Is the name 'SOLO' proper?

For the sake of convenience, here is the offending posts from the SOLO Romance forum:

Jennifer wrote: "I have yet to find the man who, in the midst of one of my more "Italian" moments, will tell me to sit down and shut up. I'll probably marry the man who does."

Matthew wrote: That problem aside, I would be perfectly happy to tell you to sit down and shut up ;-)

Anyway, I do strongly agree with "Sumit Aurora" that an Objectivist should be committed to reason and reality first before concerning himself with a "benevolent sense of life". Reason is our primary tool of cognition, not emotions. I am not sure what Nathaniel Branden meant by "think, and you shall feel...but in order to think clearly, you must feel deeply" . . . the latter sounds too much like psycho-babble. Can someone explain that with the proper context?

Anyway, with years of cultivating the primacy of reason into your every thought, word, and deed, the proper emotions (i.e. value-judgements) and sense of life should follow. As for fighting the "war" for men's minds by art with the proper sense of life, I argue that there are works of art that have that Romantic Realist sense of life to them, but explicitly have irrational premises. The novel and play "Les Miserables" is my favorite example (one of Ayn Rand's favorite Romantic Realist novels too). In a story about larger-than-life individuals whose lives are governed, not by forces beyond their control, but by their own choices . . . you have a very altruistic, socialist, and theistic message. Which do you think trumps which? The same can be said about many powerful epic movies and novels today.

Post 21

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 5:18pm

Well, if it were one of your brothers ...

Post 22

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 5:29pm

The novel and play "Les Miserables" is my favorite example (one of Ayn Rand's favorite Romantic Realist novels too). In a story about larger-than-life individuals whose lives are governed, not by forces beyond their control, but by their own choices . . . you have a very altruistic, socialist, and theistic message. Which do you think trumps which?

Well, given that Hugo was Rand's favorite novelist, it seems fairly apparent which one she considered to be more significant.

Though I am curious if anyone can give a good example of the opposite—a story which has a selfish, capitalist, and rationalist message which depicts characters whose lives are governed by happenstance and fate.

Post 23

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:17pm

Linz,

You have given two justifications for your action of banning me - One that you did not know that I had presented the comments about Jennifer in relation to SOLO Romance, second that I was grossly misrepresenting SOLO. I dont agree with your justifications, let me tell why.

1) Now you banned me because of the harshness of my comments for Jennifer. But before that did you ask whether she deserved those comments? Did you ask that I might have been right and it was she who was missing the context of the discussion? Did you ask whether my opinion might have been true? - I dont think you asked these questions to objectively decide whether facts supported me. Tell me if I'm wrong in this presumption about you.

2) You said I was misrepresenting SOLO. Was I? Or was I questioning the basis on which the name of the group has been choosen? Before your conclusion that I was misrepresenting SOLO were u sure in what way was I doing that? Did you ask whether the basis of choosing the name by you was right? Did you ask whether my opinion had a basis in reality? - I dont think you asked these questions to objectively decide whether facts supported me. Tell me if I'm wrong in this presumption about you.

If I'm right on the above two presumptions then it also demonstrates why exactly I have been against using 'SOLO' as the name of the group. You see, in making any deciosion we need to consciously bring our primaries to our consciousness. We cannot, as objectivists, rely on our sense of life or emotions to guide us. We need to bring into our consciousness that it is for reason and reality that we are primarily fighting for, not their outcome, which is a benevolent sense of life. Now let me state one more point that I'm not against the abbreviation 'SOLO' as the group name if it stands for the spirit which made 'Stoddard Temple' (because it represents our primary). I'm against the words from which the group name has been derived - Sense of Life Objectivists, because it does not convey our primaries. Reminding what Frisco tells Rearden - This is a war in which we can't afford not to state clearly what we stand for.

P.S. I dont agree with your decision of reinstating me on public demand. If you think I'm not suited to this group please ban me. I would not register under any new name.

(Edited by Sumit Arora on 11/18, 11:58pm)

(Edited by Sumit Arora on 11/19, 6:13am)

(Edited by Sumit Arora on 11/19, 9:53am)

Post 24

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 5:17am

Sumit. If your objections are so strong, why would you choose to spend time, and energy *here*? I am interested to know what value you derive.

John

Post 25

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 5:42am

I still think she deserved the harshness of my comments, in the same way as a student deserves it from his teacher on descibing a camel when asked about a tiger.

No, Sumit. If I had been rude to you to begin with, such behavior would have been justified and deserved. There is no other acceptable reason.

