RoR: Forum

Roger Bissell wrote:

They speak of ... having "rationally risen above" their previous immoral behavior, yet make no effort to acknowledge the exact nature of those wrongs to the people they have hurt and make no effort to make amends for those wrongdoings.

Interesting article. Perhaps you can offer some examples of how a person who has acted wrongly in the past can use Objectivism to make amends to those he has harmed. The main problem I have with this assertion is that often we irreparably burn our bridges so that attempts to make amends bring more harm than good to all concerned.

Post 1

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:55am

Luke Setzer wrote: "Perhaps you can offer some examples of how a person who has acted wrongly in the past can use Objectivism to make amends to those he has harmed. The main problem I have with this assertion is that often we irreparably burn our bridges so that attempts to make amends bring more harm than good to all concerned."

Actually, there's a very good chance that I can offer at least one example, although I was sort of saving it for the longer saga of how I have screwed up in romance over the years and still come out very happy in the end. :-)

Years ago (shortly after the Big Split), I was engaged to my first wife (of three), and she was a very jealous woman (not without some reason, and not just because of my own wandering eye). At some point, she began stormily insisting that I not have this female friend or that female friend, because she was sure that I was having (or would, if given the opportunity, have) sex with one (or more) of them. Most of the friendships were hardly more than acquaintances or cordial relationships, so not a great deal was lost by "breaking off" with them. But one young lady in particular meant a considerable bit more to me. We were both music majors, both Randians, and very much enjoyed intellectual discussion with one another. We had indeed considered a romantic relationship, but decided that it was not a good idea, so decided to remain just friends. Yet, even this was intolerable to my fiancee-and-then-wife. Being of relatively low confidence at that time, and susceptible to intimidation and fear of loss of the romantic relationship I did have with her, I kow-towed to her demands. So, with great reluctance and anguish, I told my friend we couldn't speak to each other any more, a silence that lasted for nearly 15 years.

For those who do not grasp the subtlety of the immorality of the above described action of mine, read Rand's "Altruism and Appeasement." :-(

Years later, I was going through therapy and realized exactly what I had done wrong, that it was contrary to my improved self-esteem and my improved grasp on Objectivist ethics to have treated my friend so unjustly, and I set about contacting her in order to try to make amends. The short version of this story is that it had a happy ending. My bridges were not "irreparably burn[ed]." She accepted my expression of deep sorrow and regret. She saw that I had changed greatly for the better. And most importantly, she welcomed me back as a friend -- and some time later, we began a very deep, wonderful romance that culminated in our marrying 15 years ago.

I hope this helps illustrate the principle involved.

Best regards,
REB

Post 2

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 7:07am

Wow! A saga of romance spreading over 30+ years! I'd call that a story of Randian proportions! ;-)

Thanks for sharing! Your post earns a sanction vote.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/07, 7:14am)

Post 3

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 7:17am

Hello Roger,

I have been thinking of this "problem" that you have brought forward here in the context of all the BASHING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE. I came here a day or two before the shit hit the fan; and I was astonished to hear the insulting language that Objectivist Idealists used with one another. My only contact with the Objectivist movement had been through Ayn Rand's interview with Playboy Magazine, her novel "We, the Living and many of her non fiction texts.

Recently, I read Nathaniel Branden's "Judgement Day"; and was astonished to "learn" that Rand did not behave with the equanimity that my readings had led me to believe was a hallmark of Objectivism. I began to think that the issue of emotional development had been shoved under the carpet; and had not been seriously addressed. When I   accidently found this site; and began to hear the "bashing language" I recalled immediately the same tone I had read in Branden's recollections of Rand. My emotional aerials went up; and I found verification for my idea of the junk under the carpet.

As time went on I heard posters refer negatively to Piekoff and others; and how Objectivists were unable to resolve their differences. In a few posts; I have responded to anger bysuggesting that the seeds of emotions are planted before one's cognition is mature enough to understand them thoroughly. I have suggested readings by the Buddhist Monk, Thich Nhat Hanh; and by David Kantor: My Lover,Myself: self-discovery through relationship. Now you post this article.

