RoR: Forum

Jon,

You have Linz on the brain right now. Why not just take your spiteful agenda over to where he is?

My own post "0" implied soooooooooooo much more than you apparently are able to see right now...

For the record, I do not believe that Luke wrote his article to make an indirect derogatory remark about anybody specific like what you claimed. A little something inadvertently seeped through, maybe. So what? That wasn't the point of his article, and you completely missed that point.

Wake up, man! The world is much, much larger than your petty little bickering about personalities.

Michael

Post 21

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:05am

See Phil? You were dead wrong.

The article�s position, per Luke, is that there are times to be Attila and times to be the Witch Doctor. Balance.

Post 22

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:06am

MSK: �A little something inadvertently seeped through, maybe. So what?� You really are priceless, Michael.

Post 23

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:26am

MSK,

Right out of the gate, post 0, you name without naming Linz. I call what I see, and now you want to suggest it is I who has the spiteful agenda! Luke wrote the article about personalities, not me. You posted your identification of the Drama Queen with your signature line of LOLs, not me. But Jon needs to get over his �petty little bickering about personalities�! You�ve outdone yourself, Michael.

Post 24

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 11:58am

Whoops, Jon, you're right and I was wrong. You challenged me to reread the piece so I did and to my embarrassment, yes, Luke does come down on the side of the Ice Queen (rather than being against both archetypes) and doesn't give examples where she is 'soulless, vicious' like I erroneously said. [...okay, dammitalltohell, now I'm going to have to be the one to have an outline and a summary of the article on NewBully's desk before the weekend is over....]

Still a good article though, showing the excesses possible (sometimes) to the "man of passion".

However my other point -and challenge- stands:

"I don't like... the use by Linz and others of the term "passion" as something Objectivists should display. He's -close- to identifying something...it's not passion, precisely. It's the wrong word..and "display" it is not the right formulation either...Anyone want to guess why?"
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/04, 12:05pm)

Post 25

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 12:12pm

Guys, forget about Linz! (And, on other threads, forget about Ayn Rand's personal relationships.) Forget about your past personal feuds and sticking the knife into each other on multiple threads on a public list.

The issues of when to let passion rule and when not to is wider than one particular person (who may have done so appropriately in some instances and inappropriately in others like most of us do). Nor is it of any importance whatsoever whether a writer or poster had one person in mind as one of his examples. It's just silly to obssess over that.

Stop fighting past battles over emotion-laden and tangled concretes devoid of the abstract principles.

Wake up and smell the broader wisdom, light roast or dark roast.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/04, 12:14pm)

Post 26

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 12:32pm

Phil, I am trying to understand your question. I think you are saying that what some here have called "passion" does not meet the standards for what you call "passion."

For me, an Objectivist sense of passion involves a consuming, intense involvement in the flow state, that state of consciousness in which one exuberantly engages in productive effort flawlessly as a second nature based on years of self-discipline and self-conditioning performed through reason. This particular meaning fits well with what Merriam-Webster offers as definition 5b of passion: "a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept." It also fits well with the book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

Contrast the vision of Howard Roark intensely slashing lines and angles in his architectural studio with the vision of a loudmouth jockeying for attention in an Objectivist forum with his endless pontifications of moral judgment. Both might appear to manifest passion, yet which acts productively?

Likewise, look at John Galt and Dagny Taggart in various segments of Atlas Shrugged. Dagny took the passionate "Ice Queen" route when she coldly shot the guard blocking her entry to the torture chamber. By contrast, Galt took the passionate "Drama Queen" route when he gave his lengthy radio address. Both acted productively and passionately though in profoundly different ways.

I am not here to pick on anyone. I am just trying to understand what you are asking. I think you are saying that only demonstrably productive acts can count as authentically passionate acts in the Objectivist view. All else is mere empty bellowing.

Post 27

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 3:19pm

Jon,

I call what I see...

You sure as hell used to see a lot more than you do these days.

(yawn...)

Michael

Post 28

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 2:02am

Michael Newberry,

You wrote that Luke comes across as "clueless about emotions and also pretentious to write about such things". Then you go on to imply that he is not a "healthy flourishing" person and should defer to those who are, presumably like yourself.

