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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 12Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 240

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

I already answered your question (many times) in my writings. (btw - Thank you for stating that you are not interested in learning about this from those who know. That, at least, is honest. However, it does characterize your intellectual lack of seriousness when you insist on talking about things you know nothing about and have no interest in learning.)

But I will give you the answer once again. No big secret. I neither did it myself, nor was it done by others. It was both.

I had help.

That's the way it works with diseases.

All diseases.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/13, 7:55pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 241

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Your following statement poses a contradiction ...
Thank you for stating that you are not interested in learning about [alcoholism] from those who know. That, at least, is honest. However, it does characterize your intellectual lack of seriousness when you insist on talking about things you know nothing about and have no interest in learning.
Setting aside your continued assumption that you know my life story, the only way I could learn from your experience is if I can sympathize with it.  Otherwise it would remain completely alien to me.  But if I can sympathize then that must mean I actually did know something about it without having the experience myself.

The contradiction is resolved by recognizing that we can have objective knowledge of human nature.  By knowing my own nature and those I know intimately, I obtain knowledge about human nature in general.  I can then verify that knowledge through observation.  I do not need to experience every particular human story to understand it.  All of us can broadly understand each other with little problem, unless we become too self-absorbed, like those New Puritans I have written about.

Andy


Post 242

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kevin,

I overlooked this, which is a serious question ...
How can you say that the malfunctioning of will is strictly a moral issue?
I didn't.  Mental disease - that is, genuinely physiological dysfunction - and brain damage can degrade and even destroy volition.  If you drink or do drugs to excess you might very well harm yourself that way.  At that point, the issue is alcoholism, it is a medical problem - or go far enough and it's a problem for the undertaker.

Andy


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 243

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

Ah.... Now we come to the meat of the issue. Your idea of New Puritans. (I have been waiting...)

LOLOLOLOL... (benevolent laughter - not sarcastic)

OK - they exist and the name is colorful.

However, "My Brother's Keeper" do-gooders are not one end of an all-inclusive dichotomy. That is where some people want to take the concept (and I suspect you do too.)

There are many other areas of social affairs dealing with volition where the concept simply does not apply.

Ideas must fit reality, not the other way around.

Within that context, a rich social fabric with New Puritans being one type out of many, your article was pretty good. Congratulations. Within a false dichotomy, them only at one end and individualists only at the other, it is sorely lacking.

I will add it to the rich social fabric concept for my own understanding.

As to the "contradiction" you stated, your reasoning is completely incoherent to me.

Michael


Post 244

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 4:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy: “…I will not parrot the therapeutic culture's line that it is a disease. I state the obvious: Alcoholism is a surrender to temptation run amok, a loss of self-control...”

I agree that the disease model of alcoholism is misplaced, since disease implies an organic malfunction, and as far as I am aware, there is no organic basis for alcoholism.

But nor do I think alcoholism is simply a loss of self-control. It seems to be more of a personality problem along the lines of obsessive-compulsive disorders. These disorders are not usually accompanied by any organic malfunction, but nevertheless they can be crippling in their effects.

Since these disorders don’t appear to have any organic basis, their genesis must lie elsewhere. In my view, they are the outcome of distorted thinking. Strange as it may sound, both the OCD and the alcoholic believe that their behaviour will bring them some benefit, or at least ward off some harm.

The perceived benefit is probably in the form of control over one’s mental and emotional state. Like all of us, the alcoholic is beset by all the usual fears and anxieties, as well as the joys and hopes, of living in this world. Somewhere along the line, he learns that he can use alcohol as a way of controlling his inner life. In time, he sets up a pattern of thinking and behaviour, where he associates his experience of emotional pain – or joy for that matter – with the contents of a bottle.

Unfortunately, the alcoholic’s attempts to control his mental life involve ingesting large amounts of a very powerful and toxic drug, so in addition to his distorted thinking, the alcoholic is also beset by a variety of physical, emotional and moral harms.

