Benevolent Universe

Robert, my problems with you really had nothing to do with the fact that you seem to support Intelligent Design. The problem I have with you is the way in which you carry on in your discussions as I've told you on many occasions. You tend to make remarks that you are not interested in clarifying or explaining. Your usual tactic when questioned is some form of diversion (like you did to Jody above in this thread) or an ad hominem insult (something you've also been doing to Jody throughout this thread). So of course I get pissed off when I see you doing it to other people because I have experienced this nonsense myself first hand.

Rich Engle carries on discussions in much the same way. He either makes a flighty, off the wall statement in the middle of a message thread (which many times bears no resemblence to the topic being discussed) or he makes some statement about Objectivists "not understanding mysticism". When I call him on these things and ask for an explanation his usual response is to throw some kind of tantrum to avoid backing up his original statements.

I am not passing judgment about either of you personally with regard to your viewpoints on particular issues. That is not my motive at all when I press you guys. It is impossible to make judgements about people on such sparse grounds. My problem with both of you is the way in which you conduct your discussions here on this website.

- Jason

Post 61

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:54pm

When I call him on these things and ask for an explanation his usual response is to throw some kind of tantrum to avoid backing up his original statements.

Horse-hockey. Tantrums? Really? The only one I've had was on that despicable Adam Reed thread, and it was clearly parody.

And, no, I don't think a lot of Objectivists understand mysticism, because there is no reason most of them would be spending any time studying it. To be more precise, I think they generally use the term far too broadly for it to be meaningful.

Same thing with you and religion. You have even gone so far, for example as to tell people (even Christians, if I recall) what is and what is not Christianity, which is pretty precious considering your narrow, non-practicing view of it. Yet, at one point, I think you even had trouble figuring out that I'm not one. That was pretty good.

I have never backed down from a discussion with you involving religion or mysticism- I simply know that there's a limit because I know that logic is equally ineffective whether it argues for or against religion, which is something you don't agree with.

As a matter of fact, I think if any backing out was done between us it might have been when I told you I doubted you had more than a rudimentary knowledge of pragmatism, and you went quiet.

But that's how it goes in the bloodsports, no harm, no foul.

rde
Time To Go Home and Read Chicken Entrails

Post 62

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:14pm

Jason,

Robert, my problems with you really had nothing to do with the fact that you seem to support Intelligent Design. The problem I have with you is the way in which you carry on in your discussions as I've told you on many occasions. You tend to make remarks that you are not interested in clarifying or explaining.

Jason it is not as you understand it, but you are going to have to believe my answer. I have a habit of assuming that everyone knows what I know and therefor my pronouncements are clear. (You see the difficulty I got into with Jody with the line "Are you still beating your girlfriend?") Also since I hate being condescended to, I avoid over-explaining for fear that I am doing to others the thing I hate done to me. I do not mean to be secretive. I sometimes just don�t have the answer and am searching for input, as is the case on this thread. As to tangents I am still not sure what bothers you there. I like to analyze a lot of material before making a decision, issues others think irrelevant can be important pieces of a puzzle for me. I think that is a judgment call. It sounds pompous I know, but it is the best answer I can give you.

Your usual tactic when questioned is some form of diversion (like you did to Jody above in this thread) or an ad hominem insult (something you've also been doing to Jody throughout this thread). So of course I get pissed off when I see you doing it to other people because I have experienced this nonsense myself first hand.

Read Jody�s first post to me in this threat #20. Why would I give him a courteous response to that or after that?

Rich Engle carries on discussions in much the same way. He either makes a flighty, off the wall statement in the middle of a message thread (which many times bears no resemblence to the topic being discussed) or he makes some statement about Objectivists "not understanding mysticism". When I call him on these things and ask for an explanation his usual response is to throw some kind of tantrum to avoid backing up his original statements.

I am not passing judgment about either of you personally with regard to your viewpoints on particular issues. That is not my motive at all when I press you guys. It is impossible to make judgements about people on such sparse grounds. My problem with both of you is the way in which you conduct your discussions here on this website.

