what do you think about the following opinion of Rand's?

I think I have given Kate the benefit of a doubt. At least to the point of honestly and respectfully stating an opinion, opening the door for clarification if it serves her purposes.

Kate, you stated in your bio that you agreed with about 90% of what Rand said. There's certainly value in hoping into the ideological trenches and getting down to some serious rhetorical grappling, but the forums are big enough for us to get to know the remaining 90% of your thinking, too. If that served your purposes.

Feel free to start a thread regarding calligraphy if you'd like. I'm a rank amateur, but I'd try to keep up.

Post 61

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 7:54am

Ted:

She is worried that a child, seeing the horrible fate of someone else, will worry the same might happen to himself.

Is that what is meant by her being "selfish?" Her concern for the perceptions inside of skins not her own? Or, was she talking about her children?

The more I hear other's interpretations of Rand, the more I'm convinced I've improved her by boiling her down to "One skin, one driver."

The most curious aspect of these exchanges, to me, is the bristling that occurs at any criticism of Rand.

As if, adherence to Objectivism required some kind of absolute Bible Thumping, the Word According to Rand's Words.

Why, this very board even has a very sacred place for such counter sacrilage, it's called 'dissent.' I guess that means that the balance of the discussions -- on Objectivism, no less -- are devoutly devoted to 'worship.'

Jesus, I don't see how anyone manufactures 'cult' out of Rand, but there you go. If that means I lose my membership card and decoder ring, I'll bear up somehow.

My take on Rand was different than one requiring her worship. I understood her to clearly say, "Blindly worship nothing, --not even me."

I admire the Hell out of Rand, but I don't worship her. She's allowed to fuck up once in a while, even if her romantic characters weren't, and for sure, she did. Her virtue doesn't need defending, she did that quite well on her own.

She might have even smoked; it's totally OK, we all don't need to smoke to admire Rand.

Post 62

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 8:59am

Fred, what are you talking about?

Post 63

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 9:04am

You know, it's totally possible to believe Rand was correct on an issue without worshiping her. It's even possible to trust that she knew what she was talking about without worshiping her. Even more wild is that it's possible to believe she was right on an issue and Fred is wrong without worshiping her (although it's apparently pretty hard to disagree with you and not get accused of it). And Rand did boil her philosophy down, and it wasn't into some simplistic sound bite like "one skin, one driver". You don't have to reinvent the wheel into a block of wood with a crude wheel drawn on it just because general agreement with a dead woman who knew what she was talking about, with corresponding respect for her genius, somehow equates to worship for you.

Post 64

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 10:47am

When I have anything worth saying that Rand, someone here, or someone quoted here hasn't said earlier and better -- believe me, I'll say it. (And I've said some of it in the sole RoR article I've written so far.)

Post 65

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 11:00am

Re:

Why, this very board even has a very sacred place for such counter sacri[e]ge, it's called 'dissent.' I guess that means that the balance of the discussions -- on Objectivism, no less -- are devoutly devoted to 'worship.'

The antonym of "dissent" is "assent," not "worship." One can assent to a statement without worshiping either the statement or its utterer.
I don't, therefore, imagine that the Dissent Board is the Forum's sole venue for something other than worship-- only my experiences here will tell me whether the Dissent Board is the Forum's sole place for something other than assent.

(That word "worship," by the way, has an interesting history -- originally it meant simply "honor, respect" --
etymologically, a run-down form of "worth-ship.")

Post 66

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 8:23am

Oh, oh, Fred, I see that your dissent on the relevance of the Dissent Forum has taken place outside the Dissent Forum! Get thee to the proper venue!!! Seriously, you make an interesting point. If this forum is not a "worshipful" parroting of the Objectivist canon, then why confine disagreement to a sub-forum? Why not allow disagreement to take place as part of the general discussion?

I think the reason may be that the purpose of RoR is to provide a place of discussion for people who largely agree with Rand. It isn't simply a forum for debating the merits of her philosophy. Although the latter is certainly permitted, it makes sense to provide a separate forum for those who are interested in expressing their disagreements.

I doubt that most of the people here view Rand as an infallible oracle whose ideas are to be accepted on faith, but they do respect and admire her and are not here solely to debate the merits of her philosophy.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/24, 8:24am)

Post 67

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 9:09am

William:

Those are reasonable words; I think wisdom often comes with age...(Though, I'm still waiting for my mote of.)

I think 'tone' is hard to interpret in this medium, and therein lies most of the problem. But, that is the way humans are wired; it's part of our atavistic need to see the lion in the grass, even when he isn't there. We have a bias towards senseless conflict when there is no real conflict.

I mean...discourse on the in-ter-net on days ending in 'y'.

It's also a bias of science(Feynman wrote about this quality of science often)to always question what we already think is 'known.' That is not 'disagreeing with science.' That is, according to folks who agree with that point of view, precisely 'agreeing with science.' If an idea bears up, it bears up. Rand bears up very well, she needs little help, either from folks with a bias to disagree with her, but especially, from folks with a bias to always agree with her, as well.