I think that's appalling. No human being is clueless about emotions. Everyone has emotions. The difference is in which emotions people experience, how often, how intensely, in what circumstances and how people express themselves. Luke has as much right as anyone else to write about these things.

It's fashionable in some circles to be a right-brained extrovert who loudly expresses the right emotions at the right time, but that does not mean that only right-brained extroverts are "healthy flourishing people".

Luke,

I picked up that your article was meant as a defence of the "Ice Queen" in the face of an attack from the "Drama Queens" on another recent thread - an attempt to level the playing field. I relate more to the "Ice Queen", even though it's an exaggerated stereotype. Being a left-brained thinker, which is regrettably a minority among females, I always enjoy your articles and comments.

Jillian.

Post 29

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:12am

Jillian, I appreciate that you address me by name.

J: "No human being is clueless about emotions."

By your own admission you are weak right-brained and though I don�t know where perception of reality lies in the brain but I would hazzard that you are weak there as well. And if logic lies in the left you have my sympathy.

J: "Luke has as much right as anyone else to write about these things."

Sure. Anyone as a right to write whatever they want even if they project that flourishing is a balance between passive aggressive (Ice Queen) and hysteria (Drama Queen). If that were indeed the options for humanity then I would 100% agree that total repression is the only way to go.

J: "It's fashionable in some circles to be a right-brained extrovert who loudly expresses the right emotions at the right time, but that does not mean that only right-brained extroverts are "healthy flourishing people"."

I don�t play your delusional game about the dichotomy between the right and left brain.

Michael

Post 30

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:58pm

Michael,

You wrote: "By your own admission you are weak right-brained..."
I didn't say that. I said, "Being a left-brained thinker..." That's a very interesting Freudian slip on your part.

You wrote: "I don�t play your delusional game about the dichotomy between the right and left brain."
I don't mind whether you describe it as right and left brain or something else, but there was an implication in what you wrote that some people are "healthy" and "flourishing" and you are in that group and Luke is not. I think that's an unreasonable value judgement.

It's obvious that we're not going to agree on this, so I don't think there's much point in continuing the conversation.

Jillian.

Post 31

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:19am

a true Objectivist needs to get hot, to charge forward

Often being "hot" degrades discretion and the ability to persuade by offending with ensuing defensiveness, or in public debate, cloud the mind of the attacker.

My contention respects the context of an individual's unique character and situation to dictate what temperature proves "just right" to cause flourishing for that person.

Indeed! The "Poker-Face" is an excellent example of when emotional self-control makes a difference between winning and losing.

Drama Queen admires Nietzsche
Ice Queen masters Machiavelli.

[Dionysian vs. Apollonian in temperament, passion vs rationality in action]

Dilbert, Drama Queen identifies with Alice.
Ice Queen role models Dogbert.

[frustrated, bitter victim vs. controlling power]

Drama Queen employs colorful language
Ice Queen feels no need to express herself, living intensely in...her own creation and choice.

[extrovert vs. introvert]

Drama Queen reads riot act, recounts a litany of offenses
Ice Queen serenely replies, "But I don't think of you."

[altruist vs rational egoist]

Drama Queen grandstands...consider staying if the list owner caves to her demands.
Ice Queen quietly leaves the list and creates her own forum.

[populist vs rational egoist]

When others challenge her plan...Drama Queen justifies choices, allows disapproval to sway her
The Ice Queen listens opponents in disapproval, then proceeds down her path

[populist vs rational egoist]

Drama Queen looks at superficial qualities
The Ice Queen looks at character qualities

[sentimental self-deluder vs. wisdom]

her adulterous husband, Drama Queen tells friends family about how wicked he is
Ice Queen tells all her friends and family how wonderful he is,then liquidates those assets

[populist vs rational egoist]

When a rapist attacks, the Drama Queen wallows in misery
Ice Queen caresses the attacker, punctures his eyeballs then leaves him to die

[timid & insecure vs. secure & confident]

Luke, I really can't identify a coherent theme, but Rand-ian themes are expressed.

You start by advocating stuffing or evading internal emotional responses to better affect an outcome, and, as the Klingon Proverb goes, "serving revenge [justice] cold". Agreed.