I do not want to pass judgement either, and desire friendship with all here. But no good deed goes unpunished as I have again experienced with MSK. Alas the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I understand why he is hurt and angry.
I observe that you are very intense and want an answer right now. Bright, focused, no time to waste. Admirable qualities at work and for getting things done, but not too personable. You don�t cut people much slack. We probably have this in common. Often what annoys us most in others is something we are not too fond of about ourselves. Sometimes your questions are too quickly conceived or not crystal clear but a request for clarification can anger you. There are times when the answer doesn�t satisfy at first blush that you assume deception or evasion when none exists; when in truth the person may have misunderstood or misinterpreted your question or just needs time to catch his breath after a particularly penetrating question. Instead of asking for clarification (at least once) you attack the writer as dishonest or equivocating. Which, of course, gets you an angry response in return. I do mean any of this unkindly, as I alluded we are both "A" type personalities.
If this does not mend things between us, it may not be possible to do so. I hope our future exchanges can be cordial and mutually beneficial.
b

Post 63

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:17pm

Hell Robert,

I'll sanction that post.

Ethan

Post 64

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:36pm

Robert -- That was one of your better posts on this site. I will take you at your word at everything and offer my appology for being a bit too tactically agressive with my lines of questioning and my argumentation at times. Sometimes I get the "killer instinct" in conversations here, back my "opponent" into the corner and then lash him mercilously when he can't escape. That probably isn't the most tactful approach to things and isn't going to win many new people to my side of the argument. If anything it will lead them to do the same when they think I might be in the same position.

Rich -- Unfortunately that wasn't one of your better posts but I'll give you a pass as well.

- Jason

Post 65

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:10pm

The high ground is being sought and that pleases me.

High ground is benevolent universe in social affairs. Name-calling instead of rational discourse is just lowlife behavior. Let's talk about benevolent universe on a personal level.

Just for the record, I am not hurt, but I am angry. Pissed. I am not mad at any one particular person either. I am angry at an attitude of follow-the-leader I see among people who are otherwise intelligent.

One minute, the majority seems to go one way, then other it goes in the opposite direction. Not just with me, either. I have seen this directed against several people and involve several issues so far. I am especially galled by what has happened to people who deserve far better from those who know better.

That is not rational. That is not benevolent universe. That is crowd psychology and the effects of grandstanding.

Then, when the tide is against a person (once again, not just me), here come cowards and yea-sayers making silly little ad hominem snipes. That makes me mad as hell. I loathe cowardice.

I, for one, will not be changed until I can be convinced rationally. Not peer pressure. Not yelling. Not name-calling. Not being set up. Not having things attributed to me that I did not say. Not anything at all in the arsenal of those who are not satisfied with reason as a means of persuasion. Not even being threatened. Nothing from the "dark side" affects me after a certain point. Rand sure got that part right when you do live in a benevolent universe.

Still, there are several issues currently on the table around here where I see what I call a "cognitive blank-out" on a scale that just takes my breath away. I will not become one of those who blinds himself in order to avoid trouble.

I stand up for what I believe in. Standing up for what you believe in is benevolent universe.

So long as we stay on the high ground of rational discourse, I am willing to discuss anything with anybody. That includes Robert D, despite the horrible rhetoric I have seen recently from him. (Bravo for that last post, btw.)

I have had some of the most hostile people on Solo correct me and, when I am wrong and convinced of such, I have accepted the correction with gratitude. Rick Pasotto was a recent example on another thread. (He brought to my attention that abstractions and concepts are different. I'm still kicking myself for missing that, but I am more thankful to Rick than he ever will believe.)

Just one more thing. In addition to anger, I am getting sick and tired of nasty, mean-spirited people who use Objectivism as an excuse to cover their own poor outlook and unhappiness. Talk about benevolent universe! How many here on Solo don't even know what that is in their own lives? Those who try to take their petty feelings and whims of ire out on others and call it reason?

Well I live in a benevolent universe and I have been through hell in life and I have more gratitude than I can ever express for the universe I now have - basically based on Objectivism and things I learned the hard way. I have even been graced with the woman I have dreamed about all my life. I will not give this benevolent universe up to the miserable and the malicious.

