RoR: Forum

Ciro....huh? Nevermind

Joe, you know how much I have learned from you,
but huh? Nevermind, I can not figure out what that is supposed to mean.?

Let me make clear what I wanted to say with my previous posts.

I wanted to say this: did you see in the last couple of years
what you and Linz went through, and how much the luminaries of this forum who can add 2+2=4 have helped you in your battle?
Think about it for a minute, and see if you can tell me who are the members of this forum who can really join you in your battle.? and How much you trust them? and for how long?
Have you noticed how many come or had come on your forum just so they can
publish their names? have you notices Linz bashing from day one?
have you noticed how the Brandens are treated ? have you noticed how
many people came back since Linz left and how they have been cheered by the same people who once agreed with Linz when he told them to fuck off?
What I wanted to say with my posts is that you don't have people who are here to fight your battle but are here just for their fucking reasons.
I like you !and I am very sorry that one day the same bashing is going to happen to you.
From an honest man!
Ciro D'Agostino

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/06, 8:05am)

Post 41

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:09pm

Joe, I have one more thing to say.
When I am friend with a person I don't care what others say about him or her.
I want to enjoy the relationship by using my own mind, and the experience I had with that person.
Let me give you an example; Barbara Branden, even though I never met her, I love her dearly,she doesn't talk with Linz, but, onetime she was Linz's best friend and vice versa. Now they avoid each other and both say negative things about each other.
I like Linz,He is pazzo, and I like his pazzita', why should I not enjoy his friendship? bacause I am Barbara's friend and they are not friends any more?or in order to be just, I must only like one or the other?
I live my life for what I see and what I like to do, and I use my own money for that.
If one day, I can prove what one of them had said about the other to be right;
I will say; Barbara was right, or; Linz was right--Why? because I can prove you that it is true.
And so, the same is with you. I like you and I will be your friend.
I don't care what's between you and Linz.
For now I want to enjoy your friendship? if, friendship is,as much as Linz did.
And so, I want to enjoy Linz's friendship? if, friendship is, as much as Barbara did.
And so I want to enjoy Barbara's friendship, which I know to be true!
as much as Linz did.
Ciao.
Ciro is an honest man.
ps
If you don't have any new plans, and would like me still to run your forum, I can help with that as much as I am helping my friend Linzo. I like both of you.
You are the future of objectivism.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/06, 2:37pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/06, 2:39pm)

Post 42

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 7:15am

Beautiful article Joe. Why are we here? Why am I here? The enjoyment of debate, the trading of ideas, the *learning* are the obvious answers. But you bring up an important point which I had given little thought to prior to the makeover of this site and your article here. The fundamental reason I am here is to pursue my values. Acting in benevolence provides a space in which through reasonable discussion, I can best meet my values.

Helping to build a circle of rational, passionate achievers who also want to flourish is in my very best interest. I think I finally get this activism thing :)

You are challenging me to think about what it is I want from life, and how participation in a forum like this fits into that. Time is a precious thing. There is too little of it to be spent on bullsh*t.

Thank you Joe.

John

Post 43

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 10:13pm

Ciro, you're much clearer in these last two posts.

I've already had plenty of "Joe bashing" over the years. Not quite as much as Lindsay has had, but enough. I've seen some disgusting behavior by people calling themselves Objectivists. But I also have met some wonderful people who are doing great things. I've made some great friends. And we've accomplished a lot in our spare time. That's pretty good! So don't get too upset because of a few bad apples.

The thing about the bad apples is that they marginalize themselves. They care more about looking like they're productive than actually being productive. They want to appear smart, and don't bother practicing what they preach. They worry so much about winning every argument that they never learn...they're stuck rationalizing every mistake they've ever made. They create conflicts of interests between themselves and everyone else, and end up alone and on the margins. Irrationality doesn't pay.

Thanks for your offer to stay and help out. I'm glad to have you.

John,

Thanks you very much. And it does sound like you're getting the activism thing. That's exactly right. Building the circle is a good visual way of thinking about it. We should be looking for ways to expand the circle so we have more to enjoy.

Post 44

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - 10:39pm

I Feel much better,Thank you, Joe!

Post 45

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 2:10pm

Ethan Dawe on post # 4 writes: You can only directly control your life and choices, but spreading ideas to others about living correctly can make a difference. Look at the renaissance! Changes like that don't happen by themselves.

