Att: Randroid Zombies
malenor
subconscious premises.
2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by the
ARI as a "celebration of life."
4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
Tony Donadio
news:5851837b.02092...@posting.google.com...
> 1. You are not allowed to have any emotion unless it comes from rational
> subconscious premises.
> 2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
> highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
> 3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by
the
> ARI as a "celebration of life."
Allowed by whom?
Emotions don't obey commandments.
> 4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
Given how extensively the Objectivist literature discusses the importance of
not repressing one's emotions and how emotions are not subject to moral
evaluation, this is a pretty ignorant attack.
Tom S.
"Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zvrj9.21005$7J2.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Surprise, Surprise!!
Tom
--
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords
is no basis for a systems of government."
Malenor
"Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zvrj9.21005$7J2.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> news:5851837b.02092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > 1. You are not allowed to have any emotion unless it comes from rational
> > subconscious premises.
> > 2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
> > highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
> > 3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by
> the
> > ARI as a "celebration of life."
>
> Allowed by whom?
>
The Ayn Rand Institute (Peikoff).
> Emotions don't obey commandments.
>
They should, according to the ARI.
> > 4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
>
> Given how extensively the Objectivist literature discusses the importance
of
> not repressing one's emotions and how emotions are not subject to moral
> evaluation, this is a pretty ignorant attack.
>
Was I attacking you?
Malenor
"Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zvrj9.21005$7J2.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> news:5851837b.02092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > 1. You are not allowed to have any emotion unless it comes from rational
> > subconscious premises.
> > 2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
> > highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
> > 3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by
> the
> > ARI as a "celebration of life."
>
> Allowed by whom?
>
The Ayn Rand Institute (Peikoff).
> Emotions don't obey commandments.
>
They should, according to the ARI.
> > 4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
>
> Given how extensively the Objectivist literature discusses the importance
of
> not repressing one's emotions and how emotions are not subject to moral
> evaluation, this is a pretty ignorant attack.
>
Was I attacking you?
Malenor
subconscious premises.
2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by the
ARI as a "celebration of life."
Tony Donadio
news:zKsj9.8696$XE1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Emotions don't obey commandments.
> >
>
> They should, according to the ARI.
BS. You don't know what you're talking about, and should do your homework
before shooting off your mouth.
> > > 4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
> >
> > Given how extensively the Objectivist literature discusses the
importance
> > of not repressing one's emotions and how emotions are not subject to
> > moral evaluation, this is a pretty ignorant attack.
>
> Was I attacking you?
Yes, you were. I'm one of those Objectivists that supports ARI, so your
ignorant slander included me. The truth is that it's been widely understood
among us for decades that emotions are not subject to moral evaluation and
that repression is not a healthy thing.
Your ignorance of the actual views and beliefs of those whom you attack is
shocking -- but not terribly surprising.
Malenor
You don't know me at all, Tony. I had studied "Miss Rand" for many
years, and talked people's ears off about her until they were sick
of hearing about it.
But I won't stand by and let my guy be accused by some Randroid
hypocrite of supporting a zombie-like morality when Randroidism
itself is an example of Objectivism's zombie-like effects.
NB discusses Objectivism's de facto repression in his article On
the Benefits and Hazards which you should read.
Objectivism theoretically supports the sublimation, rather than the
repression, of emotion; however, the actual effect of its cultish
methods is repressive. The actual effect of Objectivism is to place
the group (the ARI) above the individual, as is the method of
cultists.
A sure sign of repression is the psychological existence of
defense mechanisms and intellectual distortions; these can be seen
in the actions of your leader Peikoff with regard to the documents
he was to turn over to the Library of Congress. Here are his
exact words, from:
http://www.peikoff.com/essays/library.htm
"Some time in the 1960s, I believe, the Library of Congress invited
Ayn Rand to will the manuscripts of her novels to them. She replied
that she was happy to do so."
"...I asked my assistant, however, to keep for me two pages from The
Fountainhead manuscript, the first and last pages. Of all Miss Rand's works,
The Fountainhead had the greatest personal meaning to me, and I wished to
keep a small remnant of it for myself, or at least for my Estate. To ensure
that the Library had a complete copy, however, I sent photocopies of these
two pages along with the manuscript. It seemed obvious at the time that the
Library would have no objection, since its sole official function in regard
to the manuscript-to serve the needs of scholars-was in no way impaired..."
Lenny here is showing signs of psychological neurosis, namely,
separation anxiety and rationalization. The separation anxiety is explicit
here: "The Fountainhead had the greatest personal meaning to me, and I
wished to keep a small remnant of it for myself, or at least for my Estate."
The rationalization for this irrational anxiety is here: "It seemed obvious
at
the time that the Library would have no objection, since its sole official
function in regard to the manuscript -- to serve the needs of scholars --
was in no way impaired..."
Yes, it seemed obvious -- obvious because he didn't give it a moment's
thought, only reacted from blind emotion. And in the long run he fell
back on the usual scapegoat of his paranoid delusions: it was the
government's fault.
So your leader is at heart an irrationalist. Moreover, his tendency to purge
and outcast those who go against the Objectivist "party line" is Marxist and
oppressive. The ideas of his goddess "Rand" are held up as absolutes
never to be questioned, and this is repressive. Furthermore, there are
signs within the ARI of the desire to suppress early "Rand" writings
that are intellectually inconsistent with her later, more mature works. That
indicates an a-historical desire to uphold an image of their great goddess
in
the sky that goes against the facts but tends to merge well with their
intense admiration for her foolish beliefs.
Tony Donadio
> "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > Your ignorance of the actual views and beliefs of those whom you attack
is
> > shocking -- but not terribly surprising.
> You don't know me at all, Tony. I had studied "Miss Rand" for many
> years, and talked people's ears off about her until they were sick
> of hearing about it.
If so, you certainly don't seem to have learned anything from it.
> But I won't stand by and let my guy be accused by some Randroid
> hypocrite of supporting a zombie-like morality when Randroidism
> itself is an example of Objectivism's zombie-like effects.
A curious remark, consudering that you just enjoined me from making
presumptions about you.
> NB discusses Objectivism's de facto repression in his article On
> the Benefits and Hazards which you should read.
I'm familiar with that piece and with Branden's critiques of Objectivism,
thank you -- and have been for 20 years. It's part of the reason why this
issue has such intense personal meaning for me. Buying into fallacious
critiques of Objectivism like his helped me to rather non-trivially screw up
my life during the first few years of my exposure to Objectivism. That
started to change only *after* I began to study the philosophy more
carefully, and to correct the mistakes I'd made in understanding it.
