RoR: Forum

Likewise, Michael, Likewise.

Post 101

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 6:20pm

Michael Moeller in Post #91 and in private e-mail (which, ahem, I shall not quote) objects to my endorsement of Jeff's first post (#74). His reason? This single paragraph in Jeff's very long post, this one:

John is upset because Hong dares compare Lindsay's behavior to one specific type of behavior of the leaders of the Chinese cultural revolution. Well, it is true that unlike the Chinese leaders, we don't have to fear of any sort of torture, terror or other physical form of retribution from Lindsay. 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.

Michael fixates on this one paragraph, and somehow reads in it an unqualified equation of Certain People's attitudes with the psychology of terrorists, Crusader armies, and communist butchers.

I urge people to reread Jeff's entire post, which provides the context for this paragraph, in order to determine what he was truly saying, and what he was focused upon. Also, for further clarification, read his subsequent post #81. I fear that Michael's fixation with the preceding paragraph is diverting attention from the many important issues and outstanding observations that Jeff raises.

But even looking at this paragraph out of its full context, I just don't see the sweeping moral comparisons that Michael does. Jeff carefully states that he and Hong were referring only "to one specific type of behavior" of Chinese communists; he emphasizes that he is drawing absolutely no moral comparisons to the evil and violent actions of the communists; he makes clear that he is only referring to a certain kind of "psychological connection"; and it is also clear from the overall context that this "psychological connection" pertains only and narrowly to their shared penchant for denunciations and purges -- a mindset also prevalent among religious fanatics, including the Crusaders and Muslim fundamentalists.

Finally, unlike communists, fundamentalists, or Islamists, Jeff does not damn to hell or to death those harboring such attitudes, or call them moral monsters or, indeed, any of the sort of names that Certain People commonly employ against others; rather, he simply asks them to "grow up."

In short, I interpret Jeff as saying only that Certain People have been behaving like religious and ideological fanatics in their penchant for denunciations and purges. That's all. And in fact, they have been. But that is the only comparison that Jeff appears to intend, and certainly nothing more than that. You may agree or disagree with that narrow comparison, but let's not inflate it to be more ambitious than it was.

Let's also not become so distracted by misreadings of this single paragraph that the important overarching issues Jeff raises are either forgotten or evaded.

Post 102

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 6:37pm

Robert B.,
Thank you very much for your untiring patience in explaining things that I had assumed should be obvious. I had a lot to say on the topic and will send you a private email and tell you what I really meant, of course with the understanding that you will one day publish it. For now, I'm going to take Newberry's approach and leave.

Post 103

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 6:44pm

Robert,

Yes, if you read my posts clearly, you will see that I referred to the *psychological* of terrorists, NOT their actions of butchery or torture. Did you happen to miss that? Please reread Post #83, I think I make that quite clear.

Do you think you are exhibiting a high amount of *realism* when you compare the psychologies of the Objectivists you disagree with to the psychology of terrorists? Is an intellectual falling out, the kind where one no longer associates with the adversary and denounces him in statements, comparable to the psychology that drives communist purges? You know, the kind of psychology that drives somebody to extinguish the infidels by ANY MEANS.

So are you, in effect, saying the difference between the two psychologies is only one of DEGREE, and not one of kind? As to the *distraction*, I said I agreed with some of the criticisms. How exactly, is that a distraction or an evasion?

Michael

Edit--changed some of the harsh wording. It was too accusatory and I just wanted to hear clearer answers.

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 6:59pm)

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 7:01pm)

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 7:18pm)

Post 104

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 7:11pm

Please folks, I know Hong did not mean an ill-intent by what she posted in comparing the two. And if people want to go back and compare the psychology of other Objectivists to that of "cultists" as is usually done, I will live with that.

However, the psychology that results in terrorism or communist purges is a whole 'nother ballgame. That type of psychology is so ghastly, so nihilistic, I can't even conceive of it. And to compare that with other Objectivists is extremely unwarranted, it is NOT just a matter of degree, but one of kind. Let's keep some perspective here.