The spreading of ideas alone, never worked.
To be creative is to make, or do, something novel,something that people have nothing else to say. Matter of facts, creativeness became quite impossible for any person later-after Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, and many others great artists.
Spreading the ideas of Ayn Rand is not enough, we need the Michelangelos, so they can show to people what they mean.
Because activism alla Jehovah's witness will not work.
Ciro.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/10, 2:12pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/10, 3:10pm)

Post 46

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 5:53pm

Ciro,

I don't think we're in disagreement. Living a successful and productive life is the best advertisement for a personal philosophy. I certainly aim to back up my words with results in my own life. While I'm always looking to improve, I've certainly come a long way.

Post 47

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 9:48am

Joe -- Excellent piece! (Sorry I'm late in responding. I've been busy with a Trustees meeting and it's already hard enough to keep up with websites. I haven't read most of these responses so forgive me for repeating what others might have said)

You are right on the mark about the need to ask, "Why is benevolence in these forums (or anywhere else) in our self-interest?" And, of course, if one's goal is a socially metaphysical one -- to appear better than someone else -- one's values conflict with the the values of others because one's values are not rational ones, especially here in the context of an Objectivist forum rather than some trivial gameshow.

I agree that those who come to this and other forums with ends and thus means that conflict with others create, among other things, incivility and will marginalize themselves. I have all too little time to read everything I want (as I'm sure is the case with others) and thus when I see a thread that seems to be a competition for who will look better, with truth a secondary concern, or just a a bunch of name-calling, I skip it.

Over on the new SOLO site Linz -- who I still respect and agree with on the need to put some passion into our advocacy -- posted something by a guy named Casey something-or-other. After reading a couple of paragraphs that simply dissed Objectivism (as well as me) in the most non-serious way, I just gave up reading. Why is it in my self-interest to wade through stuff that doesn't somehow enlighten, educate, entertain or inform me or even challenge me on some point or show a mistaken or something I need to think about a little more?

Joe, your appeal to self-interest and benevolence is right on the mark! Keep up the great insights.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 12/11, 9:51am)

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 12/11, 9:52am)

Post 48

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 1:17am

Ed, thank you. Glad you liked the article. Hope the Trustees meeting went well.

The kind of people you speak of, the social metaphysicians, are far too common. And most of them prefer to attack prominent people in order to try to lift their own names and reputations. When I see that kind of behavior, I just ask a simple question. What has each person accomplished? Are they just complaining? Are they willing to step up and do the job themselves? Or do they just get to act like they know what's best and it doesn't matter that they do nothing themselves? It's pretty obvious after that.

Post 49

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 9:33am

Joe elucidated:

The kind of people you speak of, the social metaphysicians, are far too common. And most of them prefer to attack prominent people in order to try to lift their own names and reputations. When I see that kind of behavior, I just ask a simple question. What has each person accomplished? Are they just complaining? Are they willing to step up and do the job themselves? Or do they just get to act like they know what's best and it doesn't matter that they do nothing themselves? It's pretty obvious after that.

That sums the proper evaluation strategy in a nutshell!

Post 50

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:10pm

Joseph,

Brilliant article on benevolence! Thank you.

That was such a seamless and lucid melding of ethics, psychology and a general purpose how-to for increasing efficacy.

--- First, addressing it as a methodology for working with others more effectively:

1. Identify and 'bind' on shared goals with others. 2. keep the focus on the shared purpose. 3. Make that commitment and the result can be called benevolence. 4. Benevolence adds its own energy to the energy that comes with each persons pursuit of the goal. 5. Results are achievable that wouldn't otherwise be.

(I'm noticing that it requires honesty - attempts to use a hidden agenda wouldn't hold sway for long.)

--- Next, some very practical relationship stuff:

That feeling of being in a benevolent environment/relationship is almost like a gauge telling us we aren't wasting energy struggling being at cross-purposes.

When we take the time to look for the common goals we will do a better job of creating successful relations. We will get better at seeing processes in terms of their underlying purposes (a very, very important context).

We will get better at reading people in some important ways, "What is his/my purpose in this context?" and "Is he and am I being authentic?" After all, if we think we have a shared goal but we are experiencing something other than benevolence from the interaction, there is some other agenda at work. (note how this would apply to romantic relationships - the part about gauging if things are going well. Note how much better this is for setting up employee/team relationships than the military model)

When people really do share a common goal they are each purposeful about, I'd say the energies (and chances for success) are multiplied (not added, multiplied). Benevolence as a catalyst.

--- Now the psychology:

As a psychologist I'm tempted to meddle with David kelly's definition - uprooting it from ethics and setting it down in psychology as a corollary of self-esteem, a measure of health and vitality, and a kind of positive experience.