I can identify with some "Drama Queen" aspects Rand's portrayed in such characters as Rearden, who's family and culture has posed a dilemma of either forcing him to accept their subjectivist-populist value system, rewarding un-merited work and need, or demeaning him by his own choice of morality, reason, productivity and self-esteem in not accepting guilt and servility in the altruist pecking order. And Dagny, a Drama-Queen in denial, keeps trying to fix, rescue her railroad and her brother from their depravity, rather than helping them fail, salvaging what she can, and striking out independently.

Roark is truly an Ice-Queen, immense strength of will. But no "Dogbert" seeking domination to abuse. Dominique is the Ice-Queen to herself, her own forsaken hope of joy. But a Drama-Queen to Roark in her attempts to destroy him, to prove and change him.

No doubt many of us experience. I try to better myself in the socially-acceptable way with a tech-school BSEET degree in my youthful naivete of class-culture. Certain old friends resent me for that. Later I become disillusioned as I find I'm hired by organizations that confer rank on sheepskin rather than merit. Some techs that train me to bend-metal (and I'm no craftsman) and hate me for being paid more for less competency because of my sheepskin.

And some engineers despise me for the cheap fast-track, bucking the legacy-preferences in college admissions which establish America's class structure, and I resent their snobish attitudes and making their cables, and not designing circuits and programming chips.

When I strike out on my own, some ostracize me for being a social "deviant", and like crabs in that "crab-bucket" metaphor, like communists-of-spirit who are cheated by my valuing merit and skill more than than popularity and rank conferred by social consensus. Consider me a cheater of the system, someone who's cut in line. Who is trying to rob the social-lottery. A union-scab.

"Fear of success" is the fear of punished for ambition, attempting to escape the pecking-order assignment. Again, the premise is pecking-order conferred by an ulterior value of celebrity, authority, pedigree, - consensus. Old Power or Old Money.

Anything but competence (unless sanctioned by one of the subjective "higher" values). What ancient Chinese emperor put his advisor to death for suggesting an improvement outside his job-scope? I forget.

Corrupt and stupid cultures post the dilemma of choosing between affiliation with inferiority, dependence and servility, or independence and self-esteem with malice and opposition.

Scott

Post 32

Monday, February 6, 2006 - 12:44pm

Jillian: "You wrote: "By your own admission you are weak right-brained..."
I didn't say that. I said, "Being a left-brained thinker..." That's a very interesting Freudian slip on your part."

Knock, knock. Perhaps I didn�t write my post slow enough, you claim to be a left-brain thinker which logically would mean that you have water for the right or an atrophied right or a weak right brain. But I am curious where did you get the Freudian idea from? Or are you getting turned on by our dialog?

"...there was an implication in what you wrote that some people are "healthy" and "flourishing" and you are in that group and Luke is not. I think that's an unreasonable value judgement."

You're correct I made a value-judgement, it is something I do on a full time basis, its a large part of being an artist, and I did give a very reasonable though critical appraisal of Luke�s article.

"It's obvious that we're not going to agree on this, so I don't think there's much point in continuing the conversation."

Call me unreasonable and then run? Or is the "unreasonable" part the hook?

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 2/06, 1:31pm)

Post 33

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:31am

Michael,

In relation to the part about the Freudian slip, it was a misunderstanding of what you said. I thought your emphasis was on "right-brained", as in "weak, right-brained" rather than "weak right-brained", implying "left-brained". It's the usual internet/e-mail thing -understanding what someone is saying without being able to pick up verbal cues or communicate in real-time...The mistake there was mine.

I haven't run away. I was not particularly inclined to continue the conversation and I didn't think you would be either. The "unreasonable" was referring to the apparent dismissal of Luke's capacity to express legitimate views on emotional subjects. Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but questioning their capacity to express views is another. Having said all that, Luke may not have been offended and if he was, he doesn't need me to speak for him. I only made a comment because I was shocked by what I read. The shock has passed.

Jillian.

Post 34

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:55pm

     Jeeezelebub!

     What a lot of ice-cold (can we say 'negative-oriented'?), Rorschachianly-interpreted expenditure of ...passion. --- All from someone's attempt at a generalized description of character-types.

     Luke:
            What hath you wrought? (Maybe this'll teach you to 'define' next time!)

:D

LLAP
J:D

Post 35

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:21pm

John,

Yes, ice-cold! I have one terrible weakness, at least, if I have time for it, I can�t stand pretentiousness: if you speak with authority on a subject you better damn well have professional expertise.