And one of those mistakes, you see, was not understanding that emotions were
not subject to moral evaluation. That's why this issue is such a hot button
for me. Treating them as though they are is standard intrinsicist dogma and
was part of a typical Catholic upbringing. When I discovered Objectivism,
like many others I went through a period of feeling tortured by guilt over
having emotions and a psychology that I didn't think lived up to the ideal
her philosophy seemed to offer. And like many others, I coped with it in the
only way I knew how: with bouts of repression and defense mechanisms.
Right then, what I needed was someone to explain how and why it was my own
intrinsicist misinterpretation of her ideas that was torturing me -- and not
the ideas themselves. Instead, what I found was the snake-oil salesman
Branden, who was encouraging people in the very piece you recommend to
believe that there was something *inherent* in Rand's ideas that lead to
repression and emotional self-destruction. So I turned away from the
philosophy for a while, in an act intended to be one of emotional
self-preservation. That led me to making some mistakes with my life that did
far more emotional damage to me than a decade of repression ever could
have -- mistakes that it was obvious in hindsight that taking Objectivism
seriously would have prevented.
Those experiences convinced me that I needed to go back and re-evaluate
Objectivism. And it was then, after I actually had the opportunity to meet
and begin associating with other Objectivists (you know, the allegedly
repressive ARI-following types), that I began to learn that some of my
understanding of Objectivism was simply in error factually -- such as my
view of the moral status of emotions. And contrary to the slander of Branden
and the Libertarians, I found them to be generally cheerful and benevolent
people. And a funny thing happened after I began correcting these errors: my
guilt over them started to evaporate, I gained self-confidence, and I found
myself becoming more and more comfortable expressing and experiencing my
emotions.
> Objectivism theoretically supports the sublimation, rather than the
> repression, of emotion; however, the actual effect of its cultish
> methods is repressive. The actual effect of Objectivism is to place
> the group (the ARI) above the individual, as is the method of
> cultists.
As I indicated, that certainly doesn't describe most of the Objectivists I
know -- and that's from about 14 years worth of experience with meeting
hundreds of them. Frankly, it sounds to me like you just don't know what
you're talking about.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L60k9.1245$Xg1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Your ignorance of the actual views and beliefs of those whom you
attack
> is
> > > shocking -- but not terribly surprising.
>
> > You don't know me at all, Tony. I had studied "Miss Rand" for many
> > years, and talked people's ears off about her until they were sick
> > of hearing about it.
>
> If so, you certainly don't seem to have learned anything from it.
>
The obvious, easy retort...
> > But I won't stand by and let my guy be accused by some Randroid
> > hypocrite of supporting a zombie-like morality when Randroidism
> > itself is an example of Objectivism's zombie-like effects.
>
> A curious remark, consudering that you just enjoined me from making
> presumptions about you.
>
I wasn't talking about you.
> > Objectivism theoretically supports the sublimation, rather than the
> > repression, of emotion; however, the actual effect of its cultish
> > methods is repressive. The actual effect of Objectivism is to place
> > the group (the ARI) above the individual, as is the method of
> > cultists.
>
> As I indicated, that certainly doesn't describe most of the Objectivists I
> know -- and that's from about 14 years worth of experience with meeting
> hundreds of them. Frankly, it sounds to me like you just don't know what
> you're talking about.
But you in fact don't know what I'm talking about because that last response
did not have anything to do with my point. But my point won't become
lost in your ARIan shuffle. The actual effect of its cultish methods
is repressive. There is no cultish method inherent to Objectivism, but
there is a cultish method inherent to the ARI.
That is why I can't understand why you, a supporter of Objectivism,
and who has reaped the benefits pointed out by NB in his paper,
would go and support such an institution as the ARI which has been
so pitiful in its attempts to apply the actual doctrine.
You mention this idea that NB is pointing to intrinsic difficulties in the
philosophy. But that was not my reading of his paper. After all, he is
trying to also point out the "Benefits" of Objectivism. Do you really think
he wrote a paper entitled "Benefits and Hazards," and then went on
only to point out the hazards?
There is one costly mistake that I suspect the ARI will continue to
make, and that is believing they need to get a foothold in the
university system in order to make cultural changes. But there
is no chance of this, none whatsoever -- even granted that that
technique would work -- because Objectivists, including
"Rand," have put forth the image of Objectivism as some
delusional crackpot fantasy. And reading "Rand's" writing, an
honest, unbiased scholar can only come to that conclusion. So
there is little if any chance of any shaking up of the university
system by Objectivists, unless perhaps they resort to methods
used by certain young people, and their leaders, in the '60s.
And that brings me to this point: there are individuals and groups
moving to shake up this culture as we speak, and gradually
succeeding. They are not tenured professors, they are the political
activists who know where to hit this society, and hit it hard.
Even one greenpeace lawyer makes more difference than
10,000 Randroids writing for the latest essay contest on
Anthem or some such "drivel."
I am not speaking out in favor of greenpeace. I am just pointing to
an organization that knows how to make changes.
The only changes the ARI makes are internal: purges and
excommunications. Doesn't the Catholic church also
engage in excommunications? I thought you had abandoned that
style of thinking, according to what you said above. And yet you
continue to support the ARI.
You know Peikoff is a fool, you snipped a just a small piece of
evidence I had offered in this regard, so I know you are aware of it.
Peikoff admits in writing, however between-the-lines it may be,
that he is a neurotic pseudo-intellectual with delusions of grandeur.
You know his radio show was a disaster. Yes, I did listen to some
of the shows, via the internet. It sounded like it came out of a college
dorm room containing a relatively small 1000 watt radio transmitter.
But I don't think that was due to the transmitter -- it was caused by
Peikoff's amateur radio voice. Intellectually, Peikoff only managed to
put forth the image of someone who is completely out of touch with
the culture around him, as if he lived in this tiny Objectivist shell.
And that was at a time when I actually liked Peikoff, in 1998.
This was supposedly Objectivism's greatest living representative,
"Rand's" intellectual heir?
And yet you continue to support Peikoff and his ilk.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, you do seem a bit tense
in newsgroups. And you do admit that a certain repression can, for some
reason which you did not quite divulge, manifest itself after a certain
amount of interaction with Objectivist literature.
But I have not seen any evidence of NB accusing Objectivists of not being
generally happy. I don't know about the libertarians, I was only talking
about Branden.
