Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: will.dockery@gmail.com (W.Dockery)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:23:42 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9d832d2fe9e8b3629e68e80201d05923@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3410e67b167ee373e49c66f99f295981@www.novabbs.com> <d5fffe0b8562f2f7f4c8e0b985d90146@www.novabbs.com> <bb5fd0750e61f0a707c85743147ce6f2@www.novabbs.com> <1177479458636a309cde2ff0e472d0b3@www.novabbs.com> <64c658dc4e9f4988e0880f08531ca469@www.novabbs.com> <36b34349a69606654d72105fa45eb298@www.novabbs.com> <206a8107437a8172ef57087379468e76@www.novabbs.com> <5d72a5e79a1671c8d398f294fea2d120@www.novabbs.com> <7ae73bad2b51a0612b41babe37e25038@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2663495"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$gkCMQKC/HfNHzYo3Jb4stuXISUuTBw5x0A0ceHEFVyrHZI1c1cUWa
X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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. 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.
>
> (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
>
>> Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
>
> Or perhaps I should watch the movie, or, even better, google. :)
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> 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. 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.
>
>>>> 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 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).
>
>> 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.
>
>
>>  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.

Yes, Howard Roarke wouldn't sell out like his friend Peter Keating was
willing to do.

> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> , 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.
>
> Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for
> himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========