An autopsy on nonsense. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:
My first article this year was entitled “The Abolition of Man Amid the Consequences of Reality” and referenced the book “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis as a means to critique the devastation of postmodernism.
The next article, “Gnostic Parasitism in the Post-Modern Simulacrum”, reviewed the first installment of the “Mere Simulacrity” video series posted at SovereignNations.com which summarized the conjuring of the postmodern world.
This post will serve as my third installment on postmodernism and summarizing the sixth (6th) video in the “Mere Simulacrity” series called “Breaking the Spell of the Postmodern World”, by writer and researcher Michael Young.
Although the second (2nd) video in the “Mere Simulacrity” series entitled “Hermeneutics and Perspectivalism” , by Dr. William Roach, provided a more comprehensive look at the chain of philosophers that ultimately fathered postmodernism, I chose to review Michael Young’s video because he emphasized three main philosophers, along with other relevant writers, who explain our current times quite effectively, in my opinion.
That said, however, I do want to mention an analysis by Dr. Roach (from the 2nd video) as a foundation of understanding: He claimed (and I paraphrase) that Plato’s Metaphysical Idealism led to Immanuel Kant’s Epistemological Idealism which led to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutical Idealism and eventually, to postmodernism and linguistic idealism, which are now transitioning Western Civilization into “The Simulacrum” where reality is subverted to the point of two plus two equaling five. Again, these are my words, not Dr. Roach’s.
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
Bob: (and Doug)
“Uncola” always provides “food for thought.” Said food is both nourishing – in the sense that it is enlightening, though it is laden with preservatives and unnecessary fillers.
In my later years I have become acutely aware of the tortuous distances that “thinkers” – and I consider Doug a thinker, will travel in order to never mention Rand or her work.
In the case of Doug, it is enlighteningly sad as he illustrates why. His preservatives and fillers dilute his otherwise spot-on message. What message? Philosophy does indeed matter, for as Rand powerfully argued, ideas rule the world!
The only remaining comment I will make his article is as follows.
The “unmentionable” person that Doug fails to mention proffered a philosophy grounded in objective reality, Two of its important epistemological tenets are: 1) “Reason must be man’s only absolute,” and 2) “check your premises.”
Almost in passing, Doug’s offers: “People in positions of power decide what is true in a way that benefits [society at large] them.”
Respectfully, Doug, the political values bequeathed to us by our founders were intended to politically codify – for the first time in history, the individual rights of the individual. The purpose of forming a “new” and “different” government was in reference to the moral/political idea of “Rights” cited in Jefferson’s Declaration. However, his Declaration proffered this unprecedented idea in the context of a morality in utter conflict with it!
In my upcoming book, I imagine myself present at the conclusion of the Continental convention. As I am recognized by the Chairman, I rise to speak.
“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Jefferson’s profound Declaration would include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision, and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration. Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a universal “higher” moral obligation to live their life in service to some other purpose – either to other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction. Those for whom you wish to politically-secure such a right, and from whom its respect and recognition must be universally observed and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “higher” moral duty to fulfill, one that makes the “right to one’s own life,” subordinate.
This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever individual rights may have been temporarily recognized in past societies, without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of them, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.”
So, Doug, with respect to my citation of Rand’s latter tenet, I would admonish you to “check your premises” – specifically the moral ones! It is no accident that you crossed out “society at large” and replaced it – accurately I might add, with “them!”
As to my citing of Rand’s (and Man’s) only absolute, ask those references you cite “by what pr9cess did they arrive at their tenets? “Post modernists” must invariably argue that THEIR proffers are “objective” in their subjectivity, thus logically invalidating their very arguments.
Dave
LikeLike
That’s a remarkable comment, thanks for posting it.
LikeLike
I must acknowledge your use of “remarkable” and my curiosity in its use? In what context is it “remarkable?” I can easily imagine Doug’s use of the same adjective!
LikeLike
Remarkable in its content, depth of thought, and the time and effort you put into it.
LikeLike
Robert,
I wrote a reply as well. I’m wondering if it went to spam because I had a link embedded?