Feynman also famously wrote, "Philosophers need to learn to laugh at themselves." I admire Feynman in the same way I admire Rand, his was a great mind.

What does Rand have to do with science? Well, the commonality I was clumsily grasping for was, a search for truth. Spackling over 'what is known/accepted' is a recipe for failure, whether it comes to Rand, Feynman, science, philosophy, or anything else.

I do -- and have since I was 14 -- largely agree with Rand's ideas. That may not be pure enough to make me a dyed in the wool Objectivist, but club membership has never been important to me, jarringly, especially in the context of discussing Rand's ideas.

Some have even accused me of being 'anti-social', and I can only respond 'thank-you for noticing!'

Imagine what discourse would be like with folks who actually were hostile to Rand's ideas?

Some of this, I think, is frustration over the current political madness of crowds...

regards,
Fred

Post 68

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 9:46am

This isn't such a difficult issue. This site values Rand. It has members, who when writing honestly will say they don't like this or that about Rand but that they value her greatly overall. The members value her, in part, because they share certain core beliefs with her. Some of the members might tend to far in the worshipful direction and find it sacrilegious to disagree with even a tiny detail, but those members are a tiny minority. Others will disagree on even a major item or two, but still value Rand for the major areas of agreement. Most simply don't disagree on beliefs that are not among the top 5 to 10 most fundamental. Duh, it's part of why we're here and not somewhere else.

Given that, if it appears that someone's posts are either explicitly or surreptitiously intended to disvalue Rand then they should be asked to post in the dissent area. If it appears that someone is posting in opposition to a major tenet, like saying that faith is an okay way to achieve knowledge - off to dissent with that thread.

People started wondering why so many of Kate's posts were questions that all seemed to be about some negative view of Rand. (In effect, does Rand hate the handicapped? was Rand mistaken about Aristotle and A is A? wasn't Rand being hypocritical by letting Dagney and Francisco steal rides on the Taggart train, etc.) I, myself have felt uncomfortable with something in Kate's approach, something that goes beyond just those questionable questions, but haven't been able to put it into words yet.

If someone is fairly new here, and has good intentions, they can err on the side of respecting the members here by opening a question that is problematic in the dissent area. For those whose intent is malicious, they themselves will eventually be consigned to dissent or barred.

Post 69

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 9:52am

"I think 'tone' is hard to interpret in this medium, and therein lies most of the problem. But, that is the way humans are wired; it's part of our atavistic need to see the lion in the grass, even when he isn't there. We have a bias towards senseless conflict when there is no real conflict."

Merlin Donald discusses the mimetic, or what we could call "gestural" underpinnings of human communication at length. Consider how much we learn by watching and doing rather than by using words: getting dressed, cooking dinner, riding a bike, catching fish. Words are added on as editorial comments to these activities.

The actual meaning of most discourse is conveyed by body language and othe cues. "I'm gonna kill you!" and "Sure, I'd like to watch another episode of Dancing with the Stars!" can have entirely different meanings depending on tone. Consider the nature of dance. It is stylized gesture raised to an art form. It is purely human, yet totally separate from speech. Consider what is convey without any recourse to any cognitive abstractions at all in your average rap video.

Mere words in a fast paced forum where we are blinded to each other's gestures and tones are in a sense communicationally floating abstractions.

I strongly suggest Merlin Donald's Origins of the Modern Mind. It is one of the more difficult but most reawrding books I have read. It traces the evolution of human thought from the "episodic" mind of the higher mammals, thru mimesis to higher abstraction. According to wikipedia:

Origins of the Modern Mind proposes a three-stage development of human symbolic capacity through culture:

Mimetic culture: The watershed adaptation allowing humans to function as symbolic and cultural beings was a revolutionary improvement in motor control, the "mimetic skill" required to rehearse and refine the body's movements in a voluntary and systematic way, to remember those rehearsals, and to reproduce them on command. Following this development, Homo erectus assimilated and reconceptualized events to create various prelinguistic symbolic traditions such as rituals, dance, and craft.

Mythic cultures arose as a result of the acquisition of speech and the invention of symbols. Mimetic representation serves as a preadaptation to this development.

Technology-supported culture: Finally, the cognitive ecology dominated by ephemeral face-to-face communication has changed for most of us as a result of the external memory-store that reading and writing permit. Computer technology intensifies these changes by offering even more extensive capacities for external storage and retrieval of information.

I suggest a reanalysis of the phenomenon of the modern music video as a distillation of pure mimesis. The form is not a kind of muddled abstraction. It does away with abstraction entirely, and relies just on gesture. Of course the subject matter best conveyed by mimesis is on the emotional level. It varies from the tender frantic passion of Saint Saens' Dying Swan to the tribalistic themes of sex and violence in Lil Jon and the Ying Yang Twins' Get Low. Words are irrelevant. There is no ambiguity of attitude here.

Post 70

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 1:43pm

Steve:

I, myself have felt uncomfortable with something in Kate's approach, something that goes beyond just those questionable questions, but haven't been able to put it into words yet.