I read that you have a psychological background; all I can say now is: When the pupils are ready the teacher will appear. If you are the teacher, I look forward to the carpet being lifted and taken out for beating. Now, if a carpenter can be found to build some shelves for all that stuff on the floor; we might get tidied up enough to have a celebration.

I hear that Luke has an extensive collection of books; maybe we should have a serious look at them. I have been quite amazed at Luke's science/humanities integration He seems totally possessed of equanimity; is he the embodiment of the NOP? (new objectivist person)

Thanks for beating me to the queue, Roger, I wouldn't have been anything near as skilful.        Sharon
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 7/07, 9:07am)

Post 4

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 10:09am

I am saying that those people are misusing their religion or philosophy in a way that disguises and perpetuates, rather than heals, the emotional illness they had before turning to that religion or philosophy.

I think that is a very accurate point and one we all need to really recognize and contemplate. One of my favorite authors, Freemon Dyson, wrote once that religions and deeply help belief systems tend to amplify the kind of person we all ready are. I think a lot of people get attracted to objectivism so they can feel justified in thier nietzschen exploitive selfishness. But some idealogies will be more likely to make someone worse (nazism and stalinism) while other make one far more likely to become a better person.

I just posted a recent comment, as a review of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon.com saying something similiar.
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0517.shtml
The reviewer stated that she went into objectivism hating life and people, and through objectivism hated life and people more.

Michael F Dickey

Post 5

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:08am

Roger, a very interesting article..

Another "tell tale sign" that something is very wrong in one's allegiance is apparent when a religionist or Objectivist uses his philosophy as a club which with to beat others over the head. "You're evading!" -- or "You're being irrational!" -- or "You're a social metaphysician!" -- or "That's evil!" -- the Objectivist storms -- and one wonders if he finds any value in his philosophy other than his use of it to make people feel guilt and self-doubt. This is especially damaging if the accuser is in a mentor position, but it is potentially damaging in any event. Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon.

Barbara

Post 6

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:41am

Luke Setzer wrote: "Perhaps you can offer some examples of how a person who has acted wrongly in the past can use Objectivism to make amends to those he has harmed. The main problem I have with this assertion is that often we irreparably burn our bridges so that attempts to make amends bring more harm than good to all concerned."

One of the very sensible qualifiers that 12-step programs put to the "making amends" step is that yes, this needs done, but not when it would cause harm to others. Often, people want to make amends without considering that, while it nearly always is a good thing, it's not when it will cause negative effect on the other side. The Golden Rule has to be applied, to put it in simple terms.

I don't know if "addiction" is the right description- I have spent a great deal of time studying "addiction", and I believe it to be true in many cases that "addiction is a choice" (which is the title of a very interesting book known in O'ist circles). I don't care to get into a long debate about that, because I've put a lot of discussion into that in my time.

As both a Unitarian Universalist and someone who has spent years being around O'ism, and Dr. Branden's work on self-esteem, I view the negative behaviors generated out of both areas (and pretty much anything else that involves the disciplined application of a philosophy and/or religion) as something to be expected- it is going to happen when people attempt to shift themselves into a more refined state of being. What I am looking for are integration points, points of agreement and understanding. I do believe that it is as some on the religious side do- that there is no goodness in dwelling on or coming back to "sins" or past transgressions- they negatively impact your sense of being, and thus your efficacy. So, I prefer being mindful of an educational, evolutionary process that is taking place.

Post 7

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 1:41pm

I agree with Barbara. Our philosophy values production, not destruction. While productive living sometimes demands we destroy enemies, those who actually deserve destruction number far fewer than the actions of some self-styled "Objectivists" would suggest. I benefit much more from benevolence than malevolence on my part.

