Friday, April 13, 2007

Atlas Shrugged Outline

The U.S. Library of Congress has called "Atlas Shrugged" the second most influential book ever written (with the first being the Bible).

Ayn HERSELF wrote the following in "The Romantic Manifesto":

"The motive and purpose of my writing can best be summed up by saying that if a dedication page were to precede the total of my work, it would read: To the glory of Man."

"And if anyone should ask me what it is that I have said to the glory of Man, I will answer only by paraphrasing Howard Roark. I will hold up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and say: 'The explanation rests.'"

I have contacted both The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objective Center. Despite what Ayn HERSELF wrote, BOTH organizations that claim to be the source of understanding as it relates to Ayn Rand value her essays MUCH MORE than Atlas Shrugged! Neither of them is interested in discussing the greater meanings found in Atlas Shrugged.

In "The Romantic Manifesto", Ayn speaks of a "sense of life". She writes: "A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence."

At the time of Ayn's writing, this was a theoretical belief. Today, this has been proven to be true PHYSIOLOGICALLY! Books such as "Blink!" have explained the "Unaware Brain" which is the SAME as Ayn's "sense of life". Ayn herself wrote that what is in a person's sense of life is MORE LIKELY to be understood through LITERATURE (specifically the novel) than conscious essays.

The notes offered on this blog show a deeper explanation for what Ayn was TRULY attempting to convey from her sense of life. Be warned, so called "experts" at understanding Ayn vehemently disagree with the conclusions reached by these notes AND are unwilling to discuss these conclusion and support their claims. They are behaving EXACTLY like characters in Atlas Shrugged!

In the first four months of 2009, sales of "Atlas Shrugged" have sky rocketed. People are seeing the similarity between the recent financial events and what "Atlas Shrugged" predicted.

Ayn Rand created a world where Justice is COMPLETELY resolved. Ms. Rand also correctly identified that thinking is man's only moral responsibility. The choice to think is a first cause and everything else, including interacting with God is an effect.

Ayn has written that the theme of Atlas Shrugged is: "The role of the mind in man's existence."

When Ayn discusses "religion", she correctly identifies that a deterministic view is contradictory and results in abuse. Calvinism and determinism negate the role of the mind in man's existence. For "Christians", Ayn is stating that Calvinism is contradictory AND IF this is truly what the Bible states, then the Bible would be contradictory.

However, this blog shows that the Bible is actually NOT deterministic. Ayn did not know it, but she ACTUALLY agrees with the Bible...or as she would state it: Ayn believes what the Bible says...NOT peoples' opinion of the Bible, but the actual facts. In fact, Ayn also wrote that the Romanticists of her time - the people that believed man's mind had a crucial role in his existence - "are escaping, not into the past, but into the supernatural..."

The people who think "Atlas Shrugged" isn't spiritual are naive. In April 2011, the movie "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" opened. Owen Kellogg stated there was nothing on earth Dagny could offer him. Hugh Akston told Dagny that this was bigger than a motor. This book begins about physical (business) principles. However, by the second book, the focus changes to the spiritual.

This realization caused me to determine a non-contradictory model for God and write a book. The explanation for that process can be read here. I realize that some people think that "Atlas Shrugged" and God are contradictory because Ayn spent most of her life stating she didn't believe in God and this world was the final reality. However, shortly before Ayn's death, she admitted Justice ISN'T resolved in this world AND (like she wrote in "Atlas Shrugged") Justice will eventually equal everything out. She admitted there was an afterlife and she thought she would see her husband again.

I have found that "Atlas Shrugged" actually goes beyond anything Ayn wrote, including her essays that came after "Atlas Shrugged". In fact, her explanation of how God and Heaven ought to be (from "Atlas Shrugged") goes beyond anything I have heard from any "expert" on the subject. Recently, a reader of these notes (Ed Mabrie) explained the reason better than I could have:

"An excellent thought process will lead you to God no matter what your other intentions may have been."

Ayn has an excellent thought process. If you don't believe this, please read the notes before you assert your opinion...otherwise, you are acting just like Jim Taggart and his friends...

Nine years ago, I wrote notes for "Atlas Shrugged" because I wanted others to get the gems that are hidden in this book during their first read through. It really takes more than one read because the book is set up as a series of mysteries.