Concerning the moral status of emotions according to Objectivism: Branden
is not saying that Objectivism puts forth a repressive view of this issue.
He is saying that it puts forth an *inconsistent* view. As I recall, his
examples of Objectivist repression had nothing to do with the theories,
but with the novels and the behavior of the heroes contained therein.
Dagny definitely shows signs of repression in her workaholic attitude,
for instance. Roark definitely comes across as repressed, even if that
was not "Rand's" intent with her characterization.
So now I must ask you: If you had a certain misunderstanding at the
beginning with the nature of emotions, what caused that misunderstanding?
THAT is that issue that Branden wants to help Objectivists with, no matter
what its source, whether the repression originated from an incorrect
view of the theories, or from an intense admiration for the heroes and
an attempt to emulate their seemingly repressive natures. You admit
that it exists; Branden is only trying to root out its source, and has
pinned it down to the novels. He doesn't care to attack "Rand" or
her works; his job is to attack neurosis by rooting out its causes.
In fact, you would do more good here by telling us what it was
about Objectivism that led you to the original repression. Telling
us how you cured it is certainly beneficial too, and perhaps your story
will be of service to some repressed Objectivist lurking here.
Branden's tactic was different than yours: instead of pointing to the cure,
he pointed to the problem. You seem to want to repress the
problem and point to the cure. Branden has his own story to
tell, his memoir, and his own cure differed greatly from yours.
But then everybody is different. Some may need to leave Objectivism
entirely, as did myself and Branden -- I know, that idea seems
horrific to you, but you don't know what is good for anybody
but yourself. Meeting other Objectivists was good for you. I'm
glad it helped. But like I said, you do seem quite tense, a sure
sign of repression. I admit, it does take time to get over repression,
and the neurosis that results, but what matters is being on the right
track.
The fact remains, everybody is pointing to a "cure" for something
vaguely related to Objectivism, but when somebody dares to
clarify the vagueness as NB did, he is accused of attacking
Objectivism.
While I think telling the story of your personal cure
was great, I don't think obscuring the original source of the
repression is helpful to you or anybody else. You did mention
something about Catholicism, but the reference was rather
vague. I'm not sure if you're saying you had a Catholic
background that conflicted with Objectivist doctrine, or
if there is a 'Catholic' (rigid and dogmatic) interpretation
that Objectivism itself makes possible.
Malenor
>
> While I think telling the story of your personal cure
> was great, I don't think obscuring the original source of the
> repression is helpful to you or anybody else. You did mention
> something about Catholicism, but the reference was rather
> vague. I'm not sure if you're saying you had a Catholic
> background that conflicted with Objectivist doctrine, or
> if there is a 'Catholic' (rigid and dogmatic) interpretation
> that Objectivism itself makes possible.
>
I did a little Google search and found the answer myself.
You had a Catholic upbringing, and you blame yourself
for your "post-catholic, intrincist" misunderstanding of
Objectivism and your self-blaming for not living up to
Objectivism's high standards. So you blame yourself
for blaming yourself. You also accused Branden of
leading you on the wrong course in blaming Objectivism
instead, for influencing you to leave the course, which
eventually led to some devastating mistake which you
blame on leaving Objectivism, which you blame on Branden,
which you ultimately blame on your own choices anyway.
Dude, it sounds like you like to do a lot of blaming, even
considering the fact that you also tend to blame yourself,
not necessarily others, for making bad judgment calls in the
past.
Just relax, ok?
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L60k9.1245$Xg1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > NB discusses Objectivism's de facto repression in his article On
> > the Benefits and Hazards which you should read.
>
> I'm familiar with that piece and with Branden's critiques of Objectivism,
> thank you -- and have been for 20 years. It's part of the reason why this
> issue has such intense personal meaning for me. Buying into fallacious
> critiques of Objectivism like his helped me to rather non-trivially screw
up
> my life during the first few years of my exposure to Objectivism. That
> started to change only *after* I began to study the philosophy more
> carefully, and to correct the mistakes I'd made in understanding it.
>
Let us take a look at Branden's "fallacious critique" of Objectivism:
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html
"Now what are some of the values that Ayn Rand offers, as a philosopher, to
the many people who have been moved by her work? To begin with, she offered
a comprehensive and intelligible view of the universe, a frame of reference
by means of which we can understand the world. She was a philosophical
system builder who offered a systematic vision of what life on this planet
is essentially about and a vision of human nature and human relationships.
And the point right now is not whether she was right or wrong in all
respects of that vision, but that she had a vision, a highly developed one,
one that seemed to promise comprehensiveness, intelligibility, and clarity -
one that promised answers to a lot of burningly important questions about
life. And human beings long for that."
Malenor
>
> Concerning the moral status of emotions according to Objectivism: Branden
> is not saying that Objectivism puts forth a repressive view of this issue.
> He is saying that it puts forth an *inconsistent* view. As I recall, his
> examples of Objectivist repression had nothing to do with the theories,
> but with the novels and the behavior of the heroes contained therein.
> Dagny definitely shows signs of repression in her workaholic attitude,
> for instance. Roark definitely comes across as repressed, even if that
> was not "Rand's" intent with her characterization.
>
Actually, re-reading NB's article, that is correct to the extent that
he discusses repression, he focuses on "Rand's" heroes and
heroines. But he also has some things to say about the non-fiction,
such as this tidbit:
"So, you are left with this sort of picture of your life. You either choose
to be rational or you don't. You're honest or you're not. You choose the
right values or you don't. You like the kind of art Rand admires or your
soul is in big trouble. For evidence of this last point, read her essays on
esthetics (Rand, 1970). Her followers are left in a dreadful position: If
their responses aren't 'the right ones,' what are they to do? How are they
to change? No answer from Ayn Rand. Here is the tragedy: Her followers' own
love and admiration for her and her work become turned into the means of
their self-repudiation and self-torture. I have seen a good deal of that,
and it saddens me more than I can say."
In other words, some Randroid may have an aesthetic response to
something that "Rand" would have disapproved of (say, Elvis).
What is he to do about this reaction? The natural response,
learned from our childhoods, would be to repress it,
particularly in the lack of any better idea from Objectivism.
Tony Donadio
> > > But I won't stand by and let my guy be accused by some Randroid
> > > hypocrite of supporting a zombie-like morality when Randroidism
> > > itself is an example of Objectivism's zombie-like effects.
> >
> > A curious remark, consudering that you just enjoined me from making
> > presumptions about you.
>
> I wasn't talking about you.
