At 10:29 PM 12/8/97 -0500, Kurt wrote:
>If I read you email right I don't get it.
>
>> 'Here are my rules: what can be done with one
>>substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike.
>
>Am I to take this literally?
No.
> It seems like an odd statement.
Well, it is but once again, Roark, by Rand's definition, must be an
absolutist to be the protagonist of her philosophy.
> Does this
>mean bricks can not be used for both walls and walkways. F. Furness was
>wrong to put glass in the floor of the library @ Penn since it was
>already used in the windows?
A lot of people have always said Furness was wrong. Period. But not I!
> What about all the uses of wood? Cement?
>Steel? I could go on and on but I don't understand the statement in this
>light. It just seems absurd.
>
>And what about "Never" That seems real limiting.
But not in Roark's world.
Mark
>If I read you email right I don't get it.
>
>> 'Here are my rules: what can be done with one
>>substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike.
>
>Am I to take this literally?
No.
> It seems like an odd statement.
Well, it is but once again, Roark, by Rand's definition, must be an
absolutist to be the protagonist of her philosophy.
> Does this
>mean bricks can not be used for both walls and walkways. F. Furness was
>wrong to put glass in the floor of the library @ Penn since it was
>already used in the windows?
A lot of people have always said Furness was wrong. Period. But not I!
> What about all the uses of wood? Cement?
>Steel? I could go on and on but I don't understand the statement in this
>light. It just seems absurd.
>
>And what about "Never" That seems real limiting.
But not in Roark's world.
Mark