Post 8

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 2:26pm

Roger, I so enjoy your grounded approach to things.

Post 9

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 3:49pm

Roger,

Nice article. I feel that fanaticism also is a very good word to describe some of what you talked about. Fanaticism is a bit different than addiction and I think it is a bit worse (but not too much).

I suffered with substance addiction a few times in my life (alcohol, drugs and cigarettes). I managed to overcome them and I intend to write a few articles about this. Fanaticism has an element of brainwashing by doctrine in it that is really sinister and wicked. Getting someone out of that is tricky as all hell. Randroids show all the signs of having been brainwashed. This bears further investigation.

I would like to suggest that you expand that charming story of your marriage to a full length article (even 3,000 words or so). I think it would be inspiring and the conflict to resolution makes a very good story.

I am not so sure about your judgment of yourself as "immoral" in succumbing to an overly-jealous woman. They can be pure hell to deal with. To me, you merely made a value judgment and chose poorly (like I have done in the past) - you did not identify the pathological nature of jealousy - that nothing cures it outside of the the head of the jealous person. You imagined that your friendship was incompatible with your love, which it was when jealousy entered, and chose accordingly. The error was in thinking that the jealousy would go away with the sacrifice of the friendship. It doesn't. It gets worse - at least in my experience.

Now, if you will excuse me, I want to think a bit on what to do about that damn Solo addiction of mine...

//;-)

Michael

Post 10

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 5:30pm

Roger nice article. It read as an introduction to me, of a larger piece maybe? I especially liked your follow up post #1. Thank you for sharing that.

regards
John

Post 11

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:18pm

Barbara Branden wrote: "Another "tell tale sign" that something is very wrong in one's allegiance is apparent when a religionist or Objectivist uses his philosophy as a club which with to beat others over the head...Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon." And Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald wrote: "I have been thinking of this "problem" that you have brought forward here in the context of all the BASHING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE."

I couldn't agree with you more, Barbara, and Sharon, I totally identify with your concerns. About 10 years ago, when I first ventured forth onto the Internet, I ran into quite a few people of the "basher" persuasion, one of whom was the late Ron Merrill. In October of 1996, we had the following exchange:

Ron wrote: "I am in the tradition of the radical Rand--not the fashionable "radicalism" of Chris[Sciabarra]'s title, but real radicalism--the kick-'em-in-the-nuts Rand who not only offended the bastards but enjoyed it. I speak for those who understand that you're not going to make friends, you're not going to make converts, you're not going to get your ideas accepted, no matter what you do, because the academic establishment is savagely and unalterably opposed to your basic premises. So it's neither moral nor practical to compromise. Tell the truth openly, and you'll be heard--by that "one who understands"--and that's all you need. In the end, it's Gideon's Band that will triumph."

I replied: "If Rand enjoyed the "kick em in the nuts" approach as much as Ron
claims, why was she more depressed after the publication of Atlas Shrugged than at any other time in her life? It was because whatever joy she got from "offending the bastards"--and when did she ever offend "the enemy" more than by Atlas?--it paled compared to her feeling of deep frustration and isolation from her magnum opus not having attracted someone she could consider an intellectual equal. Rand may well have slipped into a more negative, malevolent framework at times, drawing emotional fuel from intellectually bashing her opponents, as Ron claims, but if so, it would not have been out of a healthy motivation. She rightly regarded polemics as a secondary focus in philosophy, and did right in passing along this perspective to Peikoff and the rest of us. It is up to those of us who want to spend most of our energies pursuing positives to make sure that we are not drawn down into such negative, isolationist cul-de-sacs as Ron is promoting."