Then who were you talking about? And if you speak of "Objectivism's
zombie-like effects," how can you expect me, as an Objectivist, not to take
that as a smear?
> > As I indicated, that certainly doesn't describe most of the Objectivists
I
> > know -- and that's from about 14 years worth of experience with meeting
> > hundreds of them. Frankly, it sounds to me like you just don't know what
> > you're talking about.
>
> There is no cultish method inherent to Objectivism, but
> there is a cultish method inherent to the ARI.
You just got finished remarking about "Objectivism's zombie-like effects,"
and now you're trying to act as though your remarks are only targeted to
ARI? I think you might want to consider clarifying just what it is that you
are and are not trying to say.
> That is why I can't understand why you, a supporter of Objectivism,
> and who has reaped the benefits pointed out by NB in his paper,
> would go and support such an institution as the ARI which has been
> so pitiful in its attempts to apply the actual doctrine.
Obviously, I have a different assessment of ARI than you do -- and judging
from some of your remarks below, a substantively more informed one. And if
the contrived perorations attacking Leonard Peikoff that I snipped in my
replies as irelevant is the best you can offer in evidence of your
assessment, then I frankly don't think your "arguments" on the subject
deserve any further comment.
> You mention this idea that NB is pointing to intrinsic difficulties in the
> philosophy. But that was not my reading of his paper.
Branden is *explicit* toward the end of that talk about suggesting that
there was something in the nature of Objectivism that leads to the "hazards"
he discusses. He goes out of his way to describe this as a conclusion that
he gradually came to over years, after initially presuming that the people
who came to him for therapy on the matter had been misunderstanding and
misapplying her ideas. (I should point out that I'm judging by the lecture
tape of the same name, which I own and listened to many times 20 years ago.
I assume is substantively the same as the paper you refer to, though I
haven't read it.)
> There is one costly mistake that I suspect the ARI will continue to
> make, and that is believing they need to get a foothold in the
> university system in order to make cultural changes.
You're obviously way behind the times. In my experience the idea that
penetrating the universities is the *only* way to change the culture hasn't
been the thinking of myself and most ARI-supporting Objectivists for
probably the last decade or so. The universities are just one of a number of
fronts on which ARI has been taking the battle to change the culture. The
real need is to train *Objectivist intellectuals*, which the OGC has been
doing for the last ten years outside of mainstream academia. ARI still
supports campus clubs, but a lot of focus these days is going into things
like the OP-ED program, media outreach and Special Projects, like the
Capitalism Defense Project.
Few of us ever believed that we were going to win "converts" among
mainstream academics. Any penetration into academia that we achieve will be
by attrition, by reaching young students today while they're still open to
reason and new ideas, and then waiting for the old guard to die off and be
replaced.
> Even one greenpeace lawyer makes more difference than
> 10,000 Randroids writing for the latest essay contest on
> Anthem or some such "drivel."
That's because the Greenpeach lawyer is cashing in on the investment of
generations of modern intellectuals that preceded him. Thinking that
political activism can be engaged in successfully outside that context is
hopelessly naive. These lawyers would never have gotten away with such
activism unless the culture had been primed with the *ideas* that they are
counting on people accepting to sanction it and in the face of which
opposition is morally disarmed. That is why new intellectuals -- whether
through academia, outside it, or both -- have to prime the culture with
rational ideas *first* before any large scale political counter-action will
be able to be successful.
> The only changes the ARI makes are internal: purges and
> excommunications.
You see, it's remarks like this that lead me to conclude that you just don't
know what you are talking about. You completely miss, for example, the fact
that for the last decade, ARI has been expanding its focus outside of
academia -- and then expect remarks about how ARI "never changes" to be
taken seriously, as anything other than ignorant posturing motivated by
personal hostility?
As for "purges and excommunications" -- sorry, but the emperor is naked on
that score. Dissociating oneself from people who, by their own admission,
have a substantively different ideology (ie, Kelley) or deciding to stop
associating or doing business with people that one can't get along with
personally or agree with on business strategy (ie, the Reismans) don't
qualify as "purges." And "excommunication" is just an emotionally loaded
code-word for being judged by people that you wanted to be accepted by and
resenting it.
> There's nothing wrong with that. However, you do seem a bit tense
> in newsgroups.
If you want to understand why, try casually browsing the hpo archives for
some of the vicious attacks I've been subjected to here in recent years. I
think I was notorious "in the old days" for being able to offer cordial
responses to reasonable posts. Most of what I've seen here in the last
several years has been naked hostility and personal attacks, and my posting
style has adapted to it. (That's also one of the reasons why I don't post
here often anymore.) When someone
> And you do admit that a certain repression can, for some
> reason which you did not quite divulge, manifest itself after a certain
> amount of interaction with Objectivist literature.
I divulged it explicitly. If you believe that emotions are subject to moral
evaluation, then every time you have an emotion that you don't think is
worthy of the ideal of John Galt, you're going to repress it. That's not
something that "manifests itself" from "exposure to the literature." It's a
matter *misunderstanding and misapplying* Objectivist ideas.
> In fact, you would do more good here by telling us what it was
> about Objectivism that led you to the original repression. Telling
> us how you cured it is certainly beneficial too, and perhaps your story
> will be of service to some repressed Objectivist lurking here.
Excuse me, but didn't you read what I wrote?
Tony Donadio
> Dissociating oneself from people who, by their own admission,
> have a substantively different ideology (ie, Kelley) or... don't
> qualify as "purges."
Actually, on reflection, I have to say that the former in fact does
technically qualify as a "purge" in the literal meaning of the word. It's
the pejorative connotations that I have to question. Those come from the
history of religion, when purges were for questioning the church's dogmas of
faith and were coupled with things like torture for heresy. When one
peacefully and for rationally explicable reasons decides not to associate
oneself any longer with people whose ideas one finds destructive, it's hard
to argue that pejorative connotations that apply to purges by faith and
force are appropriate.
Malenor
There is nothing in the definition of "purge" stating that it can only
occur in the context of a faith-oriented institution.
Besides, iirc purges are a Marxist phenomenon, while
excommunication is a Catholic phenomenon. An example of
the latter would be Peikoff's falling-out with Greenspan.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Hubk9.2015$uv1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > > But I won't stand by and let my guy be accused by some Randroid
> > > > hypocrite of supporting a zombie-like morality when Randroidism
> > > > itself is an example of Objectivism's zombie-like effects.
> > >
> > > A curious remark, consudering that you just enjoined me from making
> > > presumptions about you.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about you.
