Sorry, a well written essay but with so many problems with your theory it’s hard to know where to begin. You have everything but the kitchen sink covered by your scheme.
-Overrepresentation is a major flaw - the concept might have some use but not if it’s overused. If you only have a hammer …
-it’s a remarkably Christian idea. If you cross out “reality” and write “God” you’ll see the dogmatism of adherence in your idea.
- reality is not sacred; if it’s to be slavishly idolized and worshipped, there be no Shakespeare, Pessoa, Stevens, Dickinson, Lucretius, Mencken, Brubeck, Demuth, Corot.
-your Pretenders are tricksters, and help change the world. No doubt some are assholes, but Mercury (god of thieves) breaks the boundaries of reality, which is the gift of imagination in spite of the real.
- your “sense of life” theory from Rand is itself a theory of pretense from her allowing her to “read” her closest idolizers for adherence to her ideas. Your theory is crippled by hers.
Hi Wes, Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I disagree with your assessment.
1. I can't be overrepresenting the prevalence when I said explicitly that it seemed to be a trait of only about 20% of the population. And you didn't bother challenging any of my many examples. If I'm right, I'm right no matter what the numbers are.
2. I am no Christian. And I believe that replacing "God" with "reality" is a good thing.
3. If reality is not sacred, then nothing is sacred. That said, being an authentic person need not impair one's creativity.
4. See #3.
5. I don't know what you're basing your reading of Rand on, but it's not the text. Amazing how many of Rand's critics will lower their standards of fairness and accuracy when it comes to her. I can't help you with that.
Well said, but there’s plenty to note about Rand that is problematic; I needn’t lower my standards. Actually I like her fiction, but there is a lot of error in her non-fiction. She was no realist, but that’s part of her charm. 😏
Sorry, a well written essay but with so many problems with your theory it’s hard to know where to begin. You have everything but the kitchen sink covered by your scheme.
-Overrepresentation is a major flaw - the concept might have some use but not if it’s overused. If you only have a hammer …
-it’s a remarkably Christian idea. If you cross out “reality” and write “God” you’ll see the dogmatism of adherence in your idea.
- reality is not sacred; if it’s to be slavishly idolized and worshipped, there be no Shakespeare, Pessoa, Stevens, Dickinson, Lucretius, Mencken, Brubeck, Demuth, Corot.
-your Pretenders are tricksters, and help change the world. No doubt some are assholes, but Mercury (god of thieves) breaks the boundaries of reality, which is the gift of imagination in spite of the real.
- your “sense of life” theory from Rand is itself a theory of pretense from her allowing her to “read” her closest idolizers for adherence to her ideas. Your theory is crippled by hers.
Hi Wes, Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I disagree with your assessment.
1. I can't be overrepresenting the prevalence when I said explicitly that it seemed to be a trait of only about 20% of the population. And you didn't bother challenging any of my many examples. If I'm right, I'm right no matter what the numbers are.
2. I am no Christian. And I believe that replacing "God" with "reality" is a good thing.
3. If reality is not sacred, then nothing is sacred. That said, being an authentic person need not impair one's creativity.
4. See #3.
5. I don't know what you're basing your reading of Rand on, but it's not the text. Amazing how many of Rand's critics will lower their standards of fairness and accuracy when it comes to her. I can't help you with that.
Well said, but there’s plenty to note about Rand that is problematic; I needn’t lower my standards. Actually I like her fiction, but there is a lot of error in her non-fiction. She was no realist, but that’s part of her charm. 😏