LikeLike
It didn’t. I don’t know what happened.
LikeLike
Dave,
I believe your last paragraph cuts to the heart of my last three articles on postmodernism.
I really enjoy Robert’s bylines to my articles and, although he is correct that postmodern relativism is nonsense… look around at the world today; because it appears nonsense matters.
Your last sentence, in particular, concurs with C.S. Lewis regarding his views on first principles (and the Tao and nature in the “Abolition of Man”): Relativism is circular logic – like a snake eating its own tail.
I’ve often said that all debates are rooted in theology, one way or another. People believe ideas and act on them, or not – which, either way, manifests in the form of faith.
Now, onto the applied faith of Ayn Rand.
I have read Rand extensively and have written much regarding her in my 6.5 years of blogging and 200+ original posts.
Her “check premises” quote has been an axiom I have lived by and have applied it in debates (online and in 3-dimensions) more times than I can count.
In her appendix to Atlas Shrugged, Rand wrote the following:
———–
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
———–
This seems very reasonable, but how does the theory hold up in reality?
Well, in an effort to explore the idealism of Ayn Rand, Individualism, and her Philosophy of Objectivism, I wrote an article centered on Rand’s life and her muse Frank Lloyd Wright (while referencing Wright’s biographer and the author of a historically-based novel about Wright).
The article was written over five years ago and entitled …. The Wright Women: “Loving Frank”, an Architect of Modernity …. (it can found if searched on my blog or on TBP)
In checking Rand’s “premises”, and in the interest of observing the “consequences of reality” in her own life (and Wright’s), I speculated on potential “missing links” as follows:
—————-
To Ayn Rand, philosophy was religion, the “whole” of her life and the foundation of her ideology rested upon the twin pillars of “egoism”, or the morality of self-interest, and “reason” as applied to the productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice and pride of mankind. By the late 1990’s she was even honored on a U.S. Postage Stamp in a tribute to the “virtue of selfishness”.
It seems Rand venerated the anima mundi behind the innovators advancing the Industrial Revolution yet she failed to properly attribute the prior and supplemental influence underlying the European Renaissance and Protestant Reformation; as well as the previous contributions of instrumental men of faith, like Isaac Newton, to its outgrowth.
… Rand, in her appreciation of mankind’s achievements, failed to acknowledge the same sort of design as evidenced in the Universe including the seemingly engineered and mechanized configurations of our solar system and the cohesive design of the human body. In her “Objectivist” description of “morality” as “adherence to the values that sustain Man’s life”, Rand fails to recognize the prime mover behind the same morality inherent to the natural world. She embraced the skeleton of mankind’s corporal existence while, at the same time, ignoring the sinew, the muscle and the flesh of that which gives life to the whole of man’s existence.
————————–
When it comes to idealism and philosophy, would you agree the consequences of reality are the best judge?
This, therefore, was what I wanted to discuss in my last three articles (regarding postmodernism): What happened and why.
Although Rand may have been right on so many ideas, it appears some of her premises may have been errant, too.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciated it very much.
(Doug / Uncola)
LikeLike
Ok. I had some html embedded for quote-blocks and a hyperlink to one of my articles, so Askimet probably had it evaporate into the ether. I removed the code and my referenced article can be searched on my blog or on TBP if necessary.
One thing I neglected, though, was this: My post was a summary only and so I did not wish to challenge Mr. Young, per se, either with Rand or my own opinions.
LikeLike
Ok. I had some html embedded for quote-blocks and a hyperlink to one of my articles, so Askimet probably had it evaporate into the ether. I removed the code and the article can be searched on my blog or on TBP if necessary. One thing I neglected, though, was this: My post was a summary only and so I did not wish to challenge Mr. Young, per se, either with Rand or my own opinions.
Here was my response from yesterday (minus the quote blocks and hyperlink)
——————-
Dave,
I believe your last paragraph cuts to the heart of my last three articles on postmodernism.
I really enjoy Robert’s bylines to my articles and, although he is correct that postmodern relativism is nonsense… look around at the world today; because it appears nonsense matters.