>
> Then who were you talking about? And if you speak of "Objectivism's
> zombie-like effects," how can you expect me, as an Objectivist, not to
take
> that as a smear?
>
You continue to expect that I should allow Kant to be smeared for his
"zombie" morality, while "Rand" should remain sacrosanct and untouchable
like some holy Egyptian priestess.
You people can dish it out but you sure can't take it!
"Oh, but we don't have to take it: we're like gods now! We have been
touched and blessed by the goddess Rand." lol
> > > As I indicated, that certainly doesn't describe most of the
Objectivists
> I
> > > know -- and that's from about 14 years worth of experience with
meeting
> > > hundreds of them. Frankly, it sounds to me like you just don't know
what
> > > you're talking about.
> >
> > There is no cultish method inherent to Objectivism, but
> > there is a cultish method inherent to the ARI.
>
> You just got finished remarking about "Objectivism's zombie-like effects,"
> and now you're trying to act as though your remarks are only targeted to
> ARI? I think you might want to consider clarifying just what it is that
you
> are and are not trying to say.
>
The ARIan interpretation of Objectivist morality is zombie-like. OK?
And since this interpretation is supposed to be the official one, what
are we Randroids supposed to think?
> > That is why I can't understand why you, a supporter of Objectivism,
> > and who has reaped the benefits pointed out by NB in his paper,
> > would go and support such an institution as the ARI which has been
> > so pitiful in its attempts to apply the actual doctrine.
>
> Obviously, I have a different assessment of ARI than you do -- and judging
> from some of your remarks below, a substantively more informed one. And if
> the contrived perorations attacking Leonard Peikoff that I snipped in my
> replies as irelevant is the best you can offer in evidence of your
> assessment, then I frankly don't think your "arguments" on the subject
> deserve any further comment.
>
> > You mention this idea that NB is pointing to intrinsic difficulties in
the
> > philosophy. But that was not my reading of his paper.
>
> Branden is *explicit* toward the end of that talk about suggesting that
> there was something in the nature of Objectivism that leads to the
"hazards"
> he discusses. He goes out of his way to describe this as a conclusion that
> he gradually came to over years, after initially presuming that the people
> who came to him for therapy on the matter had been misunderstanding and
> misapplying her ideas. (I should point out that I'm judging by the lecture
> tape of the same name, which I own and listened to many times 20 years
ago.
> I assume is substantively the same as the paper you refer to, though I
> haven't read it.)
>
Is the following an example of one of Branden's explicit attacks on
Objectivism?
"Rand held the view that human beings can be understood exclusively in
terms of their premises, that is, in terms of their basic philosophical
beliefs,
along with their free will choices. This view is grossly inadequate to the
complexity of the actual facts. It is, further, a view that flies totally in
the
face of so much that we know today about how the mind operates."
I agree with Branden, but not with his reasoning. I agree with his
summation on epistemological grounds. A "basic philosophical belief"
is not something that can be seen, and you cannot understand
a person based on the unseen and unobserved. You can observe
behaviors, and then attribute these behaviors to underlying
attitudes and beliefs. But the problem is, every single behavior
is considered by the ARIans to be the result of an underlying
philosophical premise, and that has not been proven. Nor can
it be proven. It is therefore a piece of dogma.
But then, I could criticize Branden for being equally dogmatic,
in pointing out "Rand's" inadequacies as related to her
inability to see humans as almost infinitely complex. That is
no disproof of "Rand's" contention at all, but just dogma
versus dogma.
So it's not necessarily the case that I agree with Branden's
reasoning all the time, I only agree with his observations, as
he is the person who was closest to "Rand" during her
intellectually-formative years in which she was slowly
outgrowing her former Nietzscheanism, and also
influenced much of that growth.
> > There is one costly mistake that I suspect the ARI will continue to
> > make, and that is believing they need to get a foothold in the
> > university system in order to make cultural changes.
>
> You're obviously way behind the times. In my experience the idea that
> penetrating the universities is the *only* way to change the culture
hasn't
> been the thinking of myself and most ARI-supporting Objectivists for
> probably the last decade or so. The universities are just one of a number
of
> fronts on which ARI has been taking the battle to change the culture. The
> real need is to train *Objectivist intellectuals*, which the OGC has been
> doing for the last ten years outside of mainstream academia. ARI still
> supports campus clubs, but a lot of focus these days is going into things
> like the OP-ED program, media outreach and Special Projects, like the
> Capitalism Defense Project.
>
> Few of us ever believed that we were going to win "converts" among
> mainstream academics. Any penetration into academia that we achieve will
be
> by attrition, by reaching young students today while they're still open to
> reason and new ideas, and then waiting for the old guard to die off and be
> replaced.
>
Since most people are not and cannot be philosophers, I predict that
the Objectivists will create a society of paranoid, anti-government
libertarians -- even if they succeed at changing anything, which they won't.
> > Even one greenpeace lawyer makes more difference than
> > 10,000 Randroids writing for the latest essay contest on
> > Anthem or some such "drivel."
>
> That's because the Greenpeach lawyer is cashing in on the investment of
> generations of modern intellectuals that preceded him. Thinking that
> political activism can be engaged in successfully outside that context is
> hopelessly naive. These lawyers would never have gotten away with such
> activism unless the culture had been primed with the *ideas* that they are
> counting on people accepting to sanction it and in the face of which
> opposition is morally disarmed. That is why new intellectuals -- whether
> through academia, outside it, or both -- have to prime the culture with
> rational ideas *first* before any large scale political counter-action
will
> be able to be successful.
>
That is Objectivist dogma on the face of it. Note your usage of
ARIan terminology: "cashing in on the investment," the capitalist
analogy being made there which is typical of ARIans; "the culture
had been primed with the ideas," in hopes that people will "sanction"
the activism (sanction of the victim premise); "new intellectuals," part
of the title of a book of Objectivist essays.
Moreover, I don't know that the Greenpeace lawyers, or any activist
lawyers, are the products of a culture primed to accept their activism.
That is good for a hypothesis, perhaps only a belief.
> > The only changes the ARI makes are internal: purges and
> > excommunications.
>
> You see, it's remarks like this that lead me to conclude that you just
don't
> know what you are talking about. You completely miss, for example, the
fact
> that for the last decade, ARI has been expanding its focus outside of
> academia -- and then expect remarks about how ARI "never changes" to be
> taken seriously, as anything other than ignorant posturing motivated by
> personal hostility?