Jillian wrote: "The "unreasonable" was referring to the apparent dismissal of Luke's capacity to express legitimate views on emotional subjects. Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but questioning their capacity to express views is another."

But I was dismissive and questioning Luke�s expertise. If Luke wants to take Lindsay to task, then he should address it clearly and directly, not with some smearing post, ie. quoting Lindsay�s credo and then abstracting that into a "drama queen" and then claiming that was not his intent. Reeks of bs.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 2/08, 8:39pm)

Post 36

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:35am

In my article, I opened:

Ayn Rand argued that no necessary conflict exists between reason and emotion. Since the inception of this site's content some years ago, writers of its articles and forum posts have sought to integrate reason and passion toward human flourishing. This has led many people here to argue that a true Objectivist needs to get hot, to charge forward with "total passion for the total height." This passion, they argue, must sometimes manifest itself in the form of rage, a vociferous condemnation of all evil in the world as searing as the bowels of the deepest and most active volcano on Earth.

After many exchanges, Michael Newberry responded:

If Luke wants to take Lindsay to task, then he should address it clearly and directly, not with some smearing post, ie. quoting Lindsay�s credo and then abstracting that into a "drama queen" and then claiming that was not his intent.

Re-read my article, especially the opening passage I just quoted. I said "many people," not just Linz. That Linz coined the phrase "total passion for the total height" takes second place to how others used and abused that credo. I can no more hold Linz accountable for the chosen acts of "Drama Queens" than you can hold Ayn Rand accountable for my own chosen acts.

Michael Newberry also chastised:

... if you speak with authority on a subject you better damn well have professional expertise.

Some people would level that charge against Ayn Rand, who, while having a degree in philosophy, seldom if ever wrote scholarly pieces replete with footnotes, etc. published in professional philosophical journals. Must a person have degrees and professionally published pieces in "mainstream" journals to qualify as a "professional expert" who has your blessing to "speak with authority"? What exactly qualifies as "professional expertise" to you?

Post 37

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 5:03pm

> I can�t stand pretentiousness: if you speak with authority on a subject you better damn well have professional expertise. [Michael N]

Context. It depends on the topic or field as to whether or not only "professionals" can weigh in with certainty.

If you are going to pontificate on heart surgery or particle physics or the thermal and civil engineering issues surrounding the collapse of a tall building due to fire, you better at least have boned up and done a lot of reading. But in philosophy, esthetics, opinions of how well done a movie is, or the characterization in a novel, or many aspects of psychology...or many of the subjects of the threads on this list, you do not need an advanced degree to "compete" with the professional, even though there exist "professionals" in each of those fields. You can be more right than the professional in some cases and be more worth listening to (or just point out internal logical contradictions) if he is lousy in his field or bad on a particular topic, if he is mindlessly repeating what he was taught in grad school without his own critical analysis, etc. Or if you are a more logical thinker, or, in some cases, if you've done enough research or given sufficient thought to the matter.

So, put aside the intellectual snobbery, Mr. Newbully :-). You're using the same kind of reasoning that professors of philosophy do when they put down the non-academically trained Rand, who didn't spend twenty years intensively reading Sartre, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Plato, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, A. J. Ayer, W.V.O Quine, etc.

Phil

PS, Sometimes also a good generalist with a lot of 'horizontal' knowledge well-integrated is more worth listening on a subject within a specialist's field than the specialist. Why? Because knowledge is interconnected and sometimes "professionals" get so deep into their own field that they fail to integrate knowledge from outside of it. Phil Coates alliterative aphorism #216: "The expertise of experts is excessively accepted as excellent."

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/14, 5:19pm)

Post 38

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 7:57pm

First Phil takes this article as a description of two equally horrendous approaches. He writes: �extremes -not- to be followed, just as one would not want to follow either Attila or the Witch Doctor.�

Invited to pay closer attention, he finds that its author actually WAS recommending that one of the archetypes be followed and writes, �Still a good article though, showing the excesses possible�

One wonders why Mark�s thoughts regarding �issues surrounding the collapse of a tall building due to fire� is not also �good� for �showing the excesses possible.�

Give me a break.

Post 39

Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:25am