Tom Peirce also wrote that I said "women are leeches of male light and incapable of rational thought".
They certainly CAN be leeches of male light and I think that's worth cautioning young men about. I wish someone had cautioned me. "She ain't pretty she just looks that way". But I don't think I ever suggested that female voids are an inescapable inevitability. Saying that they exist, I don't think I'm telling anyone they didn't already know about a dear friend of theirs who just won't let himself see what/who it is that he's gotten involved with.
[although the NATIONAL POST has yet to so much as mention anything about it, Sandeep has been keeping me posted on Johnny Depp's latest adventure in those areas. It's not something I've made up because I have an unreasoning hatred for women: it's a not-uncommon reality that I think is becoming less uncommon as the Feminist Theocracy gets a stranglehold on our society]
"Unlike Sim, Ditkoism promotes rational thought and self-awareness regardless of gender."
I think it's worth pointing out that the Feminist Theocracy DOESN'T do that. "Believe the Women" as a hard and fast rule isn't rational given the incidents where women have demonstrably been proven to have lied to the judicial detriment of innocent men. I've always championed rational thought -- but I think I'm safe in saying that carte blanche "Believe the women" isn't remotely rational. Except in case like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton where the sheer numbers make "Believe the women" the ONLY rational response.
Although I would agree with Mr. Peirce that Ditko, to the best of his abilities, does believe in rational thought, he doesn't see himself as a promoter, I don't think. If you write him a letter, he'll explain to you where and how he disagrees with you. But it's strictly between you and him. Someone who "promotes" a view doesn't see it that way.
I can't say that there's very much that Ditko wrote to me that he hasn't said any number of different ways in his creative works and in his concise essays that Robin Snyder has published. He's addressed the whole quitting SPIDER-MAN thing very concisely and very consistently -- in THE COMICS. The idea that he hasn't address it comes from people like Blake Bell who think they have a right to be addressed directly because they're Ditko fans and they write unauthorized books about him. If you want to know what Ditko thinks, Robin Snyder is the guy to write and cheque to. "Here. Here's Ditko."
The point of Objectivism is to start with "A is A" and keep it from getting too much more complicated than that: complications bearing the blight of subjectivism.
In my experience and after extended correspondence with him, Ditko doesn't believe in any kind of "Ditkoism"(Mr. Peirce's term)...or Objectivism...or Ayn Rand...specifically. His philosophy issues from Aristotle. To the extent that Objectivism and Rand conform to his perceptions of Aristotle philosophy, he subscribes to them.
I can't be an Objectivist, by definition, because I believe in God. But I certainly admire what Objectivism endeavours to do: to develop a methodology by which the nature of objective reality can be determined and to then propagate that methodology.
I believe in Objective Reality but I believe that it is only accurately perceived by God. Everything else is subjective. Thus, my own bottom line: "We'll find out on Judgement Day" and "God will not wrong you so much as the husk of a datestone."
So, that was very much the "row I was hoeing" in writing to Ditko. Not surprisingly, he was having none of it and a spirited discussion resulted.
[phone message from Jeff Seiler just before I came in here: John Lougher, one of the core SPACE guys has just passed. Sincere condolences to his family. As Jeff said, he was definitely "one of us" for the period when I was ignoring being a pariah and attended selected public functions. He never said much, but when he did, it always was worth listening to]
They certainly CAN be leeches of male light and I think that's worth cautioning young men about. I wish someone had cautioned me. "She ain't pretty she just looks that way". But I don't think I ever suggested that female voids are an inescapable inevitability. Saying that they exist, I don't think I'm telling anyone they didn't already know about a dear friend of theirs who just won't let himself see what/who it is that he's gotten involved with.
[although the NATIONAL POST has yet to so much as mention anything about it, Sandeep has been keeping me posted on Johnny Depp's latest adventure in those areas. It's not something I've made up because I have an unreasoning hatred for women: it's a not-uncommon reality that I think is becoming less uncommon as the Feminist Theocracy gets a stranglehold on our society]
"Unlike Sim, Ditkoism promotes rational thought and self-awareness regardless of gender."
I think it's worth pointing out that the Feminist Theocracy DOESN'T do that. "Believe the Women" as a hard and fast rule isn't rational given the incidents where women have demonstrably been proven to have lied to the judicial detriment of innocent men. I've always championed rational thought -- but I think I'm safe in saying that carte blanche "Believe the women" isn't remotely rational. Except in case like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton where the sheer numbers make "Believe the women" the ONLY rational response.
Although I would agree with Mr. Peirce that Ditko, to the best of his abilities, does believe in rational thought, he doesn't see himself as a promoter, I don't think. If you write him a letter, he'll explain to you where and how he disagrees with you. But it's strictly between you and him. Someone who "promotes" a view doesn't see it that way.
I can't say that there's very much that Ditko wrote to me that he hasn't said any number of different ways in his creative works and in his concise essays that Robin Snyder has published. He's addressed the whole quitting SPIDER-MAN thing very concisely and very consistently -- in THE COMICS. The idea that he hasn't address it comes from people like Blake Bell who think they have a right to be addressed directly because they're Ditko fans and they write unauthorized books about him. If you want to know what Ditko thinks, Robin Snyder is the guy to write and cheque to. "Here. Here's Ditko."
The point of Objectivism is to start with "A is A" and keep it from getting too much more complicated than that: complications bearing the blight of subjectivism.
In my experience and after extended correspondence with him, Ditko doesn't believe in any kind of "Ditkoism"(Mr. Peirce's term)...or Objectivism...or Ayn Rand...specifically. His philosophy issues from Aristotle. To the extent that Objectivism and Rand conform to his perceptions of Aristotle philosophy, he subscribes to them.
I can't be an Objectivist, by definition, because I believe in God. But I certainly admire what Objectivism endeavours to do: to develop a methodology by which the nature of objective reality can be determined and to then propagate that methodology.
I believe in Objective Reality but I believe that it is only accurately perceived by God. Everything else is subjective. Thus, my own bottom line: "We'll find out on Judgement Day" and "God will not wrong you so much as the husk of a datestone."
So, that was very much the "row I was hoeing" in writing to Ditko. Not surprisingly, he was having none of it and a spirited discussion resulted.
[phone message from Jeff Seiler just before I came in here: John Lougher, one of the core SPACE guys has just passed. Sincere condolences to his family. As Jeff said, he was definitely "one of us" for the period when I was ignoring being a pariah and attended selected public functions. He never said much, but when he did, it always was worth listening to]