>
> As for "purges and excommunications" -- sorry, but the emperor is naked on
> that score. Dissociating oneself from people who, by their own admission,
> have a substantively different ideology (ie, Kelley) or deciding to stop
> associating or doing business with people that one can't get along with
> personally or agree with on business strategy (ie, the Reismans) don't
> qualify as "purges." And "excommunication" is just an emotionally loaded
> code-word for being judged by people that you wanted to be accepted by and
> resenting it.
>
I sincerely doubt that Greenspan resents his excommunication by Peikoff.
He probably doesn't even care. If nobody informed him of it, he probably
wouldn't even notice the difference.
But it's apparent that that term is emotionally-loaded for you at any rate.
Perhaps that is why it is used against the ARIans.
Then again, you have such an "us vs. them" mentality about your cult
that you no doubt see every non-ARIan as an "enemy." It could be,
on the other hand, that people like Branden are not your enemy, and
that the usage of such terms is just an attempt to tell you something
about yourselves that people outside the cult can see but you can't see.
You blame your tenseness in this group on the presence of certain
"enemies" of your cult here who "prove" they are your enemy because
of the fact that they use certain words, such as "cult."
I think you have enemies, but that the worst enemies are not outsiders.
Your main "enemy" lies in the internal contradictions lying at the heart
of Objectivism and which have broken your movement into two camps.
> > There's nothing wrong with that. However, you do seem a bit tense
> > in newsgroups.
>
> If you want to understand why, try casually browsing the hpo archives for
> some of the vicious attacks I've been subjected to here in recent years. I
> think I was notorious "in the old days" for being able to offer cordial
> responses to reasonable posts. Most of what I've seen here in the last
> several years has been naked hostility and personal attacks, and my
posting
> style has adapted to it. (That's also one of the reasons why I don't post
> here often anymore.) When someone
>
I don't know what you started to rant about at the last there. But I am
aware that the internet can change the way people behave, even offline.
However, it is very clear from what you just said that you continue to
blame others for your behavior.
When I first came to HPO back in late 1998, I realized right away
that this was not the place to learn cordiality or politeness. What I
saw here was nothing more than trolling, and the worst of the
trolls were Objectivists. (I didn't know what a "troll" was back then,
but of course I do now.) I posted approximately two comments, and
left. (A couple of my attempts were bounced by the modbot.) What
were my intentions to begin with? In those days, 4 years ago, I
was interested in discussing and learning more about Objectivism,
believe it or not. What I found here was an environment quite
detrimental to what I wanted, so I left. (I lurked once in a while,
but I wouldn't touch this group with a 10-foot pole.)
The reason I come here now is primarily to fend off vicious and
sadly mistaken Objectivist attacks against Kant.
> > And you do admit that a certain repression can, for some
> > reason which you did not quite divulge, manifest itself after a certain
> > amount of interaction with Objectivist literature.
>
> I divulged it explicitly. If you believe that emotions are subject to
moral
> evaluation, then every time you have an emotion that you don't think is
> worthy of the ideal of John Galt, you're going to repress it. That's not
> something that "manifests itself" from "exposure to the literature." It's
a
> matter *misunderstanding and misapplying* Objectivist ideas.
>
> > In fact, you would do more good here by telling us what it was
> > about Objectivism that led you to the original repression. Telling
> > us how you cured it is certainly beneficial too, and perhaps your story
> > will be of service to some repressed Objectivist lurking here.
>
> Excuse me, but didn't you read what I wrote?
I posted a new response right after that one stating that I had more
completely understood your vague comments from before. But I
still think there is more to the story, not in some unnecessary details,
but in the personality and beliefs you had back when you were 21
when Objectivism first caught your attention.
Since your "cure" was in finding other Objectivists who posed as
good role models for you, I would suggest that you were given
bad role-modeling in the beginning of your Objectivist journey,
and this was due to "Rand's" seemingly repressed, 2-dimensional
characterization of her heroes.
Now you could argue that not all of her heroes were 2-dimensional,
but enough of them were. The worst example of this would be
Galt himself. (Roark would probably come in as second worst.)
But it seems that "Rand" only gave her heroes enough personality
characterization as required by the needs of the novel, so that
Rearden, for instance, comes across as more alive and interesting
because part of "Rand's" goal for his character was to demonstrate
the man's psychological growth. In similar fashion, as Atlas progresses,
she demonstrates the intellectual growth of Dagny.
--------
You know, that last paragraph is, originally, the type of discussion that
I was primarily interested in back in 1998. It just seems that this
forum isn't capable of it, or at least it wasn't back then.
Tony Donadio
<post snipped>
I wish I could say that I found something in your remarks that I thought
worth responding to, or that formed the basis for a continued and productive
dialogue. Unfortunately, I can't. I don't really see any point, for example,
in spending time rebutting paragraphs of presumptuous and hostile
psychologizing directed at myself, Leonard Peikoff, or anyone anyone else
for that matter. There was little in your last post that didn't fall into
that category, and your false and often silly projections about my ideas and
psychology really don't interest me as a topic for discussion.
The only really substantive criticism of Objectivism that I saw in your
remarks was your attack on the idea that people are fundamentally motivated
in action by their ideas. Your formulations, however, as with many of your
other remarks, misstate the Objectivist view on this issue. Discussing that
might have been interesting and productive, but refuting a steady stream of
hostile straw men arguments isn't.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F3qk9.3058$uv1....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <post snipped>
>
> I wish I could say that I found something in your remarks that I thought
> worth responding to, or that formed the basis for a continued and
productive
> dialogue. Unfortunately, I can't.
Yes, your primary methodology has always consisted of
evasion and rationalization.
Malenor
"Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> Got on his Randroid high horse and
said:
> I wish I could say that I found something in your remarks that I thought
> worth responding to, or that formed the basis for a continued and
productive
> dialogue. Unfortunately, I can't. I don't really see any point, for
example,
> in spending time rebutting paragraphs of presumptuous and hostile
> psychologizing directed at myself, Leonard Peikoff, or anyone anyone else
> for that matter. There was little in your last post that didn't fall into
> that category, and your false and often silly projections about my ideas
and
> psychology really don't interest me as a topic for discussion.
>
> The only really substantive criticism of Objectivism that I saw in your
> remarks was your attack on the idea that people are fundamentally
motivated
> in action by their ideas. Your formulations, however, as with many of your
> other remarks, misstate the Objectivist view on this issue. Discussing
that
> might have been interesting and productive, but refuting a steady stream
of
> hostile straw men arguments isn't.