Your last sentence, in particular, concurs with C.S. Lewis regarding his views on first principles (and the Tao and nature in the “Abolition of Man”): Relativism is circular logic – like a snake eating its own tail.
I’ve often said that all debates are rooted in theology, one way or another. People believe ideas and act on them, or not – which, either way, manifests in the form of faith.
Now, onto the applied faith of Ayn Rand.
I have read Rand extensively and have written much regarding her in my 6.5 years of blogging and 200+ original posts.
Her “check premises” quote has been an axiom I have lived by and have applied it in debates (online and in 3-dimensions) more times than I can count.
In her appendix to Atlas Shrugged, Rand wrote the following:
———–
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
———–
This seems very reasonable, but how does the theory hold up in reality?
Well, in an effort to explore the idealism of Ayn Rand, Individualism, and her Philosophy of Objectivism, I wrote an article centered on Rand’s life and her muse Frank Lloyd Wright (while referencing Wright’s biographer and the author of a historically-based novel about Wright).
The article was written over five years ago and entitled …. The Wright Women: “Loving Frank”, an Architect of Modernity …. (it can found if searched on my blog or on TBP)
In checking Rand’s “premises”, and in the interest of observing the “consequences of reality” in her own life (and Wright’s), I speculated on potential “missing links” as follows:
—————-
To Ayn Rand, philosophy was religion, the “whole” of her life and the foundation of her ideology rested upon the twin pillars of “egoism”, or the morality of self-interest, and “reason” as applied to the productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice and pride of mankind. By the late 1990’s she was even honored on a U.S. Postage Stamp in a tribute to the “virtue of selfishness”.
It seems Rand venerated the anima mundi behind the innovators advancing the Industrial Revolution yet she failed to properly attribute the prior and supplemental influence underlying the European Renaissance and Protestant Reformation; as well as the previous contributions of instrumental men of faith, like Isaac Newton, to its outgrowth.
… Rand, in her appreciation of mankind’s achievements, failed to acknowledge the same sort of design as evidenced in the Universe including the seemingly engineered and mechanized configurations of our solar system and the cohesive design of the human body. In her “Objectivist” description of “morality” as “adherence to the values that sustain Man’s life”, Rand fails to recognize the prime mover behind the same morality inherent to the natural world. She embraced the skeleton of mankind’s corporal existence while, at the same time, ignoring the sinew, the muscle and the flesh of that which gives life to the whole of man’s existence.
————————–
When it comes to idealism and philosophy, would you agree the consequences of reality are the best judge?
This, therefore, was what I wanted to discuss in my last three articles (regarding postmodernism): What happened and why.
Although Rand may have been right on so many ideas, it appears some of her premises may have been errant, too.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciated it very much.
(Doug / Uncola)
LikeLike
Doug:
Thank you for your rich (contextually) reply. It reflects what I intended when I called you a thinker who always provides “food for thought!”
Rand was “one of us.” As such, she displayed the same attributes as do all of us, her awareness of reality and Man’s universal attributes being especially profound in their breadth. Her proclivity to rationalize, and her self-awareness of it, however, less so.
I met her once. Following that meeting, I sent a letter to Barbara Branden that was an attempt to gain further understanding. The letter remains unanswered. I include it below to provide context. Context that reflects my thoughts/speculations at the time. Context that should provide insight to you of my respect for Rand, and the fact that she was “one of us” – though NOT a “messiah.”
Barbara:
Though I had read but the first hundred pages of your book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, I knew at that time I would send a thank you note for writing it. I have now read it to completion.
The events of which you write offer great insight into the human being, Ayn Rand. You identify and document her great attributes, her failings, and her profound effect(s) on those whose paths crossed hers.
Your book also offers wonderful insights for those of us who, though not closely associated with her, were drawn to her much in the same way as were you and Nathan. I therefore wish to share a personal perspective that you may find interesting.
I met Ayn only once. It lasted but for several minutes. It was the year the Ford Hall Forum was hosting a banquet in her honor, 1976-7 I believe.
