Joe, the Personal, Emotional, Soul-Baring Stories were GOOD Things!

Joe Rowlands gave this as one of the reasons for closing SoloHQ:

"People write articles that have next to no connection to Objectivism. The best rewarded articles (in terms of sanctions) tend to be personal stories, often involving hardships and strong emotions, and with no substantial tie into Objectivism or even philosophy... [Often] detailing every sordid detail of their lives."

He tied this to the preference for what he somewhat belittlingly calls "entertainment" to the exclusion of activism.

Joe, you are making a major intellectual mistake here.

It is one of tunnel-vision, and you are not alone - major figures at TOC and ARI have done the same thing. For far too long, Objectivists have had a tendency to write and think in an overly cerebral, syllogistic, impersonal, emotion-free (other than anger or disgust of course) way. To not find new ways to communicate. This is ironic, when they have Ayn Rand as a literary example of how NOT to write or live in this way.

Objectivists have often been afraid not to appear perfect. Not to tell of their own struggles and mistakes and hardships. For the very first time I can remember, we began to see on Solo many new writers (unfortunately some of the best writings were early and some of the best writers... James K. and Hong with her stories of life in China come to mind...have left). They have been refreshing, vital, alive...and have had the promise to rejuvenate and tired and repetitious...and dying...movement.

They have been unafraid to be personal, or to be different, or to be odd. Gay people, from Linz to Chris S, have been quite frank and unafraid to come out of the closet. People who have struggled with other things....

Joe,everyone has a past before Objectivism and they are not fully human or rounded unless they admit it, bear witness to it. And doing it here has had ENORMOUS VALUE. I am sorry this has gotten by you.

Has all of this been -directly- related to Objectivism? No, but indirectly the themes of honesty and courage emerged from the best of these writings. Have some of the writings been atrocious, lame, or self-indulgent? Yes. But the **good ones** make up for all that. (Have there been flakes and looneys attracted to all this? God, yes.)

As just one example, I personally love poetry...and have enjoyed discovering new things...and some examples of wonderful poetry have been posted. Another area not directly connected to Oism is posting of favorites, of movies, of literature, of quotes. They are not directly Objectivist and not activist, so do you think they lack value?

Often the best way to achieve a goal is indirectly. Not all barriers to Objectivism are overcome by writing philosophy or frontally or by activism.

Sometimes the most activist thing you can do, Joe, is to write a great story or poem or an honest portrayal of your struggles.

Don't worry, for god's sake, about whether or not "no substantial tie into Objectivism or even philosophy" exists!! (In all of the better writings it may be indirect, but trust me, I could point out to you in considerable detail where an Objectivist principle is concretized...or the damaging aspects of its absence made real.) There are always connections you can make to Objectivism. Later. Across time. Give it time. Let the implications and applications sink in. Relax and don't try to push it in a "stripping of the gears" or overly cerebral or impersonal way.

[I don't know that you personally would advocate this last error of tunnel vision...so this post and thread is not -only- speaking to you.]

Most importantly of all, these things do not deserve the lightweight label "entertainment" (or to be lumped in with cartoons or video games or mindlessness). They are vitally important for a well-rounded person in the same way and for many of the same reasons (1) Ayn Rand pointed out in discussing why the arts are essential to life in The Romantic Manifesto...and (2) Nathaniel Branden pointed out that psychological introspection and knowing and expressing and feeling your emotions is vital in his psychological writings.

--Philip Coates

(PS, If the point of your article was -exclusively- the BALANCE between activism and the things I have been talking about, then I would be more inclined to agree.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 11/30, 3:50pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:19pm

I completely and enthusiastically and unreservedly agree with Phil about this. I thought it was one of the (many) good things about SOLO. If this kind of outlet is not provided for in one of the two new venues Joe and Linz are setting up, that would be a big loss.

In particular, the healing that is possible by telling and reading such stories is very important. I used to attend 12-Step meetings, and I was confident that it was a good place for me to be, because of the overlap and resonance between 12-Step principles, on the one hand, and Rand's approving application of the "Serenity Prayer" (in "The Metaphysical and the Man-Made") and Branden's advocacy of non-judgmental awareness, on the other.