I am searching for the alleged psychologizing in my post now, keeping in
mind "Rand's" definition of psychologizing as: "condemning or excusing
specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems,
real or invented":
------------
You continue to expect that I should allow Kant to be smeared for his
"zombie" morality, while "Rand" should remain sacrosanct and untouchable
like some holy Egyptian priestess.
You people can dish it out but you sure can't take it!
"Oh, but we don't have to take it: we're like gods now! We have been
touched and blessed by the goddess Rand." lol
------------
No psychologizing in evidence there.
------------
The ARIan interpretation of Objectivist morality is zombie-like. OK?
And since this interpretation is supposed to be the official one, what
are we Randroids supposed to think?
------------
Nope, no psychologizing.
---------------
------------------
No psychologizing there.
------------------
Since most people are not and cannot be philosophers, I predict that
the Objectivists will create a society of paranoid, anti-government
libertarians -- even if they succeed at changing anything, which they won't.
------------------
No psychologizing there.
------------------
That is Objectivist dogma on the face of it. Note your usage of
ARIan terminology: "cashing in on the investment," the capitalist
analogy being made there which is typical of ARIans; "the culture
had been primed with the ideas," in hopes that people will "sanction"
the activism (sanction of the victim premise); "new intellectuals," part
of the title of a book of Objectivist essays.
Moreover, I don't know that the Greenpeace lawyers, or any activist
lawyers, are the products of a culture primed to accept their activism.
That is good for a hypothesis, perhaps only a belief.
-----------------
No psychologizing there.
-----------------
I sincerely doubt that Greenspan resents his excommunication by Peikoff.
He probably doesn't even care. If nobody informed him of it, he probably
wouldn't even notice the difference.
But it's apparent that that term is emotionally-loaded for you at any rate.
Perhaps that is why it is used against the ARIans.
Then again, you have such an "us vs. them" mentality about your cult
that you no doubt see every non-ARIan as an "enemy." It could be,
on the other hand, that people like Branden are not your enemy, and
that the usage of such terms is just an attempt to tell you something
about yourselves that people outside the cult can see but you can't see.
You blame your tenseness in this group on the presence of certain
"enemies" of your cult here who "prove" they are your enemy because
of the fact that they use certain words, such as "cult."
I think you have enemies, but that the worst enemies are not outsiders.
Your main "enemy" lies in the internal contradictions lying at the heart
of Objectivism and which have broken your movement into two camps
--------------------
There is the word "mentality" present. However, it was not
used to either excuse or condemn Tony.
-----------------
I don't know what you started to rant about at the last there. But I am
aware that the internet can change the way people behave, even offline.
However, it is very clear from what you just said that you continue to
blame others for your behavior.
When I first came to HPO back in late 1998, I realized right away
that this was not the place to learn cordiality or politeness. What I
saw here was nothing more than trolling, and the worst of the
trolls were Objectivists. (I didn't know what a "troll" was back then,
but of course I do now.) I posted approximately two comments, and
left. (A couple of my attempts were bounced by the modbot.) What
were my intentions to begin with? In those days, 4 years ago, I
was interested in discussing and learning more about Objectivism,
believe it or not. What I found here was an environment quite
detrimental to what I wanted, so I left. (I lurked once in a while,
but I wouldn't touch this group with a 10-foot pole.)
The reason I come here now is primarily to fend off vicious and
sadly mistaken Objectivist attacks against Kant.
----------------
Nothing about yours or Peikoff's psychology there.
----------------
I posted a new response right after that one stating that I had more
completely understood your vague comments from before. But I
still think there is more to the story, not in some unnecessary details,
but in the personality and beliefs you had back when you were 21
when Objectivism first caught your attention.
Since your "cure" was in finding other Objectivists who posed as
good role models for you, I would suggest that you were given
bad role-modeling in the beginning of your Objectivist journey,
and this was due to "Rand's" seemingly repressed, 2-dimensional
characterization of her heroes.
Now you could argue that not all of her heroes were 2-dimensional,
but enough of them were. The worst example of this would be
Galt himself. (Roark would probably come in as second worst.)
But it seems that "Rand" only gave her heroes enough personality
characterization as required by the needs of the novel, so that
Rearden, for instance, comes across as more alive and interesting
because part of "Rand's" goal for his character was to demonstrate
the man's psychological growth. In similar fashion, as Atlas progresses,
she demonstrates the intellectual growth of Dagny.
You know, that last paragraph is, originally, the type of discussion that
I was primarily interested in back in 1998. It just seems that this
forum isn't capable of it, or at least it wasn't back then.
-----------------
Various psychological references were present in those
statements:
1. your personality and beliefs, which you brought up
originally, your "cure," which you brought up originally;
and my attempt to take a different tack with what you
originally told me about yourself. However, none of those
references were used to either excuse or condemn you.
2. I mentioned "Rand's" "seemingly repressive characterization."
a. that was not directed either at you or Peikoff, and b. it did
not excuse or condemn anybody.
-------------
Well, that's my entire response which you psychologically
condemned as an exercise in psychologizing.
Conclusion: Tony Donadio either doesn't have a clue as
to the ARIan definition of "psychologizing," because his
reference to my alleged hostility is a prime example of
psychologizing in the negative sense when in fact I obviously
did not engage in any sort of thing (therefore, he is a
typical ARIan hypocrite who needs to take a good,
close in the mirror one of these days); or, he's just
plain stupid.
Acar
You are not allowed to enjoy art unless it expresses the proper metaphysical
value judgments If Beethoven's sense of life was bad it necessarily follows
that his art was bad art and anyone who enjoys Beethoven is going to
Objectivist hell. I still don't know what was good about Rachmaninoff's
sense of life. He was a much worse musical brooder than Beethoven. While
Beethoves was a feisty rebel, Rachmaninoff was a depressed, defeated spirit.
He was one of the worse musical whiners of all times and he was obsessed by
the "doom" theme, which obsessively does cameo appearances in virtually all
his orchestral works. It is the main theme of all four movements of his
first symphony and the symphony itself is a depictionof the hopelessnes and
despair of the souls in hell. Rachmaninoff was the epitome of brooding in
music, but he did have an ear for romantic tunes and was great with the
cymbals, drum, triangles, etc.
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:dDvk9.7296$Cz.7...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PUdj9.7414$XE1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
1. You are not allowed to have any emotion unless it comes from rational
subconscious premises.
2. You are not allowed to fall in love unless the other person is the
highest product, male or female, of nature on earth.