After the ceremonies had concluded it was announced that Ayn would spend some time autographing books for those who might be interested. I grabbed my tattered copy of The Fountainhead, rushed down to the podium, and proudly stood first in the rapidly forming line. I was thirty-three at the time.
After a moment or two she approached the podium and looked slightly down at me. Upon looking into her dark eyes I was mesmerized. I am certain that my face was radiant with the result of all that she meant to me. For you see, much as you have so often heard from so many people, she changed my life.
She raised her eyebrows and made a sound that I can only describe as one of non-conceptual verbal curiosity/interest. It wasn’t an “oh.” It was more like a deep resonant hmmmm…… I was silent. I then handed her my well-worn paperback and indicated that I would like her to dedicate it to my wife.
She quickly looked away dismissively stating, “I don’t do that sort of thing.” I was about to say something partially intelligible in reply when to my utter amazement she then portrayed to me something that was totally unexpected. Just as quickly as she had curtly dismissed my request, she looked at me and instead, in the most childlike and openly emotional tone and manner – with warmth on her face to match the obvious radiance on mine, she said “to whom would you like me to dedicate this?” I indicated “Alicia:” She then so dedicated my copy of The Fountainhead.
I have heard your voice on two occasions, Barbara. The first was when a few years earlier, together with a dozen or so friends and associates, I listened intently as you explained many of the “Principles of Efficient Thinking.” The second time was more recently. You were a guest on a local Denver talk radio station. I called in and presented you with the story I cited above. I also mentioned a second subject – one that troubled me. Upon describing my impressions to you I sensed on the phone that there was a genuine sadness in your voice as you responded to my comments. Now that I have read your book, I know I was correct in my perception.
You see what troubled me was what I observed on the podium – a person that was accompanying my intellectual idol. I didn’t know at the time who he was or why he was there. One of the people with whom I was attending the banquet had to tell me. The person there on the podium with Ayn was Frank.
As the dignitaries were forming on the podium – and after being told by a friend who it was that Ayn was escorting to the stage – in addition to being focused on Ayn, I intently watched both of them as she helped Frank be seated behind her. As I approached the podium, I glanced at him several more times. While Ayn was signing my book, I looked around her once again as I was not ten feet from him. I recall the feeling of both shock and sadness as it became apparent that not only was he physically terribly frail, but he was also mentally oblivious to what was happening around him. I remember wondering if he was even aware of himself.
At that moment in some manner that I cannot describe, out of nowhere so it seemed, my subconscious formulated the following thought. Could this state of being that Frank had become, be in some way related to his reaction to being the husband of Ayn Rand? In the manner each of us dismisses that which we sense as incomprehensible, foolish, or otherwise evaluate as not being worthy of further speculation, I quickly re-focused on the rest of the exciting reality unfolding before me.
She handed me back my prize and with a smile on my face reflective of my gratitude I thanked her and returned to my table.
Over the years I have often “returned” to the banquet but have only rarely recalled the feelings I felt upon observing Frank. That has changed since reading your book.
Upon completing your book I am reminded of how much I have learned. From your accounts of the early years of your relationship with Ayn, I was amazed at how very similar I and the people I knew during those years were to you, Nathan, and those surrounding you. People whose primary value to me was our mutual interest in and growing passion for the ideas expressed in the works of Ayn Rand. We were young, impressionable, and having discovered such a powerful and exciting intellectual force, we eagerly and enthusiastically hung (the rational side of my mind wants to use the word “explored” but “hung” is the more appropriate term) on her many new ideas, analyzing her articulations and dramatizations of them.
However, most of us – if not all, were in the process of developing our self-esteem. It is here then that I shudder at the thought of what it would have meant to me – i.e. to my young and in many ways fragile sense of self, had the force that was Rand in a rage, unleashed upon me the pronouncement that I had behaved irrationally – no, not just irrationally, but immorally! The thought of what you must have endured creates a great sense of empathy in my mind for you, Nathan, and Frank. It does so because I know that had similar circumstances happened to me during that time in my life, I would have likely chosen the same responses as you. It also creates a great sense of admiration for the fact that both you and Nathan persevered. However, I find I do not feel the same admiration for Frank.
