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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
During my college days, from 1969 to 1973, I was known as a fanatical Ayn Rand freak. She is a novelist and philosopher with whom most professors are familiar, but, in their opinions, her ideas are much too extreme and simplistic to be seriously taught in college. Still, I carried her books around with me like the Jesus freaks carried their Bibles. My personal philosophy was an atheistic, selfish individualism, while my idea of an ideal political-economic system was a libertarian, laissez-faire capitalism; the perfect extension of Ayn Rand's objectivistic, enlightened egoism. Everyone else was, in my eyes, altruistic through religion (Jesus freaks) or socialistic through altruism (Marxists). (I now admit that this was an over simplification of an already overly simplified theory.) In the social realm, however, I found nothing wrong with supporting the popular, counter-cultural attitudes toward war, marijuana, and free love. I debated my views every day and graduated with a major in philosophy and a minor in speech.

My self-indoctrination in Ayn Rand philosophy turned me intellectually against my earlier indoctrination from the Boy Scout Oath. The Boy Scout Oath states, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country..." This has both altruism and theism. I do not have a duty to my country. My country, rather, has a duty to me, to protect my natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I should feel free to do whatever I selfishly want to do as long as I do not hurt other people. I felt then, as I do now, that a person ought not subjugate himself or herself to a god, a collective, or even another person.

A degree in philosophy, however, did not help me find a good job. In December of 1973, I returned with my wife to Germany, where I had previously met her while stationed there as a G.I. I became a teacher for Big Bend Community College in its adult education program for service personnel who are stationed in Europe.

In 1977, I decided to pursue a Masters of Science degree in education from the University of Southern California's European program.

One course in this program happened to be the Philosophy of Education, and the professor was a knockout! She was a beautiful young lady named Mahroo Mostafavi. She was a 29 year old, blond haired Persian girl with a law degree and two doctorates, one of which was in philosophy. She was very much Americanized in the liberal vein, having done fellowship work at Berkeley during the late 60's. Her looks alone took the breath away from every male student in the class. She would have been more appropriately seen in a James Bond movie than in our little military community.

The subject of philosophy seems intimidating to many students but is fascinating to me, even when I hear repeated what I already know. It soon became obvious, as Mahroo was reviewing fundamentals of introductory philosophy, my contributions to the class discussion were far over the heads of everyone in the room other than the professor, Mahroo. Her suggestion, which she confided to me during the break, was that she and I get together after class to discuss things in more depth.

I took the lady up on her invitation but was hardly prepared for what happened next. I am accustomed to seeing professors look at their watches and act like gouging their eyes out would be preferable to talking with me. Such was not the case with Mahroo.

First, she invited me to her apartment so we could talk in more pleasent surroundings. When we arrived at her room, she offered me a beer and asked me to wait for her on the couch while she slipped into something more comfortable. Before disappearing into her bedroom, she switched on the FM and somehow dimmed the lights. Soon she emerged from her bedroom wearing soft, skin-tight blue jeans and a loose fitting blouse unbuttoned to mid-chest with obviously no bra on underneath.

Her mannerisms can only be described as seductive. She called me "lover", kept smilling at me and laughing at my dumb jokes, responding with great passion to my every comment. She would also reach into her blouse through undone buttons to rub her naked shoulder, as if straighting a bra strap that wasn't there.

With a very soothing voice, she pleaded with me to take off my shoes and get relaxed. However, I was nervous. The more she told me to get comfortable, the more uncomfortable I became.

I did not know what was expected of me. I am not an ugly person but neither do I consider myself to be a magnet for females. I have never had to fight them off my back. Was I suppose to behave like some macho superstar in movies and television? Was I suppose to act like people I read about in popular novels or in Playboy and Penthouse magazines?

I tried to keep her talking about philosophy, but this only added to my suspicions. Although she liked the individualism in Ayn Rand's philosophy, she thought that Rand was too strict and uncompromising. Existentialists, she explained, do not feel compelled to conform to absolute standards imposed upon them from outside.

Did this mean, I wondered, that Mahroo does not feel compelled to conform to societal conventions such as those which surround fornication?