I present this exchange not in order to portray myself as somehow superior to or more (or less) of an Objectivist than Ron. Indeed, I, too, for many years spent far too much time in "basher" mode and considered it the best way to go in combatting evil in the world. (That, in itself, is a negative focus. It should be on spreading good in the world.) It has taken many years, too many years of vacillating, to break free of this bad habit. Perhaps it's just mellowing with age <g>. Perhaps it's fear over getting cancer or something from carrying around all that anger. (Sadly, Ron himself was taken away at far too young an age by cancer. I only hope that it was due to something other than his antagonistic stance toward the world.) Perhaps it's being sadder but wiser over seeing so many brilliant people behaving so horribly toward those who should be their intellectual allies and companions. Perhaps it's the love of a good woman who herself long ago outgrew such behavior, and saw my better possibilities and patiently encouraged me to do the same. (Yeah!) Perhaps I'm just too tired and shell-shocked from such experiences to want wallow in them again. Whatever. If I'm "grounded," as Teresa Summerlee Isanhart says (and thanks, as always, Teresa, for your good-hearted supportiveness), it's not because I started out that way. I had to spend a lot of time figuring out where the ground was!

Best to all,
REB

Post 12

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:25pm

Michael Stuart Kelley wrote:

"Nice article...I would like to suggest that you expand that charming story of your marriage to a full length article (even 3,000 words or so). I think it would be inspiring and the conflict to resolution makes a very good story."

Gads, I was afraid someone was going to suggest that! But Michael, if you knew me well, you would know that 3,000 words (the way I write them) hardly gets me into the back seat of the car, so to speak. :-) I'll do what I can sometime soon. Promise.

"I am not so sure about your judgment of yourself as "immoral" in succumbing to an overly-jealous woman. They can be pure hell to deal with. To me, you merely made a value judgment and chose poorly (like I have done in the past) - you did not identify the pathological nature of jealousy - that nothing cures it outside of the the head of the jealous person. You imagined that your friendship was incompatible with your love, which it was when jealousy entered, and chose accordingly. The error was in thinking that the jealousy would go away with the sacrifice of the friendship. It doesn't. It gets worse - at least in my experience."

Oh, I think I can make a pretty good case that I was immoral -- or at least, woefully immature (and imprudent or lacking in practical reason) to be contemplating marriage in the first place, whether with a pathologically jealous woman or a (more) normal one. But you are certainly correct that jealousy does not go away when you make sacrifices. (That's another issue: does one ever really sacrifice in the Randian sense of a higher value for a lower value. I think the more conventional sense of "sacrifice" would be more apropos. More on that another time.)

Thanks for your supportive comments!
REB

Post 13

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:43pm

Roger- terrific article! I approached it with a sigh, saying to myself that since I live with a recovering addict and a deeply religious Christian, something is going to slap me here. To my joy, that didn't happen. My partner doesn't have any of the behaviors you correctly outline here. This is not to imply that all is perfect, but all is amazingly better, for sure. I am also very happy that you see that many Objectivists could use a lot of help here, too.
Michael- I would love to hear your thoughts on 12 step- the more I witnessed its power with addicted people, the more respectful of it I became. These steps weren't thought up by some guy thinking they would make a nice college course somewhere- they were ripped out of person trying to just stay alive. I would love to see Solo members tackle the 12 step phenomenon. Something important is happening in this movement, and I sure don't have my finger on it yet.

Sharon- I find your observations very interesting and I hope we hear more from you.

Barbara
"Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon." I love it.

Rich- I also think that The Six Pillars by NB is a great book for addicts. It takes a great deal of effort to work the 12 steps and it often is very helpful in stopping destructive behavior. Six Pillars can be helpful in filling the void left, particularly for those 12 steppers who aren't religious.I enjoyed your whole post very much.

Post 14

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 7:33pm

Roger,

When you attempt to link Ron Merrill's cancer to "his antagonistic stance toward the world" I hear weird echoes of new-age supernaturalism. Cancer is not a karmic punishment for "negativity" or for "giving off bad vibes." It is a biological disease with biological causes. The specific type of myeloma that Ron Merrill died from happens to organic chemists at more than twice the rate found in the general population, and in the general population it almost never happens to lifelong non-smokers like Ron. Ron Merrill's cancer was probably the result of his work.