Being serene enough to let go of what you can't change, brave enough to change what you can, and wise enough to know the difference.
Being serene enough to know that you can't change what is past, being brave enough to tackle changes that ought to be made in the future, and being wise enough to embrace oneself with non-judgmental awareness and acceptance.
Making amends to those you have harmed in the past -- including yourself -- but not beating up on yourself, nor others who are not beyond redemption. (Which includes just about everyone on SOLO -- you know who you are. :-)

I learned these things from Rand, from Branden, from Tim Gallwey's Inner Game of Tennis, and the 12-Step movement, and I am a better, happier person for it. And so is my wife -- and so are our children. I think I am also, as a result, a better friend, a more creative artist, and a more productive intellectual.

Not just from Objectivism, I admit. But when I hear the same message from three different sources, it finally sinks in. (OK, so my psycho-epistemology and/or healing process involves some amount of "triangulation." :-) The key, though, is that I kept an open mind and heart, searching for understanding about how to reconcile my thoughts and feelings, how to root out bad old thinking, etc., and that multiple doses of insight were needed before the picture became clear. That is why sharing from MSK is so valuable -- not just for me (as a reminder), but for others who might not get it from their initial, more cerebral, encounter with the ideas via Rand's philosophy.

The only thing I regret, in this regard, is that I did not get around to telling my own similarly gut-wrenching story, as had I hoped to do. MSK is a brave, noble person, and even if nothing else good had emerged from SOLO, his sharing himself with us more than justified its existence. Like Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's post-Split books (I mean all of them, not just the biographies), his example will help some people heal who might not have otherwise.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

P.S. -- In trumpeting my agreement with Phil, I don't mean to imply that Phil would necessarily agree with anything that I wrote!
P.P.S. -- I heartily second Teresa's dubbing of Phil as a Minister of Objectivism. I only wish he lived here in the L.A. area so we could put our heads together and plot some real non-ARI intellectual activism!

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 11/30, 4:27pm)

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 11/30, 4:27pm)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:20pm

See? This is why I call Phil "A Minister of Objectivism." I impose that title with the most benevolent, cherished, rational, heroic, spiritual kind of meaning I can express.

Post 3

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:08pm

Phil and Roger-
Sanctions to both of you for commenting about this. I am indebted to Joe for what he has done, and he has a great mind. Because of his ability it is hard for me to be sceptical about the efficacy of his proposed venture, but I am sceptical. Maybe I lack the foresight of Joseph Rowlands, and I hope that I am wrong. Objectivism, and any society of Objectivists must be able to live and breath in order to succeed, and yes, in order to be of any consequence in the arena of activism. Activism can often come from sources where you'd least expect it. It can be subtle and even incidental. From Marty's poetry, to MSK's personal stories, to Joseph Rowland's and Lindsay Perigo's often brilliant philosophical pieces, Objectism lives and breathes here, and it is only when it has a life that it will have any ability to spread the word beyond the choir. There are reasons that SOLOHQ has attracted some of the best minds and has quickly climbed the ranks of Objectists organizations, and those reasons stem from it's sense of life, which entails the ability to come together and share our values-to participate and to live and breathe. SOLO could have grown in the department of activism, and I thought it was headed in the right direction for achieving those goals. As it stands now, it seems that two different organizations will emerge from this and enter at the bottom of the google search engine. May the best premises win and arise at the top.

Post 4

Thursday, December 1, 2005 - 10:10pm

Thanks guys, we'll see what direction Joe intends to take the site and his projects, and what he defines as being and not being activism.

Phil

Post 5

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 12:13am

Let me comment quickly here.

Phil says "For far too long, Objectivists have had a tendency to write and think in an overly cerebral, syllogistic, impersonal, emotion-free (other than anger or disgust of course) way. "

Unfortunately, he makes this comment in defense of writing sob stories with absolutely no connection to Objectivism.