Ayn Rand says that reality is objective, either we discover it properly or ignore it and suffer consequences. This is much like the religious concept of freedom where we can choose to believe or go to Hell. "The existententialist," Mahroo explained, "says that reality is subjective. There are no absolutes, and we are truely free to choose the path our lives will take or create our own paths. The choice is not without consequences, but we are responsible for our choices, not some pre-existing god or absolute standard which takes the choices away from us."

If she was above such legalistic limitations as the ten commandments and Kant's categorical imperative, then certainly she would have no hang-ups about "free-love." As long as the relationship is subject- subject and not subject-object, she did not seem like the prudish kind of person who would object.

"Moral decisions for existentialists are situational. Existentialists do not say 'never' or 'always', but they wait until the moment is upon them. Then they choose."

Was this a moment Mahroo would choose to ignore the traditional taboos about being intimate with a student?

I felt so inexperienced. Here I was only one year younger than she. I was a Vietnam veteran, a former bartender and prison teacher. I had been on my own in some of the most dangerous situations in some of the most intimidating cities in the world, yet I felt insecure. I kept trying to act like Burt Reynolds, but I felt like Don Knotts.

"Existentialists like to take chances," she kept explaining. "Playing it safe is like allowing life to pass you by. You only get the most out of life when you really get involved."

"Mahroo, what are you doing to me?" I finally confronted her.

"What do you mean?" she asked innocently.

"Well, ah, ah, ah..." I stammered.

I choose not to remember the rest of this embarassing and painful conversation, but I do remember it came out all right. She told me, in a very diplomatic way, it was my mind in which she was interested, and we laughed with great relief at the misunderstanding. After that it was easy for me to feel comfortable with Mahroo.

Mahroo and I enjoyed each other so much we had more clandestine dates. Nobody knew about them except Mahroo and me. I sat quietly in class listening to other male students speculating on what she was doing at night and who she was seeing. I knew the answers, but I didn't tell.

I learned a lot from Mahroo. She turned me on to various oriental philosophies as well as existentialism. We talked about the dichotomies and contradictions as well as the similarities. I was intrigued by the thought that one can "bend with the wind" and "go with the flow" as well as challenge fate and attempt to take charge of one's own life. One philosopher will say freedom is an illusion, that we are conditioned and controlled from birth in everything we do, and another philosopher will say that we are "forced into freedom," that we must define ourselves all the time and accept responsibility. It is true the both philosophers cannot logically be right, but it is also true that they are right. Logic is only a tool which is at times inadequate. Logical arguments are sophisticated pronouncements of faith. For Mahroo, "feeling" is primary, and I am glad we could help each other feel good for awhile.

After the course, Mahroo went back to California and traveled between California and Iran. I received one very friendly letter from her, but then she disappeared. In November of 1979, the "Iranian crises" with the Shah, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the hostages came upon us. Mahroo Mostafavi was no longer listed in the University of California's catalogues. I hope she wasn't executed, as were so many other innocent Iranians, for being associated with Americans.

By now I'm getting past seeing a little of Mahroo in every exotic, slender blond at whom I glimpse, but nobody, possibly not even Mahroo herself, can measure up to the image of her that I carry in my mind. I do not agree with her entirely, but she had an impact upon me. I really liked her and wish she would write me again.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 1

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"feeling" is primary, and I am glad we could help each other feel good for awhile.

OK. You've converted me. I'm gonna do whatever feels good "for awhile."

Sam



Post 2

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah Nick what did your wife say? Nothing like thinking short term :-)

Post 3

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Sam)OK. You've converted me. I'm gonna do whatever feels good "for awhile."

 

(Nick)Well, I wasn’t trying to convert anybody here, just sharing an experience and perhaps teaching readers a little about Existentialism in a fun way. I did say I didn’t agree with her entirely. However, I don’t think pursuing happiness, egoistically and with rational guidelines, is something to which Rand would be opposed.