I have shared these notes with over 100 people and have been told countless times how they would never had made it past Chapter 5 without these notes.

The notes are set up with the following sections:

PLOT: The events that occur in the chapter that come to conclusion.

SUBPLOT: The events that occur during the chapter that are important to remember during future chapters.

COMMENTS: Insight into the events that occurred during the chapter.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION: A review of a section of the chapter that is worth re-reading because it can be practically applied to your life.

SUPPLEMENT: Quotes and examples from other works that add further insight to the events of the chapter.

Those who have read "Atlas Shrugged" find the best way to re-read the book is to read the notes and then re-read the section mentioned in PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

Here are the notes:


Book 1: Non-contradiction

Chapter 1 The Theme
Chapter 2 The Chain
Chapter 3 The Top and the Bottom
Chapter 4 The Immovable Movers
Chapter 5 The Climax of the D'Anconias
Chapter 6 The Non-commercial
Chapter 7 The Exploiters and the Exploited
Chapter 8 The John Galt Line
Chapter 9 The Sacred and the Profane
Chapter 10 Wyatt's Torch


Book 2: Either-Or

Chapter 1 The Man Who Belonged on Earth
Chapter 2 The Aristocracy of Pull
Chapter 3 White Blackmail
Chapter 4 The Sanction of the Victim
Chapter 5 Account Overdrawn
Chapter 6 Miracle Metal
Chapter 7 The Moratorium on Brains
Chapter 8 By Our Love
Chapter 9 The Face Without Pain or Fear of Guilt
Chapter 10 The Sign of the Dollar


Book 3: A is A

Chapter 1: Atlantis
Chapter 2: The Utopia of Greed
Chapter 3: Anti-Greed
Chapter 4: Anti-Life
Chapter 5: Their Brothers' Keepers
Chapter 6: The Concerto of Deliverance
Chapter 7: This is John Galt Speaking
Chapter 8: The Egoist
Chapter 9: The Generator
Chapter 10: In the Name of the Best Within Us

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lenhart, your notes are too simplistic. They are true and pretty good, but the book itself has a whole other universe to offer, and it offers it to people who are willing to they themselves understand it.

jg lenhart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jg lenhart said...

Anonymous,

Please give me an example of a concept that is addressed in the notes at too simplistic of a level AND explain to me how you would address it.

I agree with the second rater speech. I want to find someone who is better than me and can teach me.

For the past seven years, I have actively looked for someone to show me where these notes could go deeper. It is yet to happen...

Anonymous, it is time for you to find out if you are a first rater.

Let me give you a little help from the notes...anonymous is DEFINITELY NOT the type of name Ayn associated with a first rater.

Ron said...

Using Atlas Shrugged or any of Ms. Rand's work in order to rationalize a "non-contradictory christian"(an oxymoron) world view is probably the biggest diservice that can be done to what Rand has ever written

jg lenhart said...

Commenting as an expert on Ayn Rand without giving a reason (the why) and qualifying it with "probably" is DEFINITELY immoral.

Please explain why it is an oxymoron.

Tera said...

this is outrageous....if u have read her work, how can u apply to religion...that is the complete opposite of her value system...there are so many things that are just, for want of a better term, blasphemous....u say on the commentary to Galt's speech:
"What amazes me is the number of religion experts who won’t address tough questions logically. They just blank out. They feel “what they don’t know won’t hurt them”. When they say, “it takes faith”..."
OBVIOUSLY...that is the whole basis of religion, its not to think, is to believe in something bigger than ur SELF....all i can say is that u ppl need to actually read ALL of her works, specifically her non-fiction...u are completely undermining everything Ayn Rand believed, thought, and worked for, by applying her philosophy to religion....open ur eyes and realize that u cant take things out of context to justify ur measly existence

jg lenhart said...

Tera,

I appreciate your perspective, however, I would challenge you to read the notes and then explain to me why Ayn ACTUALLY didn't believe in God.

If you read the notes on the speech, you will see that I agree with Ayn Rand...religion is a man-made contradictory belief.

Ayn herself would say that you ought to check your assumptions and consider you are wrong before you jump to a superficial conclusion.

