About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Or, as the Rev' once said (in another recent thread) ...

============
the understood, not the commanded
============

Did I mention that there never were 5 wiser words than these??

Ed



Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Post 81

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My thanks to Bob, Robert and George for the kind words above and in email.

Ethan wrote:

> You need not forget the good you have seen in others, but if they prove
> to be deceivers or such, you must not fail to consider that.

Ethan, I agree completely, and I would guess that Hong and Robert would as well. My complaint is not that new facts regarding another person should be ignored. To the contrary, new discoveries about any person's character or actions are additional facts of reality that certainly need to be integrated into one's appraisal. The thing I am arguing against is the sort of total reversal we see time and again by Objectivists. Take Barbara Branden as an example. Back on the SoloHQ list, with one act (for which there was a very understandable explanation regardless of how you evaluate its overall appropriateness) she instantly went from being some sort of royal princess in Lindsay's appraisal (whatever her Linz-applied "title" was) to being a pariah deserving of any scorn that could be flung her way. The reactions after this tipping event were so out of proportion to the event itself that it calls into question not just the unreality of the negative appraisals but also the unreality of the high praise that that was previously being proffered. The actual human being falls somewhere between these two abstract extremes, but I do not believe that Lindsay ever had an accurate sighting on that reality. It wasn't Barbara's action that caused such emotional turmoil in Lindsay, it was his failure to be properly tethered to reality with his initial appraisal of her that left him so ungrounded when she did something unexpected. He may have justification to feel betrayed by Barbara's actions, but the real source of his emotional pain is his inappropriate but unexamined initial appraisal of her which "failed" him.

Another example where this problem can be seen being played out over and over in daily life is with marriages. Somewhere around 50% of all marriages end in divorce and many of those divorces are conducted with much rancor. How do so many people get so quickly from the starting gate where one set off with their exalted soul-mate to tackle the adventures of life, to the finish line where they must disentangle themselves from satin's minion? My observation is that many people start with an appraisal of their mate that is not comprehensive, overstates their good points and ignores many of their faults. That, in itself, is a recipe for disaster because reality is coming along for the ride whether or not you invite him! Beyond that, I am often amazed at how often, in the pain and disappointment of a marriage that is not living up to the fantasy originally envisioned, all of the good qualities that originally attracted one person to another now go unseen, even though those attributes are still there. It is true that people grow and change, and this can lead to a couple moving from what was once a good match to a now unfortunate paring. But in many cases the real problem is than an abstract vision of the other person has been substituted in place of a wholistic view grounded in reality, and as with the Lindsay example above, it is that unrealistic view that ends up being the real source of confusion and pain - not the other person.

Objectivism is a philosophy that proclaims its unwavering commitment to an adherence with reality. The problem is that maintaining that adherence is actually more difficult and requires more work than many of us are prepared to acknowledge. This is especially true when dealing with other people, each of whom presents a complex system that makes understanding quantum physics seem like child's play!

I have long argued that the work Rand and Branden did in defining Objectivism provides a comprehensive framework that can guide an individual in establishing a proper path for living in the world. But the philosophy says almost nothing about how human relationships and societies are to successfully function. I suggest that it all begins with this issue of learning how to get a more realistic understanding and appropriate vision of the true nature of other individuals. Only upon this foundation can we move forward to build a world where it is unnecessary, at one end of the social spectrum, to hurl insults, and at the other end, equally unnecessary to turn ourselves into human bombs.

Regards,
--
Jeff - Who still is working really hard on his 29th year of marriage to the same wonderful woman!

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 82

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Hahahaha, I can't possibly respond to John N. Based on the assertiveness of his post, I have to assume that he is intimately knowledgeable with the "events during the cultural revolution". said Hong.

One does not have to be Chinese to have knowledge of the revolution. Drawing an anology, as you did, of Lindsays article and the events that happened afterwards, *with* the events of the cultural revolution in china is innapropriate, unjust, and ridiculous.

You do an injustice to your countrymen who suffered and died during the cultural revolution, by comparing it wo anything like this.

People run around too easily comparing things to the Holocast, the Slave Trade, Jihad, fanaticism etc etc. Hyperbole does not make for a good argument.

Oh, hahahahaha.


John


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff writes: But it is not an "intellectual perversion" to see a psychological connection here. When I reflect on Peikoff's past excommunications, the emotional undertone of Diana's diatribe or on many of the past rants by Lindsay in the old SoloHQ days, these seem like actions more appropriate to the Christian Crusades than to the philosophy of reason and a benevolent universe. Like the Islamic Fundamentalists, it's time for many Objectivists to grow up."