Objectivism is an entire world view. It's huge in scope, and affects every aspect of our lives. If the author is completely unable to connect it to Objectivism, I seriously question the usefulness of the article. If you can't generalize it and point to a principle, why are you putting it on an Objectivist site?

Objectivism doesn't need emotional stories that have no point, or even contradict our basic premises. I'm all for people writing with sincerity and feeling, but not if it's just accepting the other half of a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between dry and abstract writing on one hand, and emotional, concrete-bound, not an idea to be found writing on the other hand. If I'm forced to choose which will go on an Objectivist site, I'd rather have the dry and abstract.

Phil goes on to suggest connecting a story to Objectivism is a "'stripping of the gears' or overly cerebral or impersonal way". That is the false dichotomy. It says we can't be emotional and still tie an idea to Objectivism. We have to choose.

Phil, you want to defend emotional writing, right? Isn't that the point of your post? There is a strong case for it. But suggesting that sob stories that have nothing to do with Objectivism is the proper embodiment of it just destroys your case. Why not argue for a full integration of mind and emotion?

I know you often say I misinterpret you, but you're the one who took my comments about sob stories with no tie to Objectivism and decided to defend them as the proper embodiment of emotional writing. You're the one implying that I'm against emotional writing because I'm against writing that has nothing to do with Objectivism on an Objectivist site.

Roger, I don't want to see RoR become a therapy site where people talk about how crappy their lives are. If we have to go with pop-psychology themes, can't we at least prefer it to be a self-help site, where you gain the tools to do something about it? But you know what? Even if there is value to some people in digging up every gory detail of their past, what does it have to do with Objectivism? Why should it be on this site? And why should it run on the front page as a daily article, the spotlight of the site?

Post 6

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 4:58am

I like what Joe is doing for what might be different reasons. I have little to no patience nowadays for non-Objectivists who portray themselves as Objectivists. There is no such thing as semi-Objectivism. Most of the unhappy soul-bearing stories are the direct result of being at odds with Objectivist principles. The typical story goes, "I went through this hell but now I guess I'm Ok!" as opposed to, "I went through this hell and I figured out that my error was ________ because of ________, ________, and _________."

The trouble for me is that so many people at this Objectivist website are not-so-friendly to Objectivism. There should be a site for Half-Assed Objectivists. It's a shame because there are only about 20 or 30 regulars who are actively destructive to the site. They are just so goddamn noisy.

So Joe, I think you are doing the right thing.

Post 7

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 8:59am

Lance wrote:

The typical story goes, "I went through this hell but now I guess I'm Ok!" as opposed to, "I went through this hell and I figured out that my error was ________ because of ________, ________, and _________."

I agree completely with the latter proposed method of good Objectivist storytelling. It is not enough to tell a story. The story needs to have a clear theme that empowers the reader with useful insights consonant with Objectivism.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/02, 10:08am)

Post 8

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 9:54am

Joe,

As the author of some of the better "fluff" articles you disdain, ones which have created strong resonance in many Objectivist readers, I admit to being baffled by your general characterization that this kind of literature does not bear any connection whatsoever with Objectivism, especially with Objectivist principles.

I can understand you not liking this kind of literature. We all have our tastes. I am perplexed, though, that you to not see the tie-ins to Objectivism and state outright that such does not exist.

When I have tried to discuss matters with you before on identifying angles that you have declared that do not exist, your reaction has been that I am somehow insulting you, that my grasp of Objectivism is not good, etc.

Well reality exists, whether one sees it or not, and I certainly have no interest in insulting you. I can't help seeing what I do see and my articles do have a great deal to do with Objectivism. Those are two realities that I cannot nor will not ignore simply because you say they do not exist. And, please understand, the act of seeing and describing what I see is not meant as an insult to you.

If you are interested in understanding the Objectivist principles running throughout two of my articles that I am most proud of, "Like a Lamb to the Slaughter" and "Letter to Madalena... An Homage to the Value of Valuing," I would be most willing to point them out and provide an analysis.

If you have no such interest, I don't mind letting them stand on their own merits. The people who do see the Objectivist tie-ins have appreciated them as they are and others are free simply to ignore them. They are, for present concerns, merely part of the history of SoloHQ.

