, too, who care not a
fig what is thought of them after death, there should not be found one
man having sufficient hardihood to write this little book? To write, I
say. There are ten thousand men who, if the book were once written,
would laugh at the notion of being disturbed by its publication during
their life, and who could not even conceive why they should object to
its being published after their death. But to write it — there is the
rub. No man dare write it. No man ever will dare write it. No man could
write it, even if he dared. The paper would shrivel and blaze at every
touch of the fiery pen."
I chose, while still in my idealistic youth, to become the man who would
dare to write that book.  But it isn't limited to a single publication. It runs through my collected works of poetry, fiction, drama, and
philosophy.  But it doesn't stop there.  It is present in all of my
ephemeral social media posts, personal letters, and everyday
conversations.  In short: to write the book, one must *become* the book.
 My heart must be worn upon my sleeve for all the world to see -- i.e.,
it must be perpetually "laid bare."
You, however, will never see the "real person" for want of the imaginary
socks.  A real person is too complex, multi-layered, and even
self-contradictory a concept for your black & white mind to comprehend. Even your Donkey has demonstrated a better understanding of the
complexity of human life than you.

Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.

>
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself
by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and
finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that
transition.
>
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.

>
Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she
recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.

>
I never said she had. Her only one-dimensional character is Toohey.

Roark is one-dimensional as well; and none of her characters ever reach
beyond two dimensions.  They are, after all, merely devices for
expressing her philosophical ideas.  The closest she comes to a
three-dimensional character is with Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.

Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever
read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.

>
Not at all; Roark valued his own independence from others, and their own
independence from him. Not only did he not try to control them; he
wouldn't even give them advice beyond "don't take advice, from me or
anyone" (paraphrased).

You are a victim of the popular misconception that Nietzsche was about
power and dominance -- which shows me that you've never read any of his
works.  Nietzsche's one fictional character was Zarathustra -- a hermit
(inspired by the ancient Persian founder of Zoroastrianism) who lived in
the wilderness on top of a mountain.  Zarathustra serves as a mouthpiece
for Nietzsche's philosophy, and can be seen in that regard as a
representation of himself.  A hermit is hardly an image for one seeking
power and domination to adopt.
The confusion rises from Nietzsche's association with Nazi Germany (or,
rather, Nazi Germany's predilection for using Nietzsche's quotes out of
context to serve their on nefarious ends), and his use of words like
"Overman" and "Will to Power." We can dismiss the Nazi associations, as
Nietzsche would have detested the Nazis and was outspoken against
anti-Semitism in general.  "Overman" referred to a higher form of
existence (a new evolutionary step in the progression of humankind), not
some sort of overlord; and "Will to Power" referred to Schopenhauer's
"World as Will" which had nothing whatsoever to do with earthly power.
Nietzsche's philosophy was borrowed lock, stock and barrel from
Schopenhauer (just as Rand's Objectivist philosophy was borrowed lock,
stock and barrel from Nietzsche).  Nietzsche recast Schopenhauer's
beliefs (whose write in a dull, ponderous style) as sharp-witted, often
satirical, and highly quotable sayings which found a lasting interest
with the reading public; and Rand turned Nietzsche's distillation of
Schopenhauer into popular novels.  But Schopenhaurean philosophy is at
the bottom of Nietzsche of both.
"Will" in Schopenhauer, is one of the two basic laws of nature upon
which all other natural laws are based -- i.e., the propensity for
matter to accumulate other matter unto itself.  Nietzsche applies this
law to humans, and concludes that we are equally compelled to achieve
our highest potential.  In other words -- we are all driven to seek out
means of growing as human beings (self-awareness, self-improvement,
Jungian Individuation, etc.).  *That* and that alone is all that
Nietzsche's "Will to Power" constitutes.

Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to
maintain his wealth and power.

>
He began *compromising* his sense of life in grade school, long before
he would have developed any "principles". He was thoroughly compromised
(a nicer word than corrupted, if you prefer it) long before he had any
wealth and power.

Does Rand write this, or is it a supposition on your part?
I'm asking (as opposed to posing a rhetorical question), as it's been
roughly 35 years since I read The Fountainhead, and I don't remember any
mention of Wynand's school days in it.  As a Hearst/Kane representation,
I would assume that Wynand started out in publishing with his own
Manifesto which would have contained similar points to Kane's.  And,
while this might be a conflation of memories on my part, I seem to
recall Wynand telling either Roark or Dominique that he had started out
with high ideals, but was compelled to compromise them.  This revelation
would take place in conjunction with his paper's idealistic (and
self-destructive) support of Roark.
Not that the actual dates/events that compromised the innate nobility of
Wynand's character matter.  The end result remains the same.

 He wasn't representing the Nietzschean
ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it.

>

Roark, otoh,
represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal.  He was
ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for
success, wealth, and fame.