 

(Ethan)Yeah Nick what did your wife say? Nothing like thinking short term :-)

 

(Nick)Since nothing physical really happened, my wife, at that time, got past this. Yes, it was a little difficult to explain to her, and some people don’t really believe that Mahroo was really only interested in my mind, but I think this was the case, unfortunately. It is not politically correct or considered professional behavior for professors to have students over to their apartments, but this was a different time, when some traditional standards were being challenged, with someone not really familiar with Western conventions. And, I did have female friends outside of my marriage, and my wife had male friends with whom she worked and spent time with at company parties not attended by me. So, this was not a big thing, just different enough to raise eyebrows.

 

Anyhow, it was a risky but memorable coming of age like experience for me. I would have missed it if I had been more rational, more safe and boring.

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick

 

  


Post 4

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good story. Clap, clap. : )

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

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Nick)Well, I wasn’t trying to convert anybody here, just sharing an experience and perhaps teaching readers a little about Existentialism in a fun way...
(Nick)Anyhow, it was a risky but memorable coming of age like experience for me. I would have missed it if I had been more rational, more safe and boring.

Ok...so the point of that romance novel excerpt we were treated to was to suggest (in a fun way! of course) that Objectivists, being "rational, safe and boring" are in more danger of missing out on those risky but memorable coming of age experiences, unlike those exciting existentialist types? If so, I gotta tell you...I consider myself an Objectivist (not Neo-, Psuedo-, Kinda-, Sorta-O'ist) and I have plenty of stories that began with "he and I decided to get together to discuss (intellectual) things in more depth," and sure as hell didn't end with, "he then told me that it was (only) my mind he was interested in, and we laughed in great relief at the misunderstanding"--believe me.
I'm happy for you that you had a memorable experience, and even that you decided to share it (well-written, by the way) but I cannot help but sense it was a thinly veiled insult to Objectivists (it is on the Dissent board, after all.) All Objectivists aren't the same (it's that pesky individualist thing we got goin' on). Why do you feel you need to teach us about letting loose and having fun? You also said this:

However, I don’t think pursuing happiness, egoistically and with rational guidelines, is something to which Rand would be opposed.

You're absolutely right, Nick. Why would you assume that any of us would disagree with that statement?
If I have (somehow) misread your intentions, please correct me).
Erica


Post 6

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica, out of respect for Mahroo, who is a real person still around somewhere, I did not tell everything we did. I was showing how existentialism differed from more legalistic, rule-oriented, and stuffy philosophies. Some people focus on the sexual overtones and miss all the talk about philosophy.

It is not an insult against Objectivism, unless Objectivists want to subjectively make it one. However, it does dissent from Objectivism. Thus, this should be the appropriate forum for it.

If you think it is well written, why not give me some Atlas points? Let others know it is a good read. 

I've also written about happiness and hedonism. Rand critcized her straw man version of hedonism, what most people call the pursuit of happiness, but declared the pursuit of happiness to be the most nobel pursuit of man. I thought that deserved some clarification. Also, there is more to Existentialism and NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism, and pursung happiness, than letting loose and having fun.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 7

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
differed from more legalistic, rule-oriented, and stuffy philosophies.

Objectivism isn't rules based, by the way.


Post 8

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism isn't rules based, by the way.

 
Is it legalistic and stuffy? (Just kidding)