Michael

Post 105

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 7:20pm

Hong, you're wrong about my "untiring patience." I think I carefully explained the very narrow sense of the comparison that Jeff was making, i.e., only pertaining to a shared attitude about denouncing ideological heretics. Yet Michael stubbornly insists on ignoring that important qualification, on inflating the comparison beyond the intended boundaries, and on beating this sidetrack issue to death.

Patience ended. Explanations done.

As for YOU, Hong: I shall be happy to add your private correspondence to the long and ever-growing volume of confidential e-mail messages, old love letters, secretly recorded phone calls, private TOC office memos, etc., that will constitute Vol. IV of The Collected Non-Works of Bidinotto. After all, it's stupid to violate copyrights to such private material simply to score points against enemies, when you can instead publish other people's words for profit.

Post 106

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 7:56pm

I disagree with Michael Moeller's contentions and I stand by what I wrote. What I intended is clear and certainly needs no additional discussion after Robert Bidinotto's detailed explanation in post #101, with which I fully agree. Robert, I truly appreciate your efforts and support.
--
Jeff

Post 107

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 8:26pm

Jeffery,

Good job.

Michael

Post 108

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 8:30pm

OK, I am swallowing my own words here. I also don�t have anything to add on Robert Bidinotto�s clarifications but just want to make one comment.

Hi Michael Moeller, you said:

However, the psychology that results in terrorism or communist purges is a whole 'nother ballgame. That type of psychology is so ghastly, so nihilistic, I can't even conceive of it.

I can. Maybe I am rationalizing things here. But when real people become an abstract, a cartoon figure, an �infidel�, a �class enemy�, a �counter-revolutionary�, or a �bastard of American Imperialist�s running dog�, it becomes a lot easier to condemn them, persecute them, and yes, to kill them, isn�t it? At least this was how I felt when I saw my classmate denounced and when I was in rallies condemning the Americans and other people�s enemies. Yes, those are incomparably far more horrible and ghastly things, but they are also committed by real people. And I do know some of those people. I myself could have been one of them given the circumstances.

Post 109

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 9:23pm

Hong,

I don't think there is any justification or rationalization for what that type (Islamic jihadist, communist commissar, etc.)of person does--none, zero, zip, zilch. Any attempt to excuse or "rationalize" this behavior is to not recognize that each man is his own causal agent and responsible for the actions he undertakes. I can sympathize with what you must have experienced--it is truly foreign to me and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. This is, of course, why I don't take casual comparisons to Islamic fundamentals or communist commissars lightly.

It seems a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for making holier-than-thou pronouncements (repeatedly) about how the "other" Objectivists are "fanatics" akin to Islamic fundamentalists. Why even mention a comparison like that?--If not to convey the degree of "fanaticism" of other Objectivists. I found myself today asking why certain people feel the need to publicly announce that other Objectivists are "fanatical" and cultish"? To leave with Mr. Bidinotto's own words:

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

Michael

Post 110

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 9:41pm

Simple answer to that question, Michael:

Because fanatical and cultish behavior has for years been impeding the spread of our philosophy of rational individualism.

Post 111

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 10:11pm

Yes, Robert, and fanatical behavior comes in a lot of forms. And that exposes the real meaning of the comparison, doesn't it? That is, to concretize just how fanatical other Objectivists are--all for the purpose of spreading rational individualism. Incidentally, some of the most vicious critics of Objectivism, like Jeff Walker, give this same verdict.

A highly intelligent man recently stated that you need to "turn down the noise" on what people say and observe their actions. That's what I am trying to do. Take the last word if you want it, Robert, you are right--this dragged out too far, each frustrated with the other's inability to see.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/07, 10:20pm)

Post 112

Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 11:56pm

I think that the sequence leading from Hong's post 59 to Robert B.'s post 60 to Jeffery Small's posts 74 and 81 would well repay printing out and studying by all who wonder why these denunciation battles continue to occur amongst Objectivists. Jeffery Small's posts I consider the best, the most penetratingly insightful, I have ever seen anywhere in anything I've ever read of Objectivist soul-searching during my many years' (about 43 years') knowledge of Objectivists.