Please, Mr. Small, tell me this is a fucking joke.  You mean to tell me that, because people have fallings out and disassociate with each other, they exhibit the same psychological state as terrorists and those involved in communist purges?   Ok, more maturity is needed by a lot of Objectivists, but the ~same psychology~?  Jesus Christ.  Those aforementioned groups--terrorists, communists, Christian crusaders--are involved with literal jihad

What is the psychological state of a man who straps a bomb to his back and runs into a cafe to smite his enemies based on nothing but their religion?  This is not even REMOTELY comparable.  They operate off of nothing but nihilism and the complete destruction of all values, including human life.  Pray tell, how in the world does this psychological state compare to people within the Objectivist movement who do not like the actions of certain other Objectivists, and denounce them in moral terms? 

My god, Jeff, there is a UNIVERSE of difference between terrorists and people who judge the actions of their Objectivist adversaries as immoral (whether rightly or wrongly) and denounce them for it.  The former exists in nothing but a state of blind rage coupled with total nihilism, and will go to any means, ANY MEANS, to smite out of existence ANYBODY that is an infidel.

I don't think anybody living in the free world, who exist primarily by the use of their minds, can even BEGIN to comprehend the psychological nihilism that goes along with terrorists, Christian crusaders, or communist commissars.  Such a comparison is OUTRAGEOUS

I can to you this, I am not much of a tolerationist and there are plenty of Objectivist I've seen on these forums that I think act immorally, but the thought would NEVER even cross my mind to compare them to terrorists.  I do, however, find it totally ironic that the ~tolerationist~ crowd and the Prophets of Niceness do make such a comparison.  Think for one second, for just one goddamn second, that if you consider yourself toleranist, what a comparison such as this means in terms of the doctrine of toleration. 

Regards,
Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 2:30pm)


Post 84

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Alas that I could only sanction your post once.

---Landon


Sanction: 34, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 34, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 34, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 34, No Sanction: 0
Post 85

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff has packed more wisdom in his previous two posts than has appeared on certain Web sites and blogs (probably including my own) in the past six months. Great job, Jeff.

He fleshes out exactly what I meant in post #60 about Certain People's curiously sudden, extreme, mercuric changes of opinion -- changes of mind not just about one or two people or groups, but a whole host of them. What begins as soaring, improbably lofty, unremittingly hyperbolic praise, transforms overnight into raging, improbably condemnatory, unremittingly hyperbolic vituperation. Yesterday's archangel becomes, in a heartbeat, the devil incarnate.

And when you see that sort of thing happening over and over again, you have to ask yourself why.

One good thing about the Internet is that it provides a permanent historical archive of an individual's public words. If you take the time to trace the history of comments made by Certain People about others, you will shake your head in disbelief -- not just at the astonishing extremes of initial praise and subsequent damnation, but often at the sheer pettiness of the issue that sparked their overnight changes of opinion.

The pattern is always the same. Once some disagreement, no matter how minor, occurs between Certain People and another individual, Certain People interpret it as a "flaw." Because they previously held an exorbitantly lofty image of the other person, they immediately inflate the "flaw" into a "moral flaw" -- which they interpret as a fundamental insight into that person's entire character.

From there, a whole torrent of rationalistic deductions then ensues: "If X believes or is motivated by that (evasion, evil, lie, etc.), then he must ALSO believe or accept Y, Z, A, B, C, etc."

At that point, Certain People try to reconcile their new, ugly interpretation of the individual and his alleged evil motives with their entire past experience with that person. They do this by rationalistically reinterpreting that history to make it conform to their new paradigm. Suddenly, all the good or benign words and actions of that individual are seen "in a new light" (more accurately, in a new darkness): e.g., he was "really" being a fraud and manipulator all along; what he "really" meant by those words and actions was something secretly malignant; his "real" motives were (fill in the blank) envy/malice/exploitation/etc.

Now most ordinary persons who have had first-hand experience with the targets of such wrath will shake their heads in disbelief at such accusations. That's because the overwhelming majority of those targets are exceptionally nice, remarkably productive, and highly ethical people. Are they perfect people? Absolutely not. Do they sometimes make mistakes? Sure. But overall, they're way, WAY better than your average schmuck.

That people of such quality are singled out for seething, enraged vituperation seems so wildly disproportionate that a reasonable person asks himself: What in hell is really going on here? From experience, whenever I spot words and behavior that seem wildly disproportionate, I have learned to suspect some form of platonism: a commitment to some premise torn from a full factual context.

Sometimes, the platonism begins simply as infatuation with a person, as in a romance. "Infatuation" differs from "love" in the same way that rationalism differs from rationality: the missing element is context. But whenever the full context finally IS acknowledged, the result is a painful "disillusionment." Yet that very word -- disillusionment -- suggests what has been going on all along: the maintaining of illusions.

There can be many motives for this kind of context-dropping. On the benign end of the spectrum, it can be the simple craving for heroes and perfection. (I speculate that Ayn Rand succumbed to this tendency more than once, and thus tended to infatuate about some individuals -- with explosive consequences.) On the malicious end of the spectrum, it can be any of a host of ugly motives.