Post 26

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 8:04am

Lindsay wrote: "Well, if it were one of your brothers ... "

I feel dumb. I am usually good at reading between the lines, but this time I'm lost. What does that mean?

Post 27

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 8:08am

Natural Leseul wrote: "Though I am curious if anyone can give a good example of the opposite�a story which has a selfish, capitalist, and rationalist message which depicts characters whose lives are governed by happenstance and fate."

I think you would be hard-pressed to find one, which I think supports my point. Not that I have anything against "Les Miserables", by the way. I have seen the musical countless times.

Post 28

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 9:26am

Sumit Arora said:

I still think she deserved the harshness of my comments, in the same way as a student deserves it from his teacher on descibing a camel when asked about a tiger.

This simile just won't do. I think you've been watching too many martial arts movies, where the sensei ridicules and belittles the student. It's a little presumptuous to assume that role here.

Your rude attitude would be more appropriate at the ARI (Arrogant Rationalists Institute). So far, you have contributed nothing to Objectivism. All you have done is criticize those who are trying to contribute to it.

Post 29

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:35am

Byron wrote:

quote Lindsay wrote: "Well, if it were one of your brothers ... "

I feel dumb. I am usually good at reading between the lines, but this time I'm lost. What does that mean?

Linz, this man needs a gaydar transplant, stat!

Post 30

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:41am

Yes, my gaydar was never that good. To me, any man who likes interior decorating, dancing, and shopping for clothes is suspect, but that has been an unreliable indicator thus far. Oh, and listening to Barbara Streisand and Celine Dione.

I still don't get the whole "if it were your brother" thing, though . . .

Post 31

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:12am

Byron, Linz knows I have five brothers, so he was referring to ignoring my romance profile, but eagerly reading theirs if such things existed. Hope that helps.

Post 32

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:17am

Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up!

Post 33

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:33am

Sumit. If your objections are so strong, why would you choose to spend time, and energy *here*? I am interested to know what value you derive.

I intend to know if I will derive any value from here . That is why I first raised this objection before discussing anything else. If you all have chosen your primary goal as objectivist sense of life (which is not the case I think) I don't intend to spend my time or energy here.

Post 34

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 2:56pm

Sumit: "I intend to know if I will derive any value from here . That is why I first raised this objection before discussing anything else. If you all have chosen your primary goal as objectivist sense of life (which is not the case I think) I don't intend to spend my time or energy here."

Sumit,

Your so fucking pompous, I hope you have something to show for it!

Curiously,

Newberry

Post 35

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 3:21pm

Your so fucking pompous, I hope you have something to show for it!

ROFL

Hey Newberry, the problem with you is that you keep too many things bottled up inside. You really need to learn to express yourself more freely.

George

Post 36

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 3:25pm

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but I can say that choosing an "Objectivist sense of life" was not my primary goal. My primary goal is, and always will be, the discovery of what is true and what is good. The only means to that goal should be reason. I think, over time, the proper sense of life will follow from pursuing that goal.

By the way, I am not sure Sumit was being too pompous. If I'm buying a car or house, I am sure to give the dealer or real esate agent as hard a time as possible before committing to a price. If I ever have employees in my part-time business, I will be sure to give them a hard time in an interview. Those little details are not self-evident and require some induction. I do not see it as being too different when perusing which Objectivist organizations, if any, you will invest your time and energy in.

Post 37

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 4:20pm

The world needs more pomp. The world needs more brazen challenges like those mr Arora has given us. And his question is quite an important one: Why hold a "benevolent sense of life" as a normative primary above having an accurate one? If the world around us sucks, then let our evaluation of life on earth say so.

Post 38

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 4:46pm

Why hold a "benevolent sense of life" as a normative primary above having an accurate one?

Robert, who said anything about benevolence over accuracy? Our sense of life is, to a large degree, a reflection of what we think about ourselves. Yes, much of the world around us is disappointing, malevolent, and in some parts utterly horrific, but why should that cast a shadow over our *own* existence?

I spent too much time in that quagmire of negativity, and found no benefit in it. This is not to say in any way that I see the world as "sunshine and roses," or that I am eternal optimist. Or that my sense of life is my primary goal. I see the world with much sharper clarity than I ever have, but I refuse to let the knowledge of a shitty world make each day one that must be endured rather than lived to the fullest, and I have chosen to celebrate the good in spite of the bad. Do you disagree with this as a way of life? If so, why? I ask this not to be antagonistic -- I am simply curious.

Post 39

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:58pm