I'd like to highlight a couple passages from post 74 and add a comment from something I posted Wednesday, April 12, on Objectivist Living.

Jeff wrote:

"However, the very essence of a novel is the act of abstraction,
and that is especially true of Rand's characters. Roark, Wynand,
Dominique, Toohey, Galt, Dagny, Francisco, Ragnar, Eddie, etc.
are supremely abstract and none of them is like any actual
human being that I have ever known. Each one has been crafted,
through their personality traits and the actions they are given,
to highlight one or more important aspects of human nature.
This is done brilliantly by Rand and is supremely effective
in driving home the point she intended to make. I stand in
awe of this artistic achievement. However, a problem may occur
if you attempt to apply the lessons from the printed page to
the actions and character of real human beings without also
making the transition from the context of the novel to the
context of real life. I contend that there is a failure to make
this transition that plagues much of the objectivist movement,
AND THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH RAND HERSELF."
[my emphasis]

Later in the post he writes:

"Somewhere along the way, many Objectivists became confused
about the difference between the need to maintain one's
intellectual integrity as opposed to the proper methods of
how to conduct oneself when dealing with other people.
The[s]e are two completely separate things. While I agree
with Rand's edict to 'judge, and be prepared to be judged',
I think this idea has been totally abused."

I wouldn't say that the "need to maintain one's intellectual integrity" and the "proper methods of [...] dealing with other people" are "completely separate things." There is an interpenetration, but of a different sort than Objectivists often believe. I fully agree about the abuse of Rand's edict to "judge, and be prepared to be judged."

I emphasized above: "and the problem started with Rand herself." It started with her in that she herself, as Jeff described, displayed a tendency to view people as "abstract concepts." Connected with this tendency was her own style of, and frequent use of, denunciation -- a style which leapt to psychological conclusions and made blanket pronouncements. In this context, I'll quote from an OL post.

Paul Mawdsley had written that:

"Honouring creative passion was one of Rand's messages.
Devaluing those with different perspectives was another."

I picked up this quote and continued:

"I think the first message is what hooks people (most of the
people who become attracted by her work), but then the second
is what begins to ruin them because they believe that the moral
denunciation is required in order to honor the creative passion.
The linking of the two starts especially with Galt's Speech.
A large percentage of the speech is denunciation, in an egregiously
'psychologizing' (as she would later define that term) way. Her
rant on 'the soul of the mystic' (which I hated from the first
time I read it) couldn't have been topped by Jonathan Edwards
at his most extreme. And then, in all of her non-fiction writing,
there are always the denunciatory passages linked with the
positive content. ITOE is the least bad in that respect, but
even there she takes swipes at the presumed dishonesty of
persons proposing different views from hers."

( I proceeded to tell a story which would be a tangent here about when I took some Rand passages to show Henry Veatch.)

As if to demonstrate the pattern, Michael Moeller, in post 83, responds to Jeff, outraged.

He writes:

"Please, Mr. Small, tell me this is a fucking joke."

He then proceeds to make declarations about the state of consciousness of terrorists.

"They operate off of nothing but nihilism and�the complete
destruction of all values, including human life."

and:

"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."

Michael is of course presuming that he does "begin" to comprehend this psychology which he considers so totally non-comparable to the behavior of any Objectivists. But what he paints is a picture of people viewed as "abstract concepts." A state of mind is being projected into the psyches of an entire category of humans, setting that category as something apart from the psychological dynamics observable amongst Objectivists (and others we meet). That is, Michael is doing the same kind of presentation here which Rand did in her speech about mystics.

But I submit that if one thus sets terrorists -- fundamentalists more broadly -- apart and says that there can't be any comparability, one will have lost a good opportunity to learn. Hong drew a comparison between circumstances she observed in China and those she's observing now on these lists: the common factor is a sudden switch of opinion from extreme praise to extreme damnation. If the behavior is similar -- and I think it is, very similar -- isn't it reasonable to ask, are the dynamics similar? Can we learn from the dynamics in the one case about what's going on in the other? Not if we decree that there can't be a comparison.