The way out of this mess is to learn to separate one’s mental and emotional experiences from the contents of the bottle. Once he’s cracked that, the alcoholic is on the way to recovery.

Willpower won’t achieve this understanding, because the will is blind – it’s an energy that goes wherever the mind directs. The way out is achieved by reason, which recognises the distorted thinking and finds a new direction for the will.

Brendan


Post 245

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JAMES VALLIANT

Two days ago I asked a question. You have not posted since. Have you thought about it?

The question concerned looking at all sides of an issue - as you state you do. I offered a scenario of the possible to be examined and asked if it is a viable hypothesis (and nothing more for now).

In case you forgot, here is the projected scenario again (Post 204):
Frank drank to excess at times (like many people) and drank normally most of the time and not at all at others. Barbara was aware of the excesses and misinterpreted them as alcoholism. Barbara had great compassion and love for him and, believing she was correct, wrote accordingly, stating both her belief in his suffering (for sharing the same ordeal with her) and her dear love of him.

Does that fall into the realm of the possible in your book? Or is that possibility not objective in the manner you reason - to the extent that her account is simply malicious lying?

Does my scenario qualify as a viable scenario to you for rational examination?
Whatever happened to our illustrious guests?

Michael 
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 5:31am)


Post 246

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As to the "contradiction" you stated, your reasoning is completely incoherent to me.
That doesn't surprise me, Michael.

Andy


Post 247

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

Me neither. I don't like dissecting rationalizations.

Michael


Post 248

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

Thank you for explicating the nature of alcoholism better than anyone else here has.  The cause lies solely within the alcoholic's mind, and that is also the only place where the solution lies.  This can put the alcoholic in a helluva predicament, because his alcoholism is destroying his mind, the only thing that can save him.

Andy


Post 249

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,
I agree that the disease model of alcoholism is misplaced, since disease implies an organic malfunction, and as far as I am aware, there is no organic basis for alcoholism.
This depends on whether you consider consciousness organic or not. If you do not, of course, than phrases like "mental health" and have no meaning. Thank you for making it clear that your view is an opinion (with phrases like "in my view") rather then blab on like another as if you were an expert. (Believe it or not, you hit close to the truth, also. Still, no cigar - but much closer than most.)

As I said, article coming on this. I look forward to your comments.

I really do want to get back to the topic at hand, and I do fear that the hijack of this thread about the nature of alcoholism has run off James Valliant and Casey Fahy - right when  things were getting interesting.

Michael

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 250

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

I do not speculate as to scenarios absent evidence.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 251

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

You just confused me.

I thought a great deal in your book was speculation on possibilities without evidence - and that such speculation existed precisely to show the flimsy nature of the Brandens' evidence. But let me cherry pick a passage. Page 380:
One can almost see the beads of sweat gathering on Branden's forehead over the prospect of the release of Rand's journals.
Do you have any evidence for that - other than a written speculation by Branden, which also could be interpreted in a highly different manner, one more in line with his public personality?

When you met him, did you see him physically sweat like that over issues (denoting fear)? Are there other people you can cite who have reported his sweating over issues - or that he is similarly fearful in some other manner in dealing with issues?

Such fear - with the ensuing physical reaction - seems pretty hypothetical to me.

Everything I have ever read by Branden and about him show him to be an in-your-face kind of guy (with the obvious exception of the deception about the affair, which he confessed in public).

I wonder about the double standard all of a sudden...