As I have told you off line, due to your repugnance and wholesale rejection of this kind of literature, I will not be submitting any pieces of this nature to RoR.

Michael

Post 9

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 12:44pm

Joe, thank you for the thoughtful and civil response.

> Objectivism doesn't need emotional stories that have no point, or even contradict our basic premises. [Joe]

I agree.

> Phil goes on to suggest connecting a story to Objectivism is a "'stripping of the gears' or overly cerebral or impersonal way".

Not exactly. I made the point about a direct and an indirect connection. As I said, SoloHQ posted poems and other material "favorites, of movies, of literature, of quotes. They are not directly Objectivist and not activist."

> Even if there is value to some people in digging up every gory detail of their past, what does it have to do with Objectivism? Why should it be on this site? And why should it run on the front page as a daily article, the spotlight of the site?

That is a good point! It is a question of emphasis and what the overall focus of a site should be. I don't mean to suggest that material which is tangentially or indirectly connected should be central to a site whose *purpose* is a more direct connection to Objectivism. Or be a "spotlight". That would confuse people who come to the site looking for Objectivism. My point is that this material can have enormous value (sometimes!), and that Objectivists in the past have often been quite narrow in their view of what is connected to or furthers Objectivism.

> suggesting that sob stories that have nothing to do with Objectivism is the proper embodiment of it just destroys your case. Why not argue for a full integration of mind and emotion?

I am not suggesting that pure "sob stories" with nothing else going for them are of value in this context. Nor do I think the personal stories on SoloHQ *all* had value--some were just inept or worse...and I would have been just as happy for them not to be printed as daily articles. For example, I found Hong's personal stories of life in China to be of more value than some of the more recent examples.

> I don't want to see RoR become a therapy site where people talk about how crappy their lives are.

Boy, I certainly agree with you there! It is necessary to focus much more on the POSITIVE. But I think acknowledging mistakes or telling stories of where they lead has a role as well...as do thereapeutic things along the lines of what Objectivist psychologists from Branden to Packer have pointed out over the years.

Joe, since you acknowledge the importance of the emotional and I agree about the need for the integration of mind and emotion, I'm not sure our differences are fundamental, but instead might arise in (1) concretization and application: which -particular- personal stories qualify and (2) balance: not letting the personal, emotional, negative, or un-connected overwhelm the site...It may or may not surprise you that I agree that they *did* overwhelm the old SoloHQ site. And I share your worry that this could happen again.

Again, I don't think you clearly got my distinction between direct and indirect (see Post 0, paras. 9-12). It always helps to 'chew' an example in some detail, since the abstract statements can get in the way until you see -how- they are applied.

Let me concretize by giving two examples of what I'm talking about regarding something which is personal or emotional and has only an indirect or implied connection to Objectivism [and if you disagree that they have value or some place on an Oist site even if not a 'spotlight', then we differ; and if you agree then I think we are pretty much in agreement (at least on the principle if not on how to apply it in individual cases)]:

1. A poem which expresses joy in life or the beauty of a sunset or the loss of someone who was loved. [Or the reprinting of a classic poem by Tennyson, Kipling, etc.]

2. A personal article which tells of the hardships and losses of growing up in a communist dictatorship, but does not -explicitly- say how Objectivism saved the person or make a connection to Objectivism.

What value exists? (if they are well done, articulate, well-written!)

The value in the first may be in getting in touch with or articulating one's sense of life or deep values. Or in the case of heart-rending loss, implicitly one is stating the transcendent importance of -having- deep values. The value in the second is seeing what happens when Objectivism (freedom of the mind, and spirt, and property) is *absent*.

So, leaving aside whether MSK or James K did a good job of it, do we disagree on the two above *types* of story or artistic expression having -any- merit in an Objectivist venue?