Tera said...

are u blind, seriously? watch her interviews, she is a self-proclaimed atheist...look it up on you tube seriously...religion asks for u to give up ur mind and believe watever the religious texts tell u to do...how could she believe in a supreme being?? please explain that one to me...if u just take wat however wrote this has to say on Atlas Shrugged, sure u can think that, how about actually cracking open a book and reading urself...then u will understand that she NEVER condoned or believed in some "higher power"

but i guess arguing with ppl that actually are trying to justify themselves with her work....actually gives u the correct definition of the looter...ur asking for a intellectually superior's permission...which if uve read the book, ud know wat i was talking about

so dont try to throw in my face, to check my premise...check urs...urs is the contradiction not mine...sure u can say that she believed in a higher power, if u take it out of context...again my advice is to read the book

jg lenhart said...

Tera,

Near the end of her life she said she thought there was an afterlife and she would be with her husband again. Atlas Shrugged equals out justice on earth. However, Ayn realized at the end of her life that justice did have to be equaled out (like she wrote) however she realized it wasn't equaled out here...so there had to be an after.

You are awfully emotional and judgmental for someone who is familiar with all Ayn's works. I'm willing to walk through any contradiction you think I have, however, you will need to back up your points. For instance, you mentioned faith...what is your definition of "faith"?

Ayn actually espouses the Biblical definition of faith in Atlas Shrugged. She says the religious definition is a fraud...and she is right.

I have offered you the opportunity to check your premises by reading the notes. You have prejudged me and are passing on your ability to understand me. That is on you.

I have shared my entire perspective willingly...like one of the characters from Atlas. People can see for themselves.

They can also see which character you most resemble from Atlas from your posts.

Again, thank you for your perspective...it actually proves several of the points made in the notes about how people want to appear to be logical, but prove they are emotional by passing on the opportunity to understand.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that since Ms. rand said that she would be with her husband again, that it amounts to religious faith - according to your book's "getting closer to the party" illustration?

jg lenhart said...

Hi Anonymous,

Ms. Rand saying she would see her husband again means she believed near the very end of her life that there had to be something more than this world because she believed Justice ultimately gets resolved AND she knew it didn't get resolved in this life.

Getting closer to the party is an overarching analogy that is ONLY resolved at the end of the third book in the series.

These are two completely separate discussions.

Anonymous said...

Did she say she believed there had to be something more than this world because she believed Justice ultimately gets resolved AND she knew it didn't get resolved in this life or are you interpreting her statement that she would see her husband again to mean this?

jg lenhart said...

On camera she said that she knew there had to be another world after this world.

The rest of the comments attributed to her were from interviews and people explaining how she referred to principles such as justice the same way most people refer to tangible objects.

What I've stated is the non-contradictory summary of these comments.

What is your objective in asking me these questions?

I've continually answered your questions. Let's see how well you do with ONE of mine...

Anonymous said...

FIrst off, I don't think responding to two comments achieves the level of "continual" response. I told yo in the my comments that I wondered if you were inferring from one comment that she was "getting closer to the party" or that you had more statements/information regarding her belief in a world following this life. It would seem to me to have been a too far a leap to assume that since she made one statement about seeing her husband again, that it would amount to her being "closer to the party" and by that criteria alone, to have achieved salvation.

jg lenhart said...

Hi Anonymous,

Actually, I have continually answered your questions even if it is "only" 2 for 2.

You, however, are 0 for 1 with my questions.

You are proving that your goal is to be destructive...

jg lenhart said...

By the way, you write:

"I told yo in the my comments that I wondered if you were inferring from one comment that she was "getting closer to the party" or that you had more statements/information regarding her belief in a world following this life."

I already showed you that those two thoughts are completely separate in my world. YOU are the one who linked them...unless you can show me where I stated these two thoughts are linked.

Then after showing you they are separate, you continue to bring them up.

Your level of misunderstanding AND your desire to CONTINUALLY misunderstand is troubling. Here is another question:

Is God telling you to write these comments?

Because you may be getting further from the party.

Two questions...do we have any answers yet?

6/13/09
6 PM

Anonymous said...