This brings me to what I sensed in your voice on the phone in Denver.
Your book has reminded me that I too feel sadness when I think of Frank. I do so because I believe Frank, in a very fundamental way, must have been little different from the rest of us upon “discovering” Ayn. To him she must have seemed like a Tornado whirling him around in her vortex, spinning him in directions he could only in wonder and excitement react to. He must have quickly realized that he was not even in the same league as her, and yet this powerhouse of a woman seemed to adore him. He therefore must have continually wondered, with a sense of doubt and puzzlement, why she was so enthralled with him. Yet he “went along” with the wind and tide, apparently determining in some imminently personal combination of reason and values, serving to define “Frank O’Connor” at that time, that this course was best for him.
However, his sense of self-esteem must have required that he in some manner “repay” her for the fact that she “loved” him. From Frank’s perspective, I think this may be the reason they were married. He had found a way, a singularly important act, through which he might return that which she was apparently providing him. It is at this important point in their relationship that I believe Frank began his inexorable path toward psychological oblivion. A path that you and Nathan were to eventually reject as your growth and maturity dictated that you must.
Had Frank been more representative of the man Ayn apparently imagined him to be, he might have reasoned as follows: “I admire and respect this incredible woman of immense power and will. While I do not (cannot?) love her, I want to offer her something of great value that I can give her. I will make her a proposition. I will agree to marry her so that she may become an American citizen. In exchange, she must agree to a subsequent divorce and when she is a successful writer, as I know she will one day become, she must agree to help me in my career by introducing me to the many famous people that she will have come to know.”
Instead, what may have started, perhaps motivated by Ayn, as an attempt by Frank to repay Ayn for what he could only interpret as her genuine love for him, became, over time, a ritual of committed duty – perhaps a sacrificial one that had endured for almost twenty-five years when you and Nathan entered their lives.
From your writing it seems that from Frank’s perspective, regardless of how his relationship with Ayn started out, he ultimately was to define his life only in relation to hers. This was, initially at least, apparently acceptable to him, though it is doubtful it was satisfying. Beginning in the fall of 1954, I think it no longer remained acceptable. Thereafter, for the next fourteen years, with your continuing compassion and influence, it seems it was only barely tolerable. When the inevitable breakup occurred, I think it then, quite literally, became unbearable. What started as an act of trying to repay her love became subservience to her values, her career, and her will. After all, she had become a famous and successful writer, her efficacy reaffirmed by her adoring admirers – especially you and Nathan, and by the reality of her success. Conversely, what had he become, other than Mr. Ayn Rand?
His relinquishing of his life to hers then apparently evolved to the point where he automatically assumed that she always “knew” what she was doing – even in the face of what he would come to determine to be the incomprehensible. Nonetheless he seemed to have maintained this life-long trust that she must always “know” what was in their “best interest” – even in the face of what became inescapable evidence to the contrary.
Faced with the fact of the break-up, faced with the cold, hard, realization that she had not known such things, as he had trusted she must, (as we all in some manner imagined she must!) he did the only thing remaining “tolerable” to him. The physical form of an aged Frank O’Connor was there on the podium in 1976-7. However, what I had only remotely sensed there at that podium over thirty years ago, was that the quiet, gentle, soft-spoken man of honest character, who had remained a loyal partner to one of the greatest intellectual forces in history, had simply “gone away.” It was and remains truly sad.
In closing I’ll offer a final perspective. When the marriage between Ayn and Frank was decided upon, I believe the results of this decision from the perspective of consequences to Ayn, because of her powerful mind, were ominous. Frank might have recanted. Ayn could not. Because of this I think a crucial Genesis in the emotional future Ayn set into motion for herself, was triggered.
I think that for the remainder of her life she was aware of the fact that while she may have loved the image in her mind that the figure of Frank represented, she did not by her standards actually love him – certainly not in the manner that her novels breathtakingly portray – not as romantic love that might exist between a man and a woman. She also must have been aware of the fact that she married this man, regardless of whatever other reasons she may have had for doing so, because it would enable her to stay in America. I do not think it an accident that you quote her as saying, upon asking her how the subject of marriage came up, “I don’t remember how the question of marriage came up.” Really!?