(If there is a difference of opinion, it would presumably be on HOW DIRECT a connection to Objectivism has to be to have value in an Objectivist venue. And/or on whether aesthetic, personal, psychologically introspective material which does not have a direct or stated connection is a part of 'activism' or should be a central feature.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 12/02, 12:53pm)

Post 10

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 1:11pm

> I have little to no patience nowadays for non-Objectivists who portray themselves as Objectivists. There is no such thing as semi-Objectivism. [Lance]

I think some distinctions need to be made (and not every Objectivist venue - be it a think tank or a summer conference or a website - has to accommodate each of the following categories, depending on its particular purpose):

1. There's a difference between publishing on an advancement of / activism regarding Objectivism site vs. publishing on a freeform or unmoderated discussion of Objectivism site.

2. There is a difference between someone who writes uninformed attacks on Objectivism and someone who has a problem with the formulation of an Oist principle or who intelligently argues against an Objectivist core principle like free will [wrongly in my view].

3. And there is a difference between someone who is a down the line, entrenched opponent of Objectivism not open to reason and someone who, for example, has just read a novel and is criticizing or inquiring prior to understanding or because he is struggling to integrate what is an extremely radical, challenging, and difficult philosophy.

(3b. There is also the tricky issue of when people fall between the two categories, or might have a valid point to discuss about the *application* of the philosophy, which hasn't been fully 'chewed'.)

4. And there is a difference between opponents who are worth debating (and hosting to sharpen your skills, knowledge, bring in points you hadn't thought of) and those who are not worth engaging (for any number of reasons, including limited time in life or too elementary a mistake or has already been dealt with elsewhere).

Phil

Post 11

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 3:55pm

Michael, I think you're a swell guy, honest I do, but I got absolutely nothing out of those "better" pieces of yours. There was simply nothing in them I could relate to, on any level.

Roger's story was different for me. His way of telling the story was about tripping into a pile of shit, and coming up smellin' like a rose.

It was inspiring in that he doesn't appear to resent the pile of shit he fell into. Roger just understands that he wasn't watching his step and he makes clear how important it is that we have sure footing with regard to our happiness. I like that. I like how he takes responsibility for falling.

Unlike you (and please don't tell me you weren't trying to off yourself with the aggressive, conscious, self-abuse you've confessed to. I just won't believe it), Roger had no interest in killing himself, he performed the struggle to understand what he needed to be happy. His articulation of that struggle was a gain for me, meaning: I got something worthwhile out if it. If Roger's motive was simply that his mistakes become "visible" to his peers, without that connective tissue of rational understanding he gives, there would simply be nothing to gain from his experience. Not for me, anyway.

Roger's "Becky 'n Me" was a wonderful, inspiring, grounded, Objectivist underpinned, thing to read. I'm glad he got around to it.

Teresa

Post 12

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 5:11pm

I have a big problem with people baring their souls in an objectivist forum. What is the motivation � sympathy, attention, catharsis, admiration for overcoming a huge obstacle, hoping that their experiences will somehow change other people's lives? I don't know how many times MSK has told us that he was an alcoholic and drug addict. He should be proud of his accomplishment but we get it. How is this relevant in a forum such as this?

If I wanted this type of uplifting human interest story I'd subscribe to Reader's Digest. These are private matters and should be reserved for a therapist.

I'm very happy that MSK has informed us that he has found the love of his life � but why all this lovey-dovey bullshit here?

Post 13

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 5:12pm

Our life is motivated by two basic emotions, love, and fear.
Mistakes are always related to fear.
Ciro.

Post 14

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 6:47pm

Based upon personal experiences, people relate to different things. Some might relate to and enjoy Roger's piece, some MSK's, some both. Different approaches and different writing styles are ultimately needed in order to reach different people.

On another note, what Kat and MSK have is an achievement and I enjoy seeing achievement. Especially when it is done by friends. I think the target audience for Kat and MSK's "lovey-dovey" stuff is the audience of friends, and I'd like to think I'm in that audience.

For me personally, I wish to both shout objectivism from the rooftops of the world in the spirit of activism, and I also want to share it and celebrate it personally with friends who stand alongside me in the fight. This is not for everyone; I do not preach it as an absolute. If it suits your fancy, you can read over and over almost everything Rand ever said or wrote in order to get your daily dose of objectivism. I myself do that, but it is not enough-- I also want to settle down to conversation with friends at a place like Ciro's restaurant, or RoR, or SOLOPassion.