I also spoke of the ten comandments and tradtional taboos and such, not just Objectivism.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello again, Nick.
I am afraid you may have misunderstood my points. I will try to clarify:
Nick: Erica, out of respect for Mahroo, who is a real person still around somewhere, I did not tell everything we did.
That would not have been necessary, or desired...trust me.
Nick: Some people focus on the sexual overtones and miss all the talk about philosophy.
Surely you understand that all the talk of philosophy is the only reason why I posted at all? The sexual overtones were very heavy--just as you intended them to be--but I would read romance novels every day if that was all I "focused on". (The reference to my own experiences, while true, were not only meant to be somewhat humorous, but they get directly to the heart of my next point, and why I posted):
Nick: It is not an insult against Objectivism, unless Objectivists want to subjectively make it one. However, it does dissent from Objectivism.
Your "Neo-Objectivist", existentialist ideals are what differ from traditional Objectivism...and you're right: this is the proper forum to express your views on that. However, you tell a tale in which you are a young "Ayn Rand freak" who learns a valuable and memorable lesson in "fun" and "feeling good" from the existentialist Mahroo. Your story is interesting, but I don't think it is as "far out" as you seem to think it is (especially the part where nothing serious actually happened and you guys laughed about it in the end).  You are---in your words--teaching readers a little about Existentialism in a fun way. (Because no one here has ever heard of it before, or because no one here has ever had a memorable coming of age experience before, or what?) The moral of your story is: I would have missed it if I had been more rational, more safe and boring. I have no doubt about that, I just don't know why "safe and boring" automatically go with rational? It possible to have an exciting, fulfilled life as an Objectivist...though I am not sure you agree with that. Nick: I also spoke of the ten commandments and traditional taboos and such, not just Objectivism.  Yes, you speak of them in the same breath as the traditional Objectivist culture which you find stifling. I'm sorry if that is how it was introduced to you, and there are certainly some Objectivists who probably qualify as "safe and boring"...it just doesn't apply to all of us. In fact, this website happens to be a haven for a lot of Objectivists with shall we say...less rigid personalities...have you not met any until now?And finally,
Nick: Also, there is more to Existentialism and NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism, and pursuing happiness, than letting loose and having fun. Well, of course there is.  Just not in this particular post.

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 7/28, 12:20pm)


Post 10

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Erica, if you don't think there is anythng "far out" about my story, I guess I'll have to live with that. Rand was not the perverbial barrel of monkies. Neither am I. Being able to relax like I did with Mahroo was something rare for me.

It is good if there are Objectivists here who are accepting and un-rigid. I have met a few who have been pretty disrespectful to me, but I try not to judge. I just say what I think needs to be said, one consciousness among others.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Respectfulness is an earnedness - if there's disrespect, perhaps the respect wasn't earned.......

Post 12

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I say, one consciousness among others. I certainly don't need respect from those I don't respect.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 13

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,


================
It is good if there are Objectivists here who are accepting and un-rigid. I have met a few who have been pretty disrespectful to me, but I try not to judge.
================

You try not to "judge?" Well, why's that, Nick? Because of where "judging" will "get you" -- in this world? So, when you seek a friend, you don't "judge" their character and values? When you say "accepting" -- you really mean "appeasing" (don't you?). And when you say "un-rigid" -- you really mean "un-just" (don't you, really?).

C'mon, man. You're just blowing smoke, now! Your pseudo-sentimentality is getting pretty stale here, Nick.

A "rigid" ethical individualist (ie. a sincere seeker of a lifetime of happiness),

Ed
[love it, or leave it]

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If I were to be totally honest on this board, I'm afraid I'd be banned.

I'm just a guest here. Several people have been rude and disrespectable to me, but I just try to maintain my dignity. If I were in the majority, I could be more courageous. It's like being a single black person in a crowd full of White Supremists. I have to watch my step.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 15

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More correctly, like a white supremist among blacks.....

Post 16

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sometimes, to avoid a flame war, I have to simply walk away. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And an alternative way to avoid a flame war -- is to become reasonable in discussion.

Ed

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And an alternative way to avoid a flame war -- is to become reasonable in discussion.
I think it's reasonable not to flame people even if they are not reasonable. Point out the unreasonableness and prove it to be unreasonable. Don't hide behind flames. It's cowardly. And, it is not reasonable for different standards to apply to me than what apply to others on the board. 

bis bald,

Nick


Post 19

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,

====================
Point out the unreasonableness and prove it to be unreasonable.

====================

Okay, since you asked ...


====================
Logic is only a tool which is at times inadequate. Logical arguments are sophisticated pronouncements of faith.
====================

It is unreasonable to consider logic as "inadequate" or as a "pronouncement of faith." Logic is man's means of understanding reality. To call it inadequate, is a case of the stolen-concept -- to call that which is necessary for understanding, inherently deficient in producing understanding; is blasphemous.

Also, to call that which is antithetical to faith "faith" -- is equally absurd.

Nick, you are as convoluted a thinker as I have ever met in my 38 years on this planet.

Ed

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.