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 unread


Post 0

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That bit about Galileo is amusing, since personally, have found reading his works no less or more than Bacon's [your other reference is not familiar to me], whereas it is indeed a chore to wade my way thru the muck of Kant...

Post 1

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is very interesting Ciro. 

Robert, are you having trouble tending your garden? ;-)


Post 2

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember seeing this article before. It's not new, is it?

Post 3

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very pretty, Ciro. :) You are such a good-hearted man.

Post 4

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

That having a philosophical system makes it difficult to understand ideas from the framework of other systems is an important insight. I especially appreciate the citation from Leibnitz: just as Galileo is the precursor of subsequent primacy-of-existence science, Leibnitz is the precursor of subjectivist interpretations (e.g. the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum mechanics.) It is interesting that Leibnitz had no problem with Bacon, because while Bacon largely agreed with Galileo, their occasional disagreements were on very important matters (e.g. Galileo favoring logic and Bacon favoring concensus in interpretation of observations.) How did you find this quote?


Post 5

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Reed, I am happy you liked my article. The quote was translated from an Italian book my sister in law Daniela gave me.
She teaches philosophy in Milan, Italy.
Thank you all for your compliments, they mean a lot to me.
I want to thank Andrew, for editing and posting my article.
Thank you, Robert,robert, and Rich my Buddy!

Ps
Mark, yes, it is an old article I had  posted before.
Ciao


Post 6

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

This is an extremely important theme for Objectivism and Solo in general. The stated purpose of this organization is the change the world. The only way will be through persuasion.

Show and tell are always the only proper ways for persuasion in a reason-based philosophy in the free market. Things can get more sophisticated, but if they don't boil down to show and tell, then they are ugly things like fear, persecution and outright lying.

The Solo difference (in relation to other Objectivist organizations) is in adding the "show." Most all the others only have "tell."

Bravo. I look forward to the rest of this article.

I bonked you before, but only comment now.

Michael


Post 7

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 5:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very interesting Ciro. I enjoyed reading this very much. You bring up several points I can chew on. The fact that there exist filters, which stand in the way of communication and understanding of anothers ideas, is one. The defense which goes up when/if I get the feeling someone is trying to persuade me is another. I tend to stay away from evangelizers of any type, mystic or Objectivist. And I am the last to attempt to persuade. At the same time, yes, I do want a better world. So how?

You've opened up an interesting topic here. I look forward to the follow up.

regards
John


Post 8

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now here's something I can chew on.

Persuasion is a component that lies within the art of negotiation. We can talk about our persuasive skills. Everyone uses them, whether they recognize so or not, but persuasion is not commonly explored, to find out what it's all about. I can think of a few basics, when we look at it from the 10K view.

The first thing that pops up is that persuasion always involves selling something (in our case, we are talking about selling ideas and so forth). Overt persuasion (I would call in unartful, un-crafty persuasion) is, no matter what is in question, inadvertently creates a visceral reaction in the person being persuaded (sold). You are not just dealing with the person, their psychology, nature, but also all the bad negotiators that came before you. I cannot emphasize that fact enough.

Where you enter into here is the study of interpersonal skills, beneath the umbrella of negotiating. There's a lot of stuff we could talk about and share over, and it's always interesting.

I will put one into the fire. I think this is a key and critical issue with Objectivism, as MSK pointed out, and it would be benefecial to talk about that, if everyone were able to stay calm during that process. There's a few ways I could put this, I don't know which one is best. Maybe the benevolent way to say it is that students of Ayn Rand's system of philosophy very often let their passion overtake them, to their own disadvantage. Knowing what you want, and knowing how to get what you want are two very different things.


Post 9

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Win/Win is not a pie in the sky notion. It is an  every day life.
The win for me is the personal satisfaction that comes from acting fairly. Today we see so many people acting with their clients and family in ways which either one or both loses.
Persuation can also be bad! It all depends who wields the power.
We must take as much feed back as possible , even from people who disagree, and detest everything we do. 


Michael, John, and of course Rich, thank you!
Ciro


Post 10

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Win/win is the Holy Grail of negotiating, except that it can be had.

I mean, all there really is is win/win, win/lose, lose/win, and deadlock.

Persuasion is a very elegant thing to observe, when it's done well, don't you think? :)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mean, all there really is is win/win, win/lose, lose/win, and deadlock.


I  don't make it into a game! I just sell people my best!


Post 12

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One absolutely essential key to persuasion by rational argument in a discussion is to UNDERSTAND what the other person is saying. And if you don't understand, ask for clarification.

I am talking about benevolent people who are open to rational thought.

Luke Setzer wrote an article making a benevolent/malevolent distinction between people who discuss issues. Obviously a malevolent person should not be extended the same courtesy as a benevolent one, but then again, you normally can't persuade a malevolent person of anything anyway. Maybe by beating him over the head...

And if you beat a benevolent person over the head, you simply turn him off to your whole message. Absolutely no persuasion is accomplished.

Ciro, you are very lucky in your choice of occupation. Both benevolent and malevolent people eat pizza, so you can afford a few rhetorical luxuries - even profit from them.

Michael


Post 13

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Both benevolent and malevolent people eat pizza
No! if I know someone  to be malevolent  he can take his business
some where else.  I only deal with evil my way!
To be enriched by malevolent people is not my goal, if I know someone to be malevolent he can  get the fuck out of my place!

NB. I am only talking  about people who want to pass their malevolence on me!
Michael, have I misunderstood your post?




(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/16, 12:25pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/16, 12:32pm)


Post 14

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 12:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One more thing, before I consider someone to be malevolent, I try to find out what are the base of his thinking, e.i,  is he a materialist
a racist, religious etc...

ps
This is just an example, I don't mean to say that malevolence springs from someone who is a religious person etc...

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/16, 12:46pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

I am not saying that you seek malevolent people to eat your food. I was saying that the nature of your business does not focus on interacting with that side of them. Since they gotta eat too, their behavior is usually tolerable or even polite.

So being polite and upbeat when you serve customers is good for everybody and usually keeps the malevolent element of these people's personalities out of the restaurant.

When you try to sell something like justice, reason, ethics, etc., you find that many of these people don't want to discuss ideas. They want to show off, humiliate, confuse with verbal tricks and do a whole lot of things that has nothing to do with discussing ideas and a great deal to do with their malevolence.

Frankly, you, Ciro, have much to teach others about this. Who knows, maybe good manners is also a good way to persuade the malevolent sometimes? I know it certainly paves the way for persuading (or at least presenting a case to) the benevolent.

Anyway, sorry if I stepped on a bunion...

//;-)

Michael



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, never worry about stepping on anything when you write to me.
Remember, you are a special friend to me, and I am your ally.
Ciro.


Post 17

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sometimes, a person will appear malevolent because there is a big polarization between personality types. Even the classic modes show that (Roger Reid, etc.)

A "driver" type that is on the very hard end of the spectrum being with an "amiable" type on the hard end of the spectrum is very difficult. You have one that tells more than asks and controls more than emotes on one side and one that asks more than tells and emotes more than controls on the other side. Usually the driver will eat and kill the amiable, but sometimes a strong amiable can wear a driver type down. Drivers are predominantly in charge of business.

That's one way to look at what goes on in a negotiation. All life is a negotiation.


Post 18

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro:

     Good subject; I WILL get back to it in a more pithy way.

     You got 'sancted'.

LLAP
J:D


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.