Ron was rightly disgusted with wimpy TOC-style hemi-demi-semi-Objectivism, as Rand would have been. Rand did indeed prefer acceptance to non-acceptance, as any reasonable person would, but not at the price of compromise. The price that Chris Sciabarra paid for academic acceptance of JARS, was publishing in JARS - as proof that he was an impartial scholar, and not some kind of "sectarian" - his quota of bad shit, including instances of post-modernism that would turn any civilized man's stomach. Chris was willing to pay that price, Ron wasn't. And, in the context of their different values and different objectives, each of them was right to do what he did.

I suspect that Ron would have enjoyed the KASS-Objectivism of SOLO, and it is too bad that SOLO was not here in his time. Now that I am back at my computer I plan to send in more of his unpublished work. I should add - given the setting of this note in the thread on an article about Religious Addiction - that I never read or heard from Ron Merrill any of the epithets of "religious Objectivist" condemnation that are discussed in this article.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/07, 7:40pm)

Post 15

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 8:24pm

James Kilbourne wrote: "I would love to hear your [Michael Stuart Kelley's] thoughts on 12 step- the more I witnessed its power with addicted people, the more respectful of it I became...I would love to see Solo members tackle the 12 step phenomenon. Something important is happening in this movement, and I sure don't have my finger on it yet."

I'll comment, James! The 12-Step movement has been applied not just to people with addictions to alcohol, drugs, food, compulsive spending, sex, etc., but also to people with "relationship addiction," sometimes known as codependency. I was such a person, especially while married to my second wife, who had a serious problem with several addictive behaviors, including prescription tranquilizers, compulsive spending, and shoplifting. Thus, while she attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, I attended Al-Anon, which is for friends, colleagues, and loved ones of people with substance abuse (and similar) problems. These meetings, which I attended weekly for about three years in the late 1980s, did me a world of good in dealing with my (now ex-)wife's problems and my (now)wife's ex-husband's (now, there was a religious addict!) pernicious effects on the emotional well-being of their daughters (who lived with us).

One of the key concepts is encapsulated in the "Serenity Prayer" by Reinhold Niebuhr: "God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The primary application of this idea in Al-Anon is to realize that you cannot change "your alcoholic," but that you can (and should) change yourself. The courage aspect puts the focus of your thoughts and efforts where it belongs, on your well-being. The serenity aspect, the non-judgmental acceptance of the alcoholic/addict, places the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on him, for deciding how (if at all) he is going to change as a result of your self-focused changes (rather than as a result of pressures on him). Ayn Rand quoted this prayer approvingly in her essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" as being spot-on philosophically, and I certainly agree.

Now, this non-judgmental acceptance does not absolve you of the necessity and responsibility for engaging in evaluation (and acting accordingly) of people in your life. However, it means that, rather than engaging in loud, blistering denunciations and condemnations of them, you quietly discern what it is that bothers you about what they are doing. If you find that you cannot stand their company, you leave. If you find that you cannot trust them, you do not enter into relationships of trust with them (or you leave). Etc. You discern and act. You do not give them an excuse to blame you for their bad behavior by engaging in harsh judgmental behavior yourself. ("No wonder I drink or use drugs or screw around or weigh 300 pounds. Look what a horrible person I have to live with!" -- standard excuse-making enabled by harsh judgmentalism.)

This application of the Serenity Prayer, more than any other aspect of the 12-Steps, is why I think so many codependents are able to climb back on the self-esteem wagon after spending years mired in a dysfunctional relationship. If you can set aside the "God" and "Higher Power" talk and focus on the essence of the ideas involved, I think you will see that there is a very potent aspect of Objectivism embodied in the 12-Step movement. Not the unreformed Objectivism of the over-the-top judgmentalists, but the evolved, enlightened (neo)Objectivism of Nathaniel Branden (see especially The Disowned Self).