Finally, (still nowhere near hurt yet), I am getting terribly bored with all the bellowing. The ideas are all. The rest is nothing but bullshit that will be forgotten tomorrow.

Michael

Post 66

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:27pm

Thank you Jason. I truly hope we have buried the hatchet, and now that I understand your tact a bit better I will try not to be so reactionary.

Post 67

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:19pm

Robert-
I've let you off the hook once before with your back-pedalling "Who me? I'm just trying to discover the truth...yada, yada." Sorry, I made that mistake once, and I no longer believe your sincerity. The high-road here is to not let you weasel your way out again when challenged. You've tried to steer things down this road of deism too many times for me to believe that you are doing it innocently.

Maybe we'll come back to some of the other questions you have refused to answer later, but for now a simple one:
Did you honestly think that perhaps Rand was speculating about some conscious force in the universe?

Post 68

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 2:50am

Robert Davison said:
Are you still beating your girlfriend?

I reply just as stupidlyer (Me luv make werd up) :
Jody said he doesn't. However if it counts, I don't beat my girlfriend, but she beats me. However that's more of an 'off' not 'up' type of beating situation�

Seriously, what kind of intellectual discourse are you trying to promote?

As for the question of deism being implied by the benevolent universe premise, you have to keep context of who is saying it. With all that you have read from Rand, you ought to know that she was an Atheist. In context of that, one naturally expects that she is not talking about the universe as some supernatural force/deity that is kind to man and/or cares about man. In learning and understanding Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, one learns that it is within man's best interest to use his tools of reasoning so that he may take action to benefit his life. For a man to be right in action, he must first be right in thought. He must be able to know himself and the world in which he lives. In order to learn that he has to (at least implicitly) grasp the three axioms of existence in order to build his knowledge of both himself and the world objectively. When a man is successful in understanding himself and the universe in objective terms, he finds naturally that the actions he takes therein results in benefits for him in every aspect of life, from the career he makes to the wife he married, to the children he produces.

In short, a man acting rationally on an objective understanding of himself and the world in which he lives, can expect good results. Thus the universe is beneficient to the man who is able to understand it and act in accordance with its fundamental axioms. Thus to a rational man, the world is indeed a friendly place.

Post 69

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 7:37am

Jody,

You call me a liar and then expect me to engage you in discourse. I do not submit to any inquisition or kangaroo court. Now unless you have been appointed Solo Cop or Keeper of the Faith, in which case I am out of here, I suggest you take your cynicism and your interrogations elsewhere.

Post 70

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:04am

That's fine Robert. You say you have a beef with me and that you will not engage in discussion with me. Funny though, several others here have asked the exact same questions and you've just ignored them. Are you just going to claim that all questions put forth to you constitute an "inquisition' or "kangaroo court"?

Post 71

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:17am

Jody,

It may be difficult for you to believe, but I was addressing you personally. If the others you refer to have a beef they should address the issue with me personally. I do not believe for a minute that you are the chosen spokesman for some posse.

Post 72

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:28am

Jody,

With all due respect, this is like the fourth time in this thread that you do this to Robert: �You are a scumbag, Robert, the lowest form of filth. Now, that said, would you answer this question�� No one will respond to that.

Assuming Robert really is a stealth religionist, trying to trick us and smuggle his agenda in under the radar�so what? It�s not like he�s good at it, not like he�s going to get anywhere with it. So why not simply point out that you suspect Robert is up to his smuggling again and otherwise leave him alone, instead of saying so over and over again on the same thread and trying to force a confession out of him?

Jon

Post 73

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:33am

Good morning, Robert. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity your thread has afforded me to clarify my thinking about Rand's benevolent universe. I find that this concept, along with here sense of life are really at the center of why I'm spending time getting to know her and all of you here.