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 7:21am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 252

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Unless the absent evidence is dye, thinner, paint, piss—anything, in bottles.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 253

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

Just as a sample of the evidence for this: Nathaniel Branden writes of Rand's journal entries (about himself): "God knows what she'll write about me in her journal--she's kept one for years--but I promise you, it will not be primarily governed by considerations of the truth." Thus, he says: I don't know what's in them ("God knows what she'll write.."), but, despite such ignorance, he asserts, it's all probably false ("not governed by considerations of the truth.") To those who say that I unfairly question the credibility of the Brandens, it should be noted, Mr. Branden questions the honesty of Ayn Rand--indeed, in notes he has not seen. Moreover, Branden's comment that the publication of Rands journals represents "a display of imaginativeness that few would have anticipated" in "converting Rand's legacy into personal cash..." further indicates his irrational anger and fear regarding the release those that had already been published. (His concerns are obviously not the same as, say, Chris Sciabarra's.) The practice of publishing such notes is common, and the Estate of Ayn Rand would accept no fee for my use of the Rand notes. His comments all predate the release of Rand's extensive notes--on Mr. Branden--in my book.

Yeah, he REALLY did not want these notes released. Branden's actually intense desire that these notes never see the light of day is obvious. His attack on their credibility is itself incredible. It is nothing less than fear and panic in my view.

Read the notes to see why.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/14, 5:51pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 254

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

We disagree over Branden's motives - my own view coming from the public personality I have observed over the years.

I could agree that he did not want the journals published.

But fearful of the fact? That takes a leap of my imagination that I am unable to make if the reality of what I have observed is to be the standard.

The only rational standard for fear I see so far is that you say he was fearful.

Your scenario is without evidence so far. Just speculation deducted from what you imagine his motives to be, based on his own speculations.

But as far as hard and fast evidence for this scenario (the beads of sweat), you have not presented anything observable in his nature or any observation of another person to back it up.

Therefore, I find this to be a curious double-standard when you refuse to consider my scenario.

You implied that the scenario I raised was without evidence. Well let's look at some of the evidence.

I submit Barbara's whole style of writing The Passion of Ayn Rand, the many good and admiring things she stated about Frank in that book, and even the "I love you" as evidence of the scenario I posited (that she loved Frank and had compassion for him).

Do you find the existence of these facts wanting as evidence? You may deny the style as evidence, but a person's own public declarations?

You can disagree with the honesty of such declarations, but not to accept them as evidence of any nature seems most curious to me - especially as you are an attorney.

And if you do admit that she might have loved Frank (hypothetically), based on her own public declaration of it, might her motives for talking about alcoholism not be based - at least in part - on such love (hypothetically)?

I'm just talking about other possibilities so far. One possibility is that she is maliciously lying and attacking the reputation of Frank (which you defend). The other is that she loved Frank and is presenting the truth to the best of her knowledge.

Is that second not a possibility under a rational examination?

Evidence does exist for it, despite your insinuation to the contrary.

So my scenario question, based on published evidence, still stands.

Will you not answer it?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 8:16am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 255

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK,

Mr. Branden's panic is measured by the irrationality of his preemptive strike against the credibility of Rand's contemporaneous notes, about him, the nature of which he does not know.

I have answered it: no speculation. So, stand away.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/14, 5:53pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 256

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote,
"Unless the absent evidence is dye, thinner, paint, piss—anything, in bottles."

I did hear a rumor that Peikoff witnessed some of Nathaniel Branden's forehead sweat in one of Frank's liquor bottles.

J



Post 257

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

I find Nathaniel's motive for a "preemptive strike" merely preparation for what undoubtedly would become a public controversy. Like any side on a forthcoming polemical issue would do. Not fear. Not panic.

I see no evidence of such fear and panic as you posit. I see mere speculation - and only that.

Sorry, but I cannot stand away from this lack of evidence. Thank you for the suggestion, however.

Also, I still ask you about my own scenario - with published evidence to back it up.

Will you not stand up? Or will you be the one to stand away?

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 9:00am)


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 258

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You're not paying attention. Published or no, there is no evidence for your statement. It's completely arbitrary.


Post 259

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, Casey,

Your definition of "evidence" (and Valliant's) does not include published statements?

Let's define our terms.

Michael


Edit - I refer specifically to Barbara's love and compassion of Frank O'Connor. Do I understand that you both are claiming that her published statements of such love and compassion are not evidence (however you may judge it) of the existence of such?

What a curious concept of evidence...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 9:12am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 12Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.