I am optimistic and happy with the direction this site is going in, but any place that I go to in order to drink objectivism will be a place that is more than missionary tracts and sacred texts: it will also be a place where even in the most heated disputes, I am among friends with common values.

Post 15

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 6:56pm

Ciro, Thank you for your sentiments on another thread and off line. (Edit - Jody, thanks.)

Paul (Sam Erica), Let me nip something in the bud right now. I am not making advertising for anything, much less for past articles. Who has done the advertising job for them are those who have criticized them most recently - either indirectly or directly. I am simply making an offer to point out the themes in them that are alleged to not exist at all. Frankly, I would prefer not to do this and just let matters rest.

Also, I have not discussed these issues for quite a while. The last time was in a quip essentially in a goodbye message, as I did not know which direction these forums would go. The one before that was on a thread I opened a few weeks or so earlier about another poster who had stated precisely that I would be unable to discuss these things for a month. He asked me to prove that he had his head up his ass on this issue. I did.

Anyway, you are not obligated to like my work, nor like me, nor like my lovey-dovey bullshit. I don't like yours either, so there!

//;-)

Teresa, I am sincerely glad you liked Roger's story. As for myself, my experiences were was close to suicide, but not quite, so your psychologizing is a teeny bit off. I will not go into those problems here, though. Leave it to say that, yes, I might be one helluva guy and one piss-poor author to you. But there are many who strongly disagree with you, including people who even think the contrary, i.e., that I am one helluvan author and one flaming asshole.

Can't please everybody.

(I think you are a nice kid, though.)

Now can we please get back to some ideas instead of people? I believe that the new orientation around here is activism and this kind of discussion ain't that.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 12/02, 6:58pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 12/02, 7:00pm)

Post 16

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 7:03pm

Joe and Michael, I see both sides in the question of whether to include "sob" stories (I call them "recovery" stories) on RoR.

I have a proposal that may satisfy both points of view. It basically involves making better use of the organizational scheme Joe has set up for RoR. Doing so would also result in a more logical sorting of articles that seem to be here, there, and everywhere except where they belong! On your part, Joe, it would require some transplanting of article/threads, if you are so inclined and able.

Example 1: in the articles folder, there are at least three article/threads that properly belong in Joe Maurone's Music folder: Joe's own recent piece, Fred Seddon's one on "The Three Stooges Meet Bissell" (!), and my "Ayn Rand and Bebop." Joe, if it wouldn't be too difficult, wouldn't it make sense to (1) move those and similar articles to the Music folder now, and (2) instruct Joe M. to monitor in the future the other main places where music threads pop up and work it out to move them to the Music folder?

Example 2: I've seen pieces on Crime & Punishment here and there. Shouldn't they logically belong in the Law folder?

Example 3: I've seen pieces on economic issues that should go in the Economics folder, right?

Following this logic, I would think that Michael's and my and similar "recovery" ("sob") stories would best go in a new folder labeled "Personal Recovery." Surely if Fitness and Health and Food have folders, Personal Recovery deserves one, too! If you like the idea of transplanting articles that have ended up in the "wrong" folder, then this would be another example of that.

I would be willing to serve as editor or leader or whatever for this folder. I am a psychology graduate student and a veteran of 12-Step programs and am acquainted with Branden's sentence-completion method for personal exploration and recovery from personal problems, so I would be better situated than most to watch over and steer such a folder.

Let me know what you think about these ideas! I'm ready to pitch in and help RoR be all that it can be. :-)

Best regards,
Roger Bissell

Post 17

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 7:07pm

REB wrote:

Surely if Fitness and Health and Food have folders, Personal Recovery deserves one, too!

How about calling it "RoR Lessons Learned"?

Post 18

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 7:12pm

Or, from a pilots bias, we should call it "There I was, flat on my back at 800 feet..."

Post 19

Friday, December 2, 2005 - 7:57pm