|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Daily Linz 7 - Sense of Strife Objectivists? SOLO has not been immune from such internecine warfare. It’s rare for there not to be a major war going on. High-dudgeon, high-profile walkouts have become commonplace, to the point where I have considered changing our name from SOLO—Sense of Life Objectivists—to SOSO—Sense of Strife Objectivists. I had naively imagined that it would be possible to have the open, uninhibited engagement on which SOLO prides itself, without cataclysm. The Elmore/Iannolo drama disabused me of that illusion! Then the Brandbourne/Drooling Beast melee made Elmore/Iannolo seem like a bonding session. Overlapping that, and ongoing still, were the flame-fests over The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics. The book’s defenders, apparently, are mindless Peikovians, ARI groupies; its attackers are mindless Brandenians, TOC groupies (the latter, of course, is the truer assessment). There are those who hold my own incendiary persona directly responsible for all of these conflagrations—“Crazy Linz … there he goes again”—and have stomped off solely because of me. And these are only the conflicts amongst ourselves, let alone those between us and the non- or anti-Objectivists with whom we have engaged! I tend to the view that in truth, SOLO is a little like post-Tito Yugoslavia, or post-Saddam Iraq (leaving aside the obvious philosophical differences among the players). On SOLO, the lid is off. There is no Culture of Excommunication, no authority figure keeping the lid on dissent, no Loyalty Oath, no imposed unanimity … ARIans, TOCites and the non-aligned, not to mention complete outsiders, are free to take each other on, no holds barred. The result, inevitably, is cacophonous and bloody. I believe it is also necessary and desirable. It is part of a liberating and growing process that is vital if Objectivism is indeed to save Western civilisation. The Culture of Excommunication is no good. It is repressive and anti-intellectual. Even allowing for the redressing of injustices in James Valliant’s book, Ayn Rand herself must shoulder some of the blame for it, as eyewitness testimonies on the Cultism thread make clear. Prefacing answers to questions with, “Only a person of low self-esteem would ask such a question” is not the currency of rational, benevolent persuasion; as Robert Campbell points out, it is a flat-out example of what Rand herself identified as the Argument from Intimidation. But Rand had at least a partial excuse. She and her astounding, path-breaking work had been hideously abused and misrepresented; it’s not surprising she became, at times, suspicious and dismissive. It’s her followers who emulated and continue to emulate such behaviour as a norm who have no excuse. They are not entitled to proceed on borrowed umbrage, as elite guardians of the sacred persona of (hushed tones) “Miss Rand.” I was on the receiving end of this culture myself once, after someone dobbed me in for saying something favourable about David Kelley. From California all the way down to New Zealand came this note from the ARI’s Gary Hull, whom I had recently interviewed for a programme on Political Correctness: I very much enjoyed our interview, however, some things have been brought to my attention which, if true, are disturbing. There are people in New Zealand who claim that you defend Libertarianism, that you attack Miss Rand and Objectivism, and that you believe David Kelley is the best hope for Objectivism. … On the other hand, different acquaintances of yours deny these accusations, and insist that you are a person of integrity. Please tell me which of these is true. That was the end of the ARI as far as I was concerned, and confirmation that Kelley’s critique of its modus operandi was true. Since then, as I have discussed in other articles, I have become convinced that that TOC went too far in the opposite direction, losing its crusading zeal and becoming bloodlessly ecumenical and anaemically unproductive. And I have become a great fan of the ARI’s no-nonsense, hard-hitting op-eds, particularly those by Robert C. Tracinski (TIA Daily) which are uniformly excellent and admirable. But this “Which is true? Do you support David Kelley or are you a person of integrity?” mentality must be dumped. Which brings me back to SOLO. I hope that it will continue to be a repository of open debate among the factions, without ceasing to be a scourge of such evils as postmodernism, relativism, Political Correctness, the Cult of Uncertainty and all the rest of the ghastly contemporary sewer whose pusball representatives I finally flamed here recently. I hope that it will continue to accommodate dissent without blunting its polemical edge, the KASS factor. I hope that its vision, set forth in the Credo, will survive and prosper from all the tumult and the shouting. I hope that the end result will be a noisy world full of Objectivists, all talking animatedly to each other whatever their disagreements! Let us drown out the hysterical, caterwauling choruses of crazed Muslims and claim the earth for passionate reason! With the above considerations in mind, I reproduce the Credo here: ______________________________________________________________________ Credo SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists. * "The total passion for the total height." * Rational passion & passionate reason. * Say what you mean, & mean what you say. * "This above all, to thine own self be true." Welcome to the web site for SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists. SOLO was set up—to invoke George Walsh's famous remark when he helped David Kelley launch the Institute for Objectivist Studies—for those who consider themselves "homeless Objectivists" still. It’s for those who, after 15 years of IOS/TOC, want an alternative to barking-mad dogmatism other than timid, somnambulist ecumenism. SOLO seeks to galvanise all Objectivists who recognise that Objectivism is a tool for living, and who repudiate any reason/passion dichotomy. We seek to be a magnet and a home for those who are exuberantly rational and rationally exuberant, who aspire to the "total passion for the total height," intellectually and emotionally, simultaneously and harmoniously. We aspire to a culture of sincerity and integrity; where mind-games, deceit and posturing—and having to read between the lines—in one's dealings with others, are a thing of the past; where Shakespeare's "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. ..." is second nature. SOLO is for those who want reason and logic to be liberated from the Mr. Spock straitjacket and impregnated with KASS—the "kick-ass" factor. We see ourselves most emphatically as being at war with the current culture: the culture of anti-heroes, nihilism, destruction and dishonesty (hence a significant, though by no means exclusive, focus on esthetics here). Yet we acknowledge that Objectivism's critics can be honest, and should be granted more than a perfunctory discussion or two before being dismissed out of hand. We acknowledge that Ayn Rand made mistakes; that she didn’t answer every question that can be asked; that she was wrong about some matters of considerable existential moment, such as homosexuality (which matter we have already addressed). But we salute her as an epoch-changing giant—comparable to Aristotle—whose mistakes were of little moment when compared to her unprecedented insights (just as his mistakes were of little moment). We want to help Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, become the living, breathing, growing, vibrant, reality-orientated, life-affirming phenomenon that it really is, when unsullied by barking-mad dogmatists. We want to plant another flower in the garden—fiercely, radiantly, rationally colourful—that will ultimately tower over all others. We seek nothing less than to change the world. Lindsay Perigo Founder and Principal PS - "SOLO kicks ass first, then takes names. Then it kicks ass again." Perigo at TOC-Vancouver, 2004. PPS - "The world isn't going to conquer itself." Joseph Rowlands Executive Director PPPS – And no, I won’t be changing our name!
Discuss this Article (14 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