A desire for more information (regarding the comments about Ms. Rand)is what is telling me to ask for more information. You state info regarding Ms. Rand comments before she died but that's all we know. You don't talk about any other interviews, documentaries, biographies etc. I ask a question about your statements and get a (rather continual) accusation. Who gets further from the party, the one who asks for more information or the accuser? You state that the third book will finally get resolved. I am asking a question which you say is seperate. Then you ask for my objective. I state my objective is more information. Why do you then accuse me?

jg lenhart said...

You got the information and still brought back up the faulty premise.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

Did you read all the notes on this blog associated with Atlas Shrugged?

Did you read Modeling God?

How can you even think those two concepts are connected if you have read all this information?

How can you continue to link these concepts after getting additional information from me?

How come once you got the additional information you didn't state how YOU misapplied the concepts?

I do talk about other sources. Either you didn't read ALL the information...which you ought to have done if your objective was getting information or you have trouble digesting a lot of information, which you would admit if you have read ALL the information.

Trust me, if you read Atlas Shrugged and the notes and understood them, you would realize the way you have handled this is EXACTLY like the characters in Atlas Shrugged that are on the negative end of the scale.

In fact, I will probably be incorporating your posts in the next update because they show how most people don't think about the objective past the superficial level...just like Ayn illustrated in Atlas Shrugged.

Can't wait to hear your answers...

6/13/09
6:40 PM

jg lenhart said...

Anonymous,

I will be surprised to hear you have read all the material.

Your initial question was so off that it was either a misunderstanding or an attempt to trap me.

Your response to my answer was so bent on being divisive that it reminded me of someone else. I have only met one person who argues the way you do: Tim Snell of CCV.

You begin with a false premise, don't recognize that you are wrong, and don't answer questions. For instance, I asked if God told you to ask these questions. The answer is either yes or no...but you ducked the question. This is divisive and ultimately a sign your brain is being damaged. I hope you aren't on anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, or anti-migraine medication because you still would have time to avoid all of this if you read this month's Series.

So, the REAL questions are:

Are you Tim Snell?

Have you communicated at all with Tim Snell in the last week?

NOW we will see your true heart and the direction you are going relative to the party.

If you are honest, you will e-mail me at jlenhart@new.rr.com with your name and phone number so I can confirm you aren't communicating with Tim Snell.

Now, it is all up to you...

Anonymous said...

I only bring these up since you keep accusing me of something. You asked me, "what is your objective in asking me these questions" I answer that I want more information. Then you begin accusing me of "getting farther from the party". We both know from your book what that means. You then tell me that I must be on drugs since I keep bringing this up!? I am only telling you what my objective is. Did I read your book? Yes. Have I read Ms. Rand's book? No, but my original question springs from your comment regarding Ms. Rand and the analogy (I'm only bringing it up to set the context of the original comment). I thought it was the weakest part of your book so I asked about it when I read the statement about Ann Rand. As for the other stuff, whether I take headache or depression meds and my personal life - that is my own business and I offer none of it to one so unfriendly. A simple question is all I asked and your defensive, accusative, caustic reply makes me regret having asked. You had the opportunity to have an open forum for your ideas. Instead you use the forum to try and force me to identify myself - no thank you.

jg lenhart said...

Hi Anonymous,

Your response actually proves many more points that Ayn makes. Your rationalizations are right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged!

I answered all your questions.

You didn't answer all of mine.

But you did actually prove me right and answer my final questions...thank you.

Anonymous said...

You are welcome. You didn't answer all of my questions. You state that the getting closer to the party is an over arching analogy which doesn't get resolved until the third book. If salvation is what you are state in your book, how did Ms. Rand achieve it apart from getting closer to the party? Stating that they are two completely separate discussions doesn't really answer my question. When did Ms. Rand get closer to the party? How do you know? How can you even compile the (as in the only?) non-contradictory summary of her comments? Are you saying that Ms. Rand's comments at the end of her life are on the level of scripture? Without Error and Contradiction?