I think that for her to remember “how the question of marriage came up” would have served to remind her of something potentially much more devastatingly significant to her. A message from her subconscious that could not help but set off a tidal wave of emotion that would wash over her formidable consciousness. As you point out in your book, her seeming unwillingness to introspect at times, coupled with her awesome and relentless focus outward for the explanation of whatever was going on inside her, likely caused her to build up contradictions within her subconscious. I think this was a significant contributor to much of her seemingly bizarre and emotionally charged behavior you document in your book, behavior that seemed to those around her at the time, as inexplicable. The reception the publishing of “Atlas” received likely added to this.
Should you choose to do so, I look forward to a response from you. No doubt you will be able to put into better perspective my thoughts. Perhaps showing where I may be generally correct though precisely wrong – vice versa, or neither.
I believe my life has benefited beyond measure for having had exposure to Rand’s ideas and work. Your lectures and now your book have added to that benefit. Thank you, Barbara.
Dave Walden
Doug, the question of “what created the universe” can only be answered in context. What context? The context of Reason and Rand’s admonition that “reason must be Man’s only absolute.” Understanding its implications results in the understanding that all claimed knowledge is “contextual.” It can only exist in the context of reason.
Trying to answer it outside said context answers nothing! It just begs the next question?
Further, claiming to answer it with; I know who created it, I know why, and I know what you and I are supposed to do with their life in response, not only equates knowledge with belief, but is a “strange” claim of knowledge and represents a psychological arrogance without equal!
Before ending this already lengthy reply, I wish to provide greater context.
It is ideas – NOT people, that must remain our focus. I meant it when I complimented you and your understanding that it is ideas that determine humanity’s course. I did so because of my presumed understanding, an understanding largely ignited by Rand and hers!
The fact that you base much of your ideas on Jesus and the New Testament, while I disagree with what you have come to believe is Man’s moral ideals, I do not disagree with some of the premises one has to comprehend in order to mistakenly (in my judgement) believe as you do. Individual moral agency, cause and effect, the so-called “Golden Rule,” and other wisdom found in the Bible, each of these I find of irrefutable value.
Rand’s conceptions of them, however, she based on Reason, not the Supernatural. By so doing, she rationally rejected claims of the supernatural and the resulting claims of a moral philosophy of sacrifice, duty, and the overall message in virtually all religions focused on “death” in the name of eternal life!
Respectfully,
Dave
P.S. “Reality” is the arbiter, YOU are the “judge.”
LikeLike
Dave,
Thank you for sharing that and I very much appreciated those wonderful insights and astute observations
Although I am time-challenged today, and this brief response will not do justice to your very poignant and heartfelt words above, just know that I plan to reread your comment (and reread it) over time.
Rand defined “love” as a response to values – and she is not wrong. Beyond that, therefore, perhaps it becomes a matter of the source of those values.
And, even though Rand rejected Nietzsche, she did agree with him that “the noble soul has reverence for itself”.
In time, I’ve learned that people act upon what they believe and this, in turn, manifests in the form of faith…. just as the Bible defines faith “as the evidence of things not seen”… people can be identified by their “fruits” (i.e. fruitions?) … faith without works is dead… and all that.
Hence values as they interface with reality in the form of outcomes.
In my Feb 2023 article where I summarized Dr. James Lindsay’s video entitled “The Negation of the Real”, I appreciated his connecting both faith and reason to humility – or as written in my summary:
“Faith keeps reason humble so man’s mind doesn’t get arrogant enough to try and transform men into gods, and reason keeps faith sane because blind faith is stupid faith.”
As people think, so are they – hence the importance of ideas.
When I became disillusioned in high school, my older brother gave me his 25-year anniversary edition of “The Fountainhead” and it changed my life. I remain forever grateful to Ayn Rand for her ideas, her words, her courage, and her integrity (i.e. or as she claimed: The ability to stand by an idea that presupposed the ability to think).
Have a great weekend!
(Doug / Uncola)
LikeLike