No, actually I wouldn't take it from ethics - just create a definition to be the psychological expression of the ethical virtue.

I'd define it something like this: Benevolence is the tendency to experience others as like one's self in positive ways and the tendency to experience the universe as a positive source of values. (modeling it after Branden's Self-Esteem definition).

Self-esteem is the experience of our self in a basic context. Benevolence would be the experience of the outer world in a basic context.

------------

It's getting late. Hope I haven't babbled (sometimes it is painful to read in the morning what one writes at night).

Post 51

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:27am

     Jeez, Ciro. I'm quite aware that I sometimes post when I'm 'in a bad mood' and wish I didn't type what I had (well, quite the way/'tone' I had, anyways.)

     But, man; you are putting me to shame!

     So, you consider 'Objectivists' as ones who (metaphorically, of course) 'eat their children'?

     Uh-h-h, and you propose to do what about that...other than complainingly 'identify' such? Indeed, what do you find of 'value' in O-ism, per se, I must now ask?

LLAP
J:D

Post 52

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 9:38am

Self-esteem is the experience of our self in a basic context. Benevolence would be the experience of the outer world in a basic context.

Is this, then, to say self-esteem is personal, and benevolence is social? or self-esteem is introverting, and benevolence is extroverting?

Post 53

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:42am

Hi Robert,

As you know, self-esteem has two sides. One side is partially related to �others�: our experience of our self as loveable. But I don't see that the mention of 'others' changes self-esteem from a personal experience of self to a social statement. In the same way, I don't see that part of benevolence that experiences 'others' as a positive value makes it a social statement either. Benevolence is a personal experience of others. So, as you put it, more introverting versus extroverting.

When I wrote that late last night it just popped out of me due to excitement. Had it not been so late (or I so excited), I would have been more complete.

There is big difference in importance. Where self-esteem is a necessary component of well-being, the experience of benevolence would not have the same urgency of need. It would make going forward much easier and more rewarding but without self-esteem in sufficient amount, we don't go forward at all.

Self-Esteem is personal, as you said - it is our 'measure' of our self. And the benevolence experience would be secondary in some ways - that is, without a fair amount of self-esteem one would have a hard time experiencing the benevolence. And, with high levels of self-esteem, it would be hard not to feel benevolent. Yet they each can vary somewhat independently of the other.

Benevolence as I spoke of it is a generalized and automatic background measure or experience of our estimation of the positive values present in the outside world and in people.

That at least is what I'm thinking right now. I can picture a powerful man whose high levels of purposefulness, consistent practice of awareness, responsibility, etc. have given him high self-esteem yet, from childhood experiences; he retains an overly suspicious attitude towards people and a dour attitude about the world. Or, turn it around and you can picture a gentle soul, somewhat timid and low on self-esteem but with a loving and accepting attitude towards people and who is optimistic regarding the good to come of being in the world. Playing with those imaginary characters shows some of the relationship between self-esteem and benevolence.

Post 54

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 1:27pm

Perhaps I should have said it as 'benevolence a social byproduct'....

Post 55

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 3:22pm

Robert,

I thought your question ("Is this, then, to say self-esteem is personal, and benevolence is social? or self-esteem is introverting, and benevolence is extroverting?") was a good one. (Even if I'm not too sure about your verbing of those two nouns!)

David Kelly's definition of benevolence was for ethics. Joseph went from there and showed there was no conflict between the practice of benevolence as a virtue and the practical gains achieved in its practice - which carried into psychology (by way of 'purpose'). That got me interested in the psychology of benevolence on a more basic level. And, I could easily see people doing studies of the social and/or economic effects of benevolence. Looking at the same general phenomena but from a different context.

I think I saw an article on the importance of 'context' in the archive and I mean to go read that.

Going back to the discussion you, Ed, Ted, and I had regarding 'metaphysical nature of man' versus 'biological nature of man' - different contexts.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/19, 3:23pm)

Post 56

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 8:38pm

Steve, thanks for bringing attention to this article, and adding your own comments on the topic. I don't know how much I've been able to put this strategy into action here, but we've definitely gone a long way towards building a culture of benevolence here.

Post 57

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:10pm

Joseph,

I'm not familiar with the history here (or the other forums), but I know a good article and an important idea when I see them.

Did you see my application (just a few minutes ago) to an old quote of yours that starts, "Whether someone calls themselves an Objectivist is an interesting matter..."? ;-)

----------
I have been made to feel very welcome here - it is clear that things are being done well. I liked your observation that benevolence is encouraged by example and not commanded.

Post 58

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:27pm