Ellen

___

Post 113

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 1:54am

I'm actually quite interested in Hong's topic, the cultural revolution. I'd prefer to ignore the alleged psychological motivation for the praising and the later excommunicating. While thinking of people as abstractions might be an accurate explanation, it assumes some kind of mental defect that's difficult to prove. Aren't there other possible motivations? Isn't it possible that they had good reasons for that kind of behavior?

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few motivations. Clearly having all of your allies be near god-like elevates your own position. And having your enemies be evil through and through also elevates your position. Also, by having godlike leaders, you're more likely to inspire the masses to do your bidding, or to let you get away with murder. It might also prove your certainty because you so strongly state things, instead of making lots of qualifications and trying to specify your context.

It may inspire your allies to be more loyal, as people do like to be flattered.

Having your enemies become evil through and through makes you a victim, since they tricked you and took advantage of you. Instead of being wrong, you've been tricked. And anything positive they ever did is seen as proof of their evil, since it was all done as a ruse to trick you. And don't forget that in an altruistic world, people always rally to the victim. In this way, the victim can be denounced as the villain, and any actions taken against him are justified.

Denouncing your enemies can prevent them from effectively opposing you. Who wants to side with the devil? Any criticism they make afterwards will be ignored or doubted, since they're being accused of something horribly vile. If they state your flaws accurately, it'll pale in comparison to their accusations. If they exaggerate to make up for your exaggerations, they look like they're lying.

Another benefit is that it makes people choose between the two of you. If you think you're in the stronger position, you may want to force that choice. But when it's painted as black and white like that, you don't get to sit on the fence. You have to choose. This is a complaint that's made against ARI occasionally. They don't just make up their own minds, they force everyone else to make a choice, often without the necessary information. But by expressing it in black and white terms, no fence sitting is possible. You have to side with the angels or the devils, or you're being unjust. And it doesn't matter that you don't have enough information.

As I think someone mentioned, the ability to praise someone as a near-god implies something about your own stature. What was the line from the Fountainhead? Wynand says that when Roark offers praise, he does it like a king or something, where it makes him seem even greater for it. Sorry I mangled it. Too late to go searching for it tonight.

If you make a habit of denouncing people, praising others may be a way to balance it out. Not only does it distract people from the past, but it makes you seem like you prefer to focus on the positive, and the latest denunciation is a sad affair that's distracting you from your real priorities. It also makes it easier later to show how they tricked you, as you were so positive in the past.

That's my quick list. I'm sure I've missed some. Any other thoughts?

Post 114

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:02am

Hi Joe,
You certainly have taken this a big step further. I've never thought about this issue from the point of view of the politicians/mass manipulators. But what you said here rings true to me.

Post 115

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:53am

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/08, 3:52pm)

Post 116

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 10:56am

It seems comparing the psychology of some Objectivists with those fundamentalist mentalities who engage in "purges" and "excommunications" is a new revelation to Ellen, which leaves me with one question: where have you been for the past 43 years, dear lady!! How dare, HOW DARE I, question the appropriateness of comparing the psychology of Communist commissars and terrorists to that of other Objectivists. No, no, no, according to Ellen, this revelation she just stumbled over is a form of higher "learning"--and with a pretense of moral superiority to boot. Brilliant.

Observe the lock-in-step mentality at work here, these behaviors started with Rand, she claims, and all the "other" Objectivists learned them from her and are following right along. Of course!!! See, just like she says, they are "cultists" mirroring the every action of Ayn Rand. Nice. It must be a safe world Ellen exists in when one can so readily reach into the well and buttress one's arguments with appeals to psychological collectivism. Ah yes, the luxuries some people permit themselves.