Sir, I think your book and it's re-invention of Christianity is disturbing. I think the way you treat people is even worse (at least in the short term). You open a forum like this as a tool to beat people up. You may have something to say, but the way you say it shows that you are only interested in your own disciples. Any questions for further information are met with accusations and a pressing for personal information. Why would I want to email you? What would talking to a pastor have to do with getting an answer to an honest question? How would an honest question be a trap unless it gets to the heart of a disturbing reality? You had the opportunity to answer honestly and set the record straight (at least with me... we both know very few people are likely to see this page).

jg lenhart said...

Anonymous, you wrote:

"You didn't answer all of my questions. You state that the getting closer to the party is an over arching analogy which doesn't get resolved until the third book. If salvation is what you are state in your book, how did Ms. Rand achieve it apart from getting closer to the party?"

Please show me where I stated that Ayn Rand achieved salvation.

My first answer was that her seeing her husband again was a belief in another world. She could see her husband in hell when she ends up there with him and it would still result in her believing in another world and NOT result in salvation.

My first answer showed you were wrong in your linking the two separate concepts...yet you never comprehended this AND you acted as if you understood the background with Ayn Rand WITHOUT reading Atlas Shrugged or the notes.

Either show me where I stated Ayn attained salvation or admit you were wrong.

I answered all your questions. You WANTED me to answer differently or you didn't ask the questions you were REALLY interested in.

You did NOT answer all my questions. If you aren't Tim or affiliated with Tim THAT was the easiest question to answer.

You have one reality in your brain and there actually exists a different reality for the rest of us. ALL of your posts show that you want all of us to conform to the reality in your brain according to your rules that you change when it benefits you.

Read Atlas Shrugged and the notes...THEN give me your opinion. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite...holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

Again, thank you for the exchange because it is a real life example of what Ayn presented.

Anonymous said...

So now I finally get a statement about your comments regarding Ms. Rand and how it could be that seeing her husband again might not be salvation. Why was that so difficult? Why all the other stuff? You state that in my second post I "acted as if". If you go back and read the posts I only asked for clarification. You say I was wrong. A question is a hard thing to make right or wrong but I will cheerfully state that your final answering of the question indeed states a way for Ms. Rand to see her husband again in a way that does not assume salvation. Therefore you were assuming I was only asking in order to get a different answer. I state again that I was asking an honest question. Who is now the hypocrite? You ask me to identify myself? Maybe when I host a blog regarding my published work, you can press me for an answer.

I find it hard to understand how asking a question is holding you to a higher standard... and I am no hypocrite for doing so. All these are based on assumptions you have made. I have admitted that I read only your book and the comments regarding Ms. Rand and her book (I have wanted to read it but have not yet). I may have wandered into a chat without all of the information, but i thought asking a question that seemed to me to be leading toward a concept I read about in Modeling God was germaine. No more, no less. Your desire to use this blog to personally attack me (or my use of headache medication) or get me to personally contact you is troubling. Why would anyone give such information in a forum like this?

jg lenhart said...

Anonymous,

My answer in my previous comment is the same as the first. Ayn's comment is completely separate from my analogy about going to the party.

Your inability to recognize that I answered all your questions AND your inability to answer all my questions is what makes you a hypocrite.

You hold me to the standard of having to answer all your questions (and continue to be destructive after I have answered all your questions) while NOT holding yourself to answering all my questions is what makes me concerned that you are knowingly walking away from the party...that you can't answer that the reason you asked what you did was because God led you to.

From the very beginning it was obvious that you hadn't read Atlas Shrugged or the notes because your question was attempting to take something you misunderstood from Modeling God and apply it to something you didn't even read from Atlas Shrugged or the notes.

Your original question ONLY is a valid quest for more information if I stated that Ayn attained salvation. If you were truly looking for information or if God had directed your requests, you would have FIRST asked if I believed Ayn attained salvation. Instead, you asked a question that WRONGLY projected this conclusion onto me. Then you spent a lot of energy trying to distract me from the fact that you made a false statement. None of this created. Hopefully it will help others realize how to deal with a person who says they are looking for information but are truly looking to be destructive. So, I will ask the question once again:

Where did I state that I believed Ayn attained salvation?

Again, show me or admit you were wrong in projecting that I stated this...

jg lenhart said...

Anonymous, you wrote:

"Your desire to use this blog to personally attack me (or my use of headache medication) or get me to personally contact you is troubling. Why would anyone give such information in a forum like this?"