But whatever its motive, one thing can be said with certainty about this mercuric m. o.: it is unjust. Because assessments of people, positive or negative, are made apart from the full context of ALL the relevant facts about them, those individuals are either praised or damned excessively. They are not treated exactly as they deserve to be -- as they have earned.

For to treat a basically good person as an angel, or a somewhat flawed person as a devil, is not "moral judgment": it is an evasion of moral judgment -- an evasion of the difficult responsibility of rendering a careful, fair, proportionate judgment.

A personal word in closing. Some months ago, I promised readers of my blog that I would address some of the personal attacks that Certain People had publicly launched against me, and the methods underlying their attacks.

Well, I believe that I just did.



(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 5/07, 3:24pm)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 86

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Are some Objectivist quick to moral judgment?  Yes.  Are some Objectivists in need of a does of realism and proportion when making moral judgments?  Yes.  Would some Objectivists profit more by walking away from the in-fighting?  Yes.  Notice I did not specify which group of "Objectivists" because this door swings both ways.  Just take a look at certain websites that are heaping with the the Prophets of Niceness and what they have resorted to in characterizing their Objectivist opponents.  The thin veneer of "niceness" is wiped away and in its place is nothing but cheap, ugly malice. 

Speaking of wildly disproportionate and evasion of moral judgment, comparing one's Objectivist adversaries to terrorists and communist commissars stretches the bounds of all proportional, of all sense of moral judgment.  And above all else, it rejects a high does of *realism* about the nature of the people you are comparing. 

This is so disgusting a comparison I don't think I will be able to eat for the rest of the day.  For those who thought this comparison was a dandy, appropriate one, if I were you I would dispense with it immediately.  I would also disavow it publicly if you endorsed it publicly.

Michael


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 87

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to thank Hong for her history lesson and observations, especially about treating people as abstract beings rather than real beings. Point well taken. I'd like to add an observation of my own: treating people as abstractions or objects as a means to your own ends, then discarding and attacking them when and if they cease to further your own ends is the worst kind of second handedness.

I believe Linz' attack on Barbara was planned. For one reason because I posted my belief that Linz had a drinking problem the day before "Drooling Beast" was posted.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1319_4.shtml#86

Why wasn't I the focus of Lindsay's rage? Because he had nothing to gain by it.

This continued attack on Barbara Branden as a "deceiver" is ludicrous and despicable.

I most certainly do believe the analogy made between these tactics of Linz' and those made by the communist party in China mentioned by Hong. Lindsay Perigo's lack of civility reaches those levels, yes. I didn't believe that was possible before, but I certainly do now. I struggled through several weeks of SoloP before giving up on them for good. Though I will say, Lindsay isn't the worst person on his own website as far is lack of civility goes.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As the owner of one of the websites where good people hang out, I would like to make a clarification. There is a metaphysical and moral equivalence brewing among those who prefer the nasty and rude version of Objectivism.

The argument is that the nice Objectivist people are really nasty when they engage intellectual "opponents."

Being competent at responding to nastiness is not the same thing as being a nasty person. I hear the word "opponent" used a lot as if this were some kind of honorable designation. Well, there are opponents and there are opponents.

A person with a well thought-out vision who disagrees with you is a worthy opponent. You gain much through interaction with such a person, and if the truth be told, "opponent" is too combative a term in most cases.

People who make a career out of calling other people nasty names, however, and do not produce anything of any real value - who are mediocre inside and out - are  not the same animal as a competent producer who strikes back.

If you ever get confused about this, notice that the competent producer rarely discusses the crummy little loudmouthed wannabe. He only responds. Yet the crummy little loudmouthed wannabe is always mouthing off about the producers.

I, for one, have stopped being nice to mediocre non-producers who constantly insult the great among us.

Michael


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 89

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike Erickson -- I don't think it's worthwhile to turn this into a debate about comparisons to Nazis, communists, or whatever. That simply affords some the opportunity to evade the basic issue here, by dismissing the comparisons as excessive or unfair.

The fundamental issue concerns the injustice involved in the policy of excessively praising and condemning others, and the possible reasons why Certain People might habitually leap from one extreme to another. No comparisons to unsavory groups are required in order to reject that behavior, and the platonism that often lies at its source.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 5/07, 3:59pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So MSK spends a good amount of his time, if not all of it, engaging in parodies and denunciations full of the worst malice--all in defense of Objectivist values.  He also rationalizes (one of the very things Robert criticized) such malice as being "competent at responding to nastiness".  I urge people to wander over to his website and ask yourselves this:  is this the type of actions I would expect from "competent producers"?  Is this what amounts to upholding Objectivist values?   Judge for yourselves.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 4:25pm)


Post 91

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Will all due respect, I definitely did not change the terms of this debate.  In Post #86, I even agreed that some of the behaviors you criticize are present in Objectivists--on both sides.  My point was that Jeff saw no "intellectual perversion" in the comparison with terrorists and communist commissars, which you then praised.  So let me ask this:  do you believe this is an accurate comparison and one which you agree with? Are the people you are criticizing only different in *degree* to the psychology of terrorists?