Lest Ellen disappoint, she again doesn't miss a chance to line right up and level an attack against Ayn Rand. This brings me to a question I have been pondering quite a bit lately: what motivates a person, who at every turn, tries to turn the real or perceived flaws of a dead genius into a mortal wound on her character? Oh there may be a grudging acknowledgment of her genius once every blue moon, but the higher form of "learning" is to obsess about her psychology and flaws. Ellen makes a fine case study on this point.

To take a trip down memory lane, I remember the time Ellen so readily jumped on the bandwagon of another who claimed that Rand experienced "glee" at the deaths of the people in the Winston Tunnel scene. I went to the book and quoted the passage that said Francisco and Dagny stood in "equal horror" when learning of the accident, to which Ellen responded: "I didn't say Francisco and Dagny, I said Ayn Rand". Curious argument, considering Rand wrote those words into the scene. But Ellen has never been too fastidious in her arguments, at least not when it interferes with labeling other Objectivists as "fanatics" and "cultists" and Ayn Rand as ringleader.

And what makes Ellen such an impeccable judge of Rand's psychology? Oh yeah, she was "there", i.e. she was in NYC during the 70's. Sitting a row back from AR at a talk, Ellen was able to use her synoptic eye to pierce into the mind of Ayn Rand. She knows, believe her.

One more thing, Ellen, because somebody prefers to judge according to the *actions* and the *ideas* driving those actions, does NOT mean they regard other people as "abstract". Some people just don't have the stomach for obsessive-compulsive psychologizing that you seem to be afflicted with.

Michael

Post 117

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 8:13pm

I think that Hong's feelings and Jeffrey's thoughts are basically sound. I also agree with Robert and many others: the insights by C. Jeffrey Small in posts #74 and #81 are simply outstanding.

Altho' some might be understandably outraged to see ARIans juxtaposed to communists, nazis, and islamists, I think the issue here is primarily one of mentality and psychology. In this important regard, the comparisons are apt and quite helpful.

It's also worth bearing in mind that cultism in secular ideology is a common phenomenon, both historically and presently. My reading of human history indicates that the world's first cultists were the originally-philosophical Pythagoreans of the late 500s BC. Later it was my beloved Epicureans. The literature from both groups which contemporaries thought of high quality, and worth saving, is unsurprisingly small.

Current secular cult groups include the Lyndon LaRouchies and Scientologists. These group members have a great deal of rationality on their side, and seem almost normal when you chat with them. But they're still fundamentally religious in their mentality and psychology. So too the ARIans. The behavior patterns of all three are very similar.

It's also worth noting that cultism is a matter of degree. And I indeed think the ARIan level of this is high. My view is based on much personal experience and close friendly interaction -- something which I'm convinced few RoRians can match. (So too my view of Muslims -- which few healthy Objectivists dare or care to investigate one-on-one.)

It should also be noted that cults aren't entirely evil. They may make you surrender a lot of your sacred self, mind, ideals, hopes, and dreams -- especially if you were previously healthy and happy -- but many ARIans were perhaps never thus, and so they renounce relatively little. The considerable values they obtain are a great deal of social support and a terrific sense of belonging. They get basically great friends with which to share a heroic mission, as well as considerable personal superiority. It's ironic, frustrating, and even infuriating to many of us -- but most cultists aren't all that unhappy. Even the immensely perverted ARIans aren't all that miserable. They just don't like it when virtuous and knowledgeable Austrians, libertarians, classical liberals, TOCists and RoRists hit them where they live.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 5/08, 8:41pm)

Post 118

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:21pm

Ellen,

That was a highly insightful observation - a perfect concrete example of how a wrong principle, i,e., thinking of human beings as abstract concepts, becomes manifest on a smaller scale.

That manner of thinking is wrong, the conclusion is merely a byproduct. Once the seed of dehumanizing people in your mind is planted and takes root, it can grow into something very ugly over time.

I agree with Andre - a suicidal terrorist is a matter of degree of cult mentality, an overdose of blindly accepting authority and turning off reason on a premise level, not another kind of animal altogether.

I see cult mentality in full flower in the monkey-shines against Chris Sciabarra.

Michael

Post 119

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 11:49pm