I don't know Kate -- or anyone posting here -- well enough to put such questions as those into words, either. What I am saying here is not directed at anyone in particular, it is just a hypothetical.

When I stumbled across this site, I was ecstatic. It's a great place, no question about it. It is great, and it is rare. And by rare, that includes the objective observation 'fringe' -- which is a lament, not a criticism.

It is a place where ideas of a certain bent are discussed openly, and effectively, and deeply.

And as such, it is a place where, if I was a strong advocate of an opposite bent, I might find great pleasure in playing apparatchik provocateur 101, spreading confusion, discord, and mayhem. Knocking over the chess board. Upsetting the apple cart. Instigating blue-on-blue. Or even, posing as a sock-puppet advocate, and then acting the fool, and by so doing, spreading discouragement and disgust, to inhibit others so inclined from participating.

That is, if I was a strong advocate of an opposite bent, and feared the ideas being expressed here from gaining traction.

I and mine would want to pee on them often and early, and keep the apple cart upset.

And, if an effective means of moderation had attempted to defend this place against just such attacks, then I'd just be very careful about my mayhem. I'd play it up to the edge, and then back off by 100 Angstroms.

I say all that, because as someone relatively new here, I look back at the old threads and wonder, 'What happened to all these people? Why did they grow tired of this place?' And I notice, often, threads that degenerate into the same old, same old. Sometimes, -- often it seems, blue-on-blue, and then... folks just go away.

So, I conclude one of two possibilities, and maybe it is a mixture of both.

1] There is a bias towards senseless, meaningless conflict among people who deeply, fundamentally basically agree with each other on the big issues, which eventually drives people away.

2] There are occasional apparatchik provocateurs who specifically target a place like this precisely because of the ideas presented here, who would never dare to directly confront or argue their position, but who have a deep, manic desire to keep places like this buried.

Not sure how anyone combats that, other than acknowledging it.

regards,
Fred

Post 71

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 1:47pm

Ted:

Mere words in a fast paced forum where we are blinded to each other's gestures and tones are in a sense communicationally floating abstractions.

True 'dat. Not just here, that, but this entire medium. I've often compared it to talking underwater, only, with a blindfold.

All the goofy emoticons things are clearly an attempt to address that, but they are sad substitutes. :-(

Yuk! I never do that. I can't believe how cheesy that was...

regards,
Fred

Post 72

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 2:31pm

Well, at least our Avatars give a hint at our true selves.

Post 73

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 3:05pm

<hopeful optimism> Maybe emotional HTML will catch on in the future. </hopeful optimism>

Post 74

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 3:58pm

:-)

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 6:15pm

Fred said, "So, I conclude one of two possibilities, and maybe it is a mixture of both.

1] There is a bias towards senseless, meaningless conflict among people who deeply, fundamentally basically agree with each other on the big issues, which eventually drives people away.

2] There are occasional apparatchik provocateurs who specifically target a place like this precisely because of the ideas presented here, who would never dare to directly confront or argue their position, but who have a deep, manic desire to keep places like this buried."

I agree with Fred and believe both of those points are in play - and more. Some people value "being right" over being rational and some people find themselves in the peculiar place of wanting to pick at Objectivism or at Rand for some purely psychological reason (so they look more individualistic? More intelligent?), despite a contradictory desire to stay in agreement with principles.

Post 76

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 6:36pm

1] There is a bias towards senseless, meaningless conflict among people who deeply, fundamentally basically agree with each other on the big issues, which eventually drives people away.

2] There are occasional apparatchik provocateurs who specifically target a place like this precisely because of the ideas presented here, who would never dare to directly confront or argue their position, but who have a deep, manic desire to keep places like this buried.

Not sure I agree with #1, and those who parallel #2 are powerless to accomplish that goal.

Post 77

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 7:14pm

I agree with Steve and, by extension, Fred -- there a few reasons for a helluva' whole lot of bickering here. Not excuses, just reasons (and not even good reasons, at that).

Ed

Post 78

Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 10:59pm

Re:

I, myself have felt uncomfortable with something in Kate's approach, something that goes beyond just those questionable questions, but haven't been able to put it into words yet.

To anypne who *can* put it into words, please do so here -- I could use the information.

Quite a few people, my whole life long (and NOT just the oddball types!) have consistently told me (in person, over the phone, and in recent years by e-mail) things like
"Something about your verbal style makes me very uncomfortable, for no reason that I can put my finger on. Whatever it is, you have got to change it, but unfortunately I can't tell you just what to change or how, as I don't happen to know -- I just feel it."

This happens in all manner of social situations, and -- before I found self-employment -- it happened with employers (including, or especially, those employers who told me that I met or exceeded every objective criterion they applied in making personnel decisions -- they claimed, often, that my work "just somehow felt 'off' even though it was certainly up to standard when it was actually examined; there is nothing identifiable that you are actually doing wrong" or words to that effect, "but please change whatever it is that you *are* doing.")

Post 79

Friday, September 25, 2009 - 11:04am