Regards,
Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 4:59pm)


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 92

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

"The fundamental issue concerns the injustice involved in the policy of excessively praising and condemning others, and the possible reasons why Certain People might habitually leap from one extreme to another."

That's exactly the point. Why? And who engages in such tactics, certainly not the civil, intelligent, hard working, hard thinking, creative, self reliant people I associate with the principles of objectivism. Disasters like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China were not accidents. If someone like Hong, who lived through such a disaster, sees something analogous, I will take notice. I don't want to debate the point, but I will certainly acknowledge it. I have always believed that human nature is the same everywhere. Certain people have the personalities to be Nazi storm troopers. Everywhere. When they start sounding like Nazi storm troopers, exactly what is wrong with saying "Hey, you sound like a Nazi storm trooper".

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While we are at it, let's look at the designation, "NEM." That supposedly means "New Enlightenment Man." It was supposed to be a designation of the highest honor.

When about 50% of the designated NEM's end up being called scumbags and so forth by the designator himself, one must conclude one of two things:

1. The designator is completely incompetent at making such judgments.
2. This is a jargon-type device used to stroke the designator's vanity, since he is the one who gets to pin the badges on, and nothing more.

In either case, being called a NEM is not much value in practical or moral terms to the one receiving the designation. In addition to almost nonexistent value, he/she then runs a 50% chance of being called a scumbag in public.

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 94

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK: "When about 50% of the designated NEM's end up being called scumbags and so forth by the designator himself, one must conclude one of two things:

1. The designator is completely incompetent at making such judgments.
2. This is a jargon-type device used to stroke the designator's vanity, since he is the one who gets to pin the badges on, and nothing more."

MSK, You were one of Linz's biggest supporters, I believe. Even when I was trying to convince you of Linz's guilt (oh, the irony) some time back, warning you that he would turn on you, you stood by him with a staunch loyalty. Are we to conclude the above about you?

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 95

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I gave my all to that dude. I loved him. I screwed up big time. When I moved on, I forgot about him and built something. With two small exceptions, I didn't write about him at all, but he kept writing about me constantly. That went on for months. It's all on public record.

When he started writing about TOC, and especially Chris Sciabarra, my gloves came off.

So yes, I make mistakes. Not anywhere near 50%, though.

btw - I don't remember ever sending you any e-mails, but you have my permission to publish them if I did.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/07, 5:24pm)


Post 96

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I have no intention of publishing your emails, or anyone else's for that matter (incidentally, it was a Solo email). As for your snarky comment, I realize that I carry a stigma, I won't hide from that fact.

For the record, since I have not addressed the issue here (and this will be my only statement here): I make no apology for verifying for myself the claims about other people made by Sciabarra. I do not consider it honorable to share confidential information (as Chris did), then make a claim about the person while binding the third person to secrecy. THAT is what was dishonorable. I was guilty for allowing myself to hear these stories, I should have stopped Chris then and there from sharing. I don't apologize for verifying the claims by going to the sources and allowing them their rebuttal and chance to know their accussers. I accept the price of what you've called my "betrayal", which is also the price I pay for allowing Chris to tell me these stories. Now let Chris accept responsibility for his deceptions and betrayals.

But your explanation of how you changed your mind on Linz, even if not 50 percent, serves as a good explanation of how one could change their minds on Sciabarra, Branden(s), etc. And that's exactly how I feel about Sciabarra. I screwed up big time. To people like Linz, Diana, and Ayn Rand herself, I apologize for the pot shots and unfair criticisms I've made based on faulty evidence and my own poor judgement.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/07, 5:44pm)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 97

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

The 50% figure refers to a whole lot of screwing up big time, don't you think? Half of your heroes in life become villains? Something's seriously wrong there, especially for an "Objectivist leader."

Also, when I screw up big time, I move on, unless the person left behind makes a fuss and I have to deal with it.

Edit - Since you made a major addition to your previous post, let me add a comment here, right after. Otherwise, it might look like I did not address this and we wouldn't want to give a false impression, would we?

I have written at length what I thought of your behavior and that of the others elsewhere, and I disagree with your charge that he betrayed anybody. For the record, you owe Chris Sciabarra an apology. Shame on you.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/07, 7:16pm)


Post 98

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Also, when I screw up big time, I move on, unless the person left behind makes a fuss and I have to deal with it."

Likewise, Michael, likewise.

Post 99

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

With all due respect, I hear your words and I see what you just did.

I'll stay with what I see.

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.