ACTUALLY, I wrote:

"If you are honest, you will e-mail me at jlenhart@new.rr.com with your name and phone number so I can confirm you aren't communicating with Tim Snell."

I did not ask you to give such information in this forum. I gave my personal information and the opportunity for you to give me the information in private.

Your reasoning is so flawed and false, one can only assume it is intentional like Tim Snell's...and explains why you can't understand Modeling God...

...you don't want to.

Anonymous said...

That is just the point. I indeed saw your comments about Ms. Rand and wondered if it had something to do with the party. My original question was to get more information since I didn't have all of the information. Your comments eventually gave me more information that I hadn't thought of (that seeing her husband in hell etc... ). Along the way I am called a hypocrite for having asked in the way that I did. You asked me if I read Modeling God, or Atlas Shrugged. I state that I didn't read Atlas but I did read your book but that the comments here made we want for more information - thus I asked the question. In previous posting to a person named Tera you state, "check your assumptions and consider you are wrong before you jump to a superficial conclusion." I have admitted that I had not read Atlas Shrugged but that I thought the question was germane since it seemed like the party analogy (again, I only state this for context, you have made the point that you have never stated that Ayn attained salvation). Perhaps you should take your own advice. Do you see that calling or emailing you personally crosses a line? I comment here anonymously yet you think that it represents hypocrisy. This is your forum which allows people to ask you (a published author) to answer questions/comments. Why don't you change the identity selection from Anonymous to Hypocrite.... lets see how many people write in. While your at it why not change the title "jg lenhart" to something more unfriendly as well.

Anonymous said...

I am Anonymous #2. I am not the person who has been posting thus far as Anonymous.

I wanted to comment that I have read Atlas Shrugged three times and I feel like Anonymous #1 needs to move on.

Anonymous #1 stated: "Then you begin accusing me of "getting farther from the party"."

What John actually wrote: "NOW we will see your true heart and the direction you are going relative to the party."

Anonymous #1 also said: "You then tell me that I must be on drugs since I keep bringing this up!?"

John actually said: "I hope you aren't on anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, or anti-migraine medication because you still would have time to avoid all of this if you read this month's Series."

So I have shown you, objectively, that you are wrong with two of your responses.

Can you say the words, "I was wrong"?

If you can't, it looks to me like you are just trying to argue for no greater purpose.

Please stop unless you really want to have a real discussion about Atlas Shrugged.

John, please ignore this person. You tried. Enough. Let's talk about the good stuff.

Anonymous said...

Sure! You have wonderfully stated that I was wrong. Point blank. I took from his comments that he was accusing me. You show me that I mistakenly assumed that he was accusiing me. Can he state that my original question was in no way an accusation and that he is wrong to have made that assumption?

Anonymous said...

This is Anonymous #2 speaking.

1. I recognize I am being drawn into a discussion that I think you will try to take off course, based on your previous posts with John.

2.You state: " You have wonderfully stated that I was wrong. Point blank. I took from his comments that he was accusing me. You show me that I mistakenly assumed that he was accusiing me."

I know you were mistaken. That was objectively proven.

You did not say, "I was wrong". Last shot. Can you say, "I was wrong"?

3. You ask me, "Can he state that my original question was in no way an accusation and that he is wrong to have made that assumption?"

That's passive aggressive. If you want to ask John a question, ask him. Don't ask him through me.

However, I want to point out this important piece of information?

You say, "You show me that I mistakenly assumed that he was accusiing me."

Then you continue to try to prove that John was accusing you of something with your original question. You want him to admit it.

Which is it?

I would suggest you read Atlas Shrugged. Your comments are straight out of the book.

4. Please cut and paste from your post between you and John where you see John "assuming" that your original question is an accusation.

He asked your objective for your question. I don't see him "assuming" anything. He's a pretty specific guy. He watches his words pretty carefully.

So far, I can't say the same is true for you.

thubbard29 said...

John,

Thanks for these notes. I enjoyed going through the book with them and learned a lot.

It is truly amazing how someone (Rand) could be so against a God yet come so close to a biblical worldview.

It is a great example of where seeking after truth will always lead.

Tom