I will yield the floor to the distinguished SOLO-ist from Brazil for a discourse on why the 12-Steps, Serenity Prayer, etc. are so useful for addicts per se. :-)

Best to all,
REB

Post 16

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 9:29pm

Well thaaaaaaaank you Roger!!!

//;-)

I will prepare an article on this. I did both AA and NA because I needed them both at different times. (A fucking hardhead is what I am!) I did not go through all 12 steps in either, but I managed to give up my substance abuse in both.

The serenity prayer - used almost like a subtle mantra (said jointly by all attending at the beginning and end of each meeting) was a most powerful... er... most... I have a real problem coming up with the right term here, sort of a cross between relief, the pleasure of finding a direction I could believe in, awe, a strong wish to cry, anxious hope, the dignity of making a resolution I meant to keep, sadness, a wistful kind of beauty, and who knows what all else. I do know that it was very potent - not in and of itself, but in the constant repetition of those words and the feelings I mentioned flowing through me over and over, day by day.

I had a friend who once said that the serenity prayer was perfect for alcoholics and addicts because it was short and succinct. If it were long, the attention span of those who have such problems would not permit them even to understand it, much less let it sink in. (LOLOL... So very, very true!)

Whenever people ask me about how I managed to stop, I state, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I had help from others. I could not do it alone. I needed that hand from a stranger who had been where I was extended to me. That may be horrible for an Objectivist to say, but there it is. My own empirical evidence points to the need for discovering when we need others - and what kinds of others we need and when we need them. that, by the way, is one of the areas I am projecting some of my own work.

As I already wrote somewhere else, I am not merely an individual lump of disconnected life stuck to a revolving globe hurtling through time and space in a gigantic universe. I am an individual human being. I belong to a species as an individual member of that species. I find that recognizing this fact does not invalidate my individualism. On the contrary, it adds to it.

This leads me to reflect on areas where a connection with others, whether emotional, sexual or whatnot are absolutely essential to a thriving human existence. I believe that recovery from addiction is one of those areas. (More in the later article on this.)

In this vein, there was another semi-prayer that was used in NA but not AA. It packed one hell of a wallop on me. I will give it, but those who have been there will probably recognize it with different words. I am translating from Portuguese in my mind. First everybody stands in a circle, with his/her arms around the back of the neck of the people on the right and left - like a huddle in a football game. Then a person called out, line by line, and we repeated, the following:

I embrace each of you
And join my heart to yours
So that together we may
Do that which I am not able to do by myself.

Even as I write these words, tears well up from just so much damn gratitude...

(pause...)

Sorry, it's been a long time...

There was more to that little ritual sometimes, but that little excerpt was done by itself many times and it never failed to move me. I knew I was not alone in trying to find a way out of my horrible situation.

Anyway, this is a start. I could write all night on these things. Also, I already am sitting in wait for some Randroid or uptight smartass to pop up and spout off crap - but I think all of you know how I deal with them by now. //;-)

Special note to James. Sergio sounds like a wonderful man for staying true to the truth as he is experiencing it despite your Objectivism, and so do you for loving him and respecting and trying to understand that truth. Admitting your respective fragilities, then dealing with them in terms of finding what works, is your strength to each other. That makes a more solid and lasting bond of love than most anything I know of.

I see both of you very clearly.

Michael

Post 17

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 10:32pm

Barbara Branden:
"Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon."

No. It's both. And you know it.

Post 18

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 11:56pm

Barbara Branden wrote: "Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon."

Wayne Simmons commented: "No. It's both. And you know it."

Actually, I agree, but with this qualification: philosophy can legitimately be used as a weapon of defense against those who are trying to abuse others. It cannot legitimately be used as a weapon with which to abuse others. I think this more precisely captures the distinction Barbara was trying to make, while recognizing Wayne's point, that philosophy can (illegitimately) be used as an offensive weapon.

Best to all,
REB

Post 19

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 12:08am