What evah eww!! I'm still waiting for your contribution. (Shall I wait in vain?)

It makes no difference to me personally whether he's been here 40 days or 40 years.

I'll respect the benefit of the "doubt" policy (if not grant principled respect to the doubter). I {tew} have no time to waste on mysticism, but no topic is outside the scope of the true revolutionary's purview and if taking Galt's (entire) Oath is not the threshold for admittance (as witness all the "push-back") then I don't know what in principle can be, and I'll grant any honest "truth-seeker" an audience.

You'll notice I recommended the Valliant book "How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" to him (assuming he ever shows his face here again after your harsh, druidic denunciation.) I adhere to the principle of rational engagement, but only on the assumption that I'm dealing with psychologically, if not intellectually honest minds.

And I only denounce it when instead of moderating, or changing course, it doubles down. Catch my drift?

For Galt's Sake, I will follow Ayn Rand's example as related in Facets of Ayn Rand by her close friend Mary-Ann Sures and Chales: [which I'm having a hard time finding in the clutter, unfortunately, but you might be familiar with the genuinely cordial relationship she had with her devoutly religious maid}.

There was none of this modern (or post-modern friction), this "fortress-mentality" in her inner-sanctum, her home. And it isn't necessary, there is no necessary conflict or obstacle to an honestly passionate valuer uncompromising in his insistence on reason and for liberty.

I'll look for the book. Keep swinging my legalistic rival for glory!! B^)

Here's Dr. Edwin Locke's answer:
http://a.co/d/80XqDPn

:^D

That's another topic I'd love to discuss with you if given the opportunity. B^)

Here is a book that, if you are honest, will answer your culturally-derived assumptions:

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Chris...

I am interested in the (very lengthy) novel, but the consequences of "the 'Christophe' premise," as Ayn Rand called it in relation to Nathaniel Branden, "were dreadful."

According to James Valliant, in the book I mentioned elsewhere, "A major theme of Jean-Christophe is Rolland's belief in the semi-tragic and 'selfless' perseverance required of an artist, what Rand would call a 'malevolent universe' premise." (Not "Golden Braid" material).

Makes me think of Malcolm Arnold Symphonies or Depeche Mode (both of which I love despite their romantic darkness). But these days I'm more drawn to Nino Rota and Duran Duran.

After immersing myself in WWII and the Holocaust (reading such books as If this Be Man, The Painted Bird, and Ordinary Men at SDSU (while simultaneously immersed in my post-modern Linguistics major: mind-scrambling Semantics), I completely turned away from Objectivism (and all philosophy) and dived into the stories and novels of Hermann Hesse (which I read in order), then I read Never Let Me Go and was "inexplicably" depressed for over five years (too depressed to function, actually).

I began to slowly emerge from that unending malaise when The DIM Hypothesis and How We Know were published, but it took me until I devised my own "gestalt" to recover my senses completely (I write about it in my recent "Golden Braid..." post).

I might not rush out right away to re-immerse myself in a "world" that created so much ambiguity in my mind at its most psychologically vulnerable. But I am master of my mind once more and might even read the other book associated with Branden's malaise: Darkness at Noon (which I'd always meant to read).

Thank you for mentioning that book.

My personal passion before or even "beyond" Objectivism has always been music: the ultimate mnemonic (especially classical, or what I call philosophically-original, music).

Music is the most metaphysical of the arts because it gives form to the axioms themselves, directly without intermediary entities required.

When listening to music I think about how it expresses a grasp (or rejection) of existence, consciousness and/or identity.

A very close friend of mine wrote another book you might like: "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens."

This very real friend of mine engraved my copy of his book: "Jae -- For a true brother -- a second self . . . Yours -- Always -- Jim Valliant, 5-31-2017"

It was he who finally woke me up. I also have a transcript of a video (VHS) interview he conducted with Dr. Leonard Peikoff in 1995. I will love it if ARI ever releases it (e.g., on Youtube).

Ayn Rand would never have been so malevolent toward a possible ally. It's obvious that not everyone is here to represent (or misrepresent) our(?) clearly defined philosophy. Be a mentor, not a dementor.

Yes, allegorically, as mentioned in Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged, God assigned Adam (the man) the role of Identifier when he commanded him to name all the living creatures (later Noah collects them into a floating laboratory) -- implying perhaps that Eve (woman) was best suited for naming the plants and other natural phenomena.

It doesn't matter, but I do think The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Pentateuch, lliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Orlando Furioso, Gibran's The Prophet, or (my definite preference) Atlas Shrugged all speak profoundly to the human condition.

Most comprehensively, Sir Simon Fraser's "The Golden Bough" would give the "alien archeologists" probably the best overall view of the human condition before (or beyond) Aristotle and, what I call, History's "Golden Braid": Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Ayn Rand and...?

[PS - Please ignore the haters uninterested in advancing anything. They speak for nothing and no-one but to their obviously questionable motives in "pushing back."]

The complete works of Ayn Rand beginning with Atlas Shrugged and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, "the rest follow from these."

I would not, as a rational egoist, have the least interest in "representing all of earth," but only man at his finest.

If I can't have both the books sent, I guess I'd have to choose Atlas Shrugged and hope they have someone ingenious enough to deduce the Epistemology of John Galt (the DNA of his Speech, as it were).