What can I say about the reception you've gotten from the rest of the gang? I keep coming back to the simple fact that all of this high drama is happening in cyberspace, which is to say, it ain't really happening at all. Who you really are, and who you appear to be based upon a reading of your posts, are certainly related but they are not one and the same. I'm reminded of Rand's famous statement about Dominique. Dominique can be seen as a villainess, a nihilist and a disturbingly masochistic and confused woman whom Rand described as "me in a bad mood." What better description of most of what gets posted on the internet than that? I have to wonder if all these straight-shootin' internet cowboys would say half of this guff to you in person, you know what I mean? Somehow I doubt it. And I don't fault them for it. Faced with your actual human presence, I dare say their sense of life would take over--whether they liked it or not--and they'd shake your hand, genuinely glad to finally meet a comrade in arms. But online, its target practice all the way.

I applaud your willingness to share your very human encounter with Ayn Rand's philosophy. That's what we're here to do. Rather than strive simply to parrot the Mistress's words as clearly and succinctly as you can, crow to the unbeliever how self-evident it all is, you're willing to do the grunt work of actually looking at Objectivism and admit when you just don't get it. You've made it perfectly clear that you're uncomfortable with Rand's choice of the word "benevolent" and why. A remarkable choice of words, ain't it? Peikoff can't even touch 'em without a pair of scarequotes to insulate his delicately rational sensibilities.

-Kevin

Post 74

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:39am

Rich -- Unfortunately that wasn't one of your better posts but I'll give you a pass as well.

Well, with all due respect, my brother, who the fuck are you to issue "passes"? I hope you were referring to things internal, not external. You're not the train conductor; there isn't one. I think we're all Bozos on this bus <---example of obscure, off-topic comment that you don't like.

I don't rate my posts, I just write.

Robert- boink, that was beautiful. Nothing like pure old-dog wisdom.

MSK- boink, but I'm feeling a disturbance in the force involving the Milquetoast Inquistion. Have you checked your doors lately? :)

rde
Old people kick ass.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/09, 8:42am)

Post 75

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:41am

Adam,

Thus the universe is beneficent to the man who is able to understand it and act in accordance with its fundamental axioms.

Who is able to understand the universe? Man is a local phenomenon confined to planet Earth. The axioms you are talking about have to do with man qua man as nature intended him to be on Earth.

As I have said, it appears to me that it is logically tenuous to attribute human characteristics to the universe, but Rand was no fool, so why did she choose this particular device1, not once but consistently? Would the universe seem benevolent to a man asked to survive on Saturn or the Sun?

Deism is defined as a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe; in other words, a benevolent universe without meddlesome deities. Deism, as most of us know, was the predominant belief of the men of the Enlightenment, which includes the founding fathers for whom Rand had great admiration. She certainly does not excoriate them as mystical metaphysical cripples or as evil.

This line of speculation may go nowhere, but I am not evil to consider it.

1-Personification is a term used in literary criticism to name the figure of speech which involves directly speaking of an inanimate object, or an abstract concept, as if were a living entity, often one with specifically human attributes.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/09, 10:25am)

Post 76

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:46am

Kevin,

Thank you for restoring my faith in man as he ought to be.

Post 77

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:47am

Thanks Jon. You are absolutely correct, so what.

Post 78

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 9:45am

Deism, as most of us know, was the predominant belief of the men of the Enlightenment, which includes the founding fathers for who Rand had great admiration. She certainly does not excoriate them as mystical metaphysical cripples or as evil.

As a matter of fact, she borrowed heavily from them, and, I believe, cites them pretty frequently. This is key stuff. These are the people who knew quite well the perils of organized religion intruding into the affairs of men. Yet, they had no problem saying "In God We Trust". The God part was left open for interpretation. Unfortunately, the right wing is misusing the shit out of it. Most rightwingers with any education know that our founding fathers would have chased their sad asses to the sea. A huge percentage of the founding fathers were Unitarians (proud to say:), and anyone who knows the history of Unitarians know that they are basically anti-control rabble rousers. But that's a whole 'nother thing.

An interesting sidetrack from that is that the Englightenment left an opening for the Evangelicals, because things got dry and unfeeling. Traveling Evangelist shows swept the country. Not so oddly, the explanation given for women falling into an evangelical state was that they were rerouting their pent-up sexual frustration.

rde
Nothing like a horny church bitch.

Post 79

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 10:27am