>
That's not Nietzschean at all, as I've read him. Nietzche championed the
man with no ethics, the man who lived for power over others. Wynand was
Rand's view of where that worldview ultimately led.

Again, your misunderstanding of Nietzsche borders on character
assassination and libel.  I have already discussed the misconception
that Nietzsche had any interest in the attainment of earthly power
("Will to Power" was about achieving one's potential); I shall now
proceed to dismiss the charges that he espoused a rejection of ethics. Nietzsche wrote that humans are "beyond good and evil."  By this, he
meant that "Good" and "Evil" are relative to the individual, as opposed
to being Platonic Ideals whose characteristics are set in stone.
While this view negates the Christian concept of morality, it does not
entail that one should live without ethics as a consequence.  Rather we
are each supposed to develop our own ethical beliefs based on our unique
understanding of ourselves and our relation to the world at large.  IOW:
No one can proclaim any ideal to be universally "good" or "evil."  We
each have to decide for ourselves -- and whatever we decide with be the
correct answer for us.  Roark (the embodiment of Nietzschean philosophy)
had an ethical code which justified his raping Dominique, and blowing up
an apartment building.  Not everyone would agree with such an ethical
code, but for Roark, he was acting ethically in both instances.

Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders.  Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.

>
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.

>

1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain.  He is a tragic figure (a
failed Ubermensch)

>
No, as the tycoon of incalculable wealth and power, Wynand was
Neitzche's Ubermensch come to life.

That is the opposite of an Ubermensch.  The Ubermensch, or Overman, was
a higher evolutionary form that humans are driven (by the Will to Power)
to strive for, but which had not yet been attained.  The Overman would
be so much more highly developed than present day humans, that we would
be incapable of perceiving what such a higher form would be.  The idea
is similar to saying that we use only 10% of our brain, and that were we
capable of using it all, we could do virtually anything.  The Overman is
the self-actuated individual taken to the nth degree.
Not only would the Nietzschean ideal of the Ubermensch *not* be
dominating other people, but *all* of the other people would either be
fellow Overmen, or on the road to becoming fellow Overmen.  Nietzsche
would be rolling over in his grave to think that his Ubermensch could be
so misrepresented (as seeking wealth and power) as you have done above.
FWIW: I have read the complete (or nearly complete) works of both Rand
and Nietzsche, and profess to have at least a basic understanding of
their philosophy.  You used the phrase "as I've read him" regarding
Nietzsche (above).  I cannot believe that you have actually read
Nietzsche at all based on your skewed (to put it mildly) perceptions
regarding his views.  Perhaps you've read a few excerpts, or equally
ill-conceived passages *about* his views; but I can assure you that what
you've been calling "Nietzschean" here is nothing of the sort.

, until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.

>

2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His
tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian
revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."

>
Exactly. Both Toohey and Stalin were selfless servants of the people -
they had no interests of their own, but dedicated their lives to the
people. All they wanted in return was total control - not for
themselves, but for the people.

I disagree.  They used the people as an excuse to gain power for
themselves.

Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for
himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break
everyone who maintained a private life, or a sense of self.

Toohey was a spider.  He spun pretty webs to catch flies in.  But as the
flies eventually found out, the pretty webs weren't to their good at
all.
Toohey knows that he has nothing to offer the world.  He has no talents,
not profound thoughts, no... anything.  He therefore hates men like
Wynand -- self-made movers and shakers who are *actually* bent on
reshaping society for the betterment of all.  Wynand is who Toohey would
like to be -- but cannot.
Toohey was inspired by Stalin, but from a literary standpoint, he is the
grandson of Uriah Heep.  He has learned how to flatter the public by
constantly telling them how "humble" he is, and by explaining to them
how he is happy to be their servant and has only their best interest at
heart.  But just a Mr. Heep was using his "humility" to gain control Mr.
Wickfield and his fortune, so Ellsworth Toohey is using his professed
altruism to gain the support of the masses in his bid for social power.

You really don't get Ayn Rand, George.  I find this revelation most
disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.
To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is...
well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd
spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by
Edgar Poe.

>
I understand her just fine. I'd say that you were the one who
misunderstands her, but (considering I'm not talking to a person but a
sock) one knows where that would lead: You'd put your hands over your
ears, stamp your little foot, and cry "IKYABWAI!" again.

I beg to differ, George.
Again, I can understand your resistance to the fact that you've
misinterpreted Rand.  Your misinterpretation appears to largely spring
from your profound misunderstanding of Nietzsche (whose writings for the
basis of Rand's works).  If you don't understand Nietzsche, you cannot
understand Rand. Zarathustra (Nietzsche) said that Man was halfway along
the bridge between Animal and Overman (and that even the Overman state
was only the beginning of our journey).  Roark was farther advanced
along that bridge than anyone else at that time.  Roark represented the
Nietzschean ideal.
--