3. You are not allowed to have sex unless it is officially sanctioned by
the ARI as a "celebration of life."
4. Thou shalt repress no emotion before its time.
5. You are not allowed to enjoy art unless it expresses proper metaphysical
value judgments.
Haha, I was hoping someone would come along and add another
"thou shalt (not)" to the list.
That (5) was mentioned by NB in his article On the Benefits and
Hazards.
Acar
> > > Given how extensively the Objectivist literature discusses ... how
emotions are not subject to
> > > moral evaluation,
How does one decide which emotions are whims?
..
Tony Donadio
<tiresomely strident post snipped>
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
It was the suprious and irrelevant psychological "speculations" about myself
and others (you gave parargraphs of it to LP, for example), that I found
sprinkled throughout your posts, that I didn't and still don't care to
respond to. You're probably right that it's not exactly a clear example of
psychologizing; the "comdemnation" was implicit rather than explicit, in
your sneering tone and frequent hostility. That doesn't make it any less
creepy or any more worth the time and energy of a rebuttal.
So, in summary: sorry, guy, but I've already said what I had to say, and
that was on the topic of Objectivism and repression. The simple fact of the
matter is that Objectivism does *not* encourage repression, either
explicitly, or implicitly as Branden suggests. The only reason I responded
to you bringing Branden's talk into the discussion was to point out how he
explicitly encouraged people to at least partly blame Objectivism for these
errors. One can err in understanding what Objectivism has to say on the
matter, but that is the fault of the person making the mistake (as it was in
my case) -- not the philosophy. In my experience, the only people who tend
to take Ayn Rand's characters to be "modeling repression" (as Branden
suggests) are people who are prone to it in the first place -- and the
reason for that has more to do with their own psychology than it does with
Objectivism.
As for the rest of your hostile digressions: as I said, I really don't care
to respond to ignorant slanders of ARI in general or myself in particular.
I've already pointed out several factual inaccuracies in your attacks, none
of which you seem interested in addressing. What you do appear more
interested in is using my responses as a springboard to vilify ARI, and to
engage in more sneering and inappropriate speculations about the psychology
of people you don't like, than in dealing with counter-evidence. I don't see
why I should invest my time in helping you with that agenda.
You haven't impressed me as being interested in a civil discussion, and I
don't care to engage in a protracted debate of any other kind; I don't have
the time for it anymore. Please feel free to come to any conclusions on that
basis that you like. Your opinion isn't exactly high on my list of
priorities in life.
Tony Donadio
> How does one decide which emotions are whims?
If I remember correctly, Ayn Rand described a whim as a emotion whose cause
one doesn't know or care to discover. So I'd say: if you can't explain why
you feel something, don't bother to try to understand it, and indulge in and
act on that feeling anyway, then that's a whim.
Tony Donadio
> You are not allowed to enjoy art unless it expresses
> the proper metaphysical value judgments.
Sure you are. Emotions are not subject to being turned on or off by an act
of will, and they are not (according to Objectivism) directly subject to
moral evaluation.
> If Beethoven's sense of life was bad
A fact not anywhere in evidence. Ayn Rand's opinion (on a matter that she
explicitly wrote still lacked a vocabulary for objective evaluation, such as
the esthetics of music) does not constitute evidence. I like Beethoven and
always have. So do many, many Objectivists I know, most of them of the
ARI-supporting variety, who don't have any qualms about enjoying it either.
And NO Objectivist that I've discussed this with in my 20 years of
experience with the philosophy has ever given me a hard time about it.
> it necessarily follows that his art was bad art and anyone
> who enjoys Beethoven is going to Objectivist hell.
This is another of those nonsense claims about Objectivism (perhaps we
should start calling them "Objectivist legends") that people seem to keep
repeating because it makes good copy for Objectivism bashing. But, like Mr.
Malenor's ignorant attacks on another thread, it simply ain't true.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lVtk9.3628$uv1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <tiresomely strident post snipped>
>
> Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
>
> It was the suprious and irrelevant psychological "speculations" about
myself
> and others (you gave parargraphs of it to LP, for example), that I found
> sprinkled throughout your posts, that I didn't and still don't care to
> respond to. You're probably right that it's not exactly a clear example of
> psychologizing; the "comdemnation" was implicit rather than explicit, in
> your sneering tone and frequent hostility. That doesn't make it any less
> creepy or any more worth the time and energy of a rebuttal.
>
"Sneering," eh. Well, I came to these groups at one time a more pleasant
fellow, and then I encountered people like yourself. And so I had to
adapt my methodology.
> So, in summary: sorry, guy, but I've already said what I had to say, and
> that was on the topic of Objectivism and repression. The simple fact of
the
> matter is that Objectivism does *not* encourage repression, either
> explicitly, or implicitly as Branden suggests. The only reason I responded
> to you bringing Branden's talk into the discussion was to point out how he
> explicitly encouraged people to at least partly blame Objectivism for
these
> errors. One can err in understanding what Objectivism has to say on the
> matter, but that is the fault of the person making the mistake (as it was
in
> my case) -- not the philosophy. In my experience, the only people who tend
> to take Ayn Rand's characters to be "modeling repression" (as Branden
> suggests) are people who are prone to it in the first place -- and the
> reason for that has more to do with their own psychology than it does with
> Objectivism.
>
I'm sure it's a little of both, the books and the readers. That's why I
agree Catholic background was an important
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lVtk9.3628$uv1...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <tiresomely strident post snipped>
>
> Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
>
> It was the suprious and irrelevant psychological "speculations" about
myself
> and others (you gave parargraphs of it to LP, for example), that I found
> sprinkled throughout your posts, that I didn't and still don't care to
> respond to. You're probably right that it's not exactly a clear example of
> psychologizing; the "comdemnation" was implicit rather than explicit, in
> your sneering tone and frequent hostility. That doesn't make it any less
> creepy or any more worth the time and energy of a rebuttal.
>
"Sneering," eh. Well, I came to these groups at one time a more pleasant
fellow, and then I encountered people like yourself. And so I had to
adapt my methodology.
> So, in summary: sorry, guy, but I've already said what I had to say, and
> that was on the topic of Objectivism and repression. The simple fact of
the
> matter is that Objectivism does *not* encourage repression, either
> explicitly, or implicitly as Branden suggests. The only reason I responded
> to you bringing Branden's talk into the discussion was to point out how he
> explicitly encouraged people to at least partly blame Objectivism for
these
> errors. One can err in understanding what Objectivism has to say on the
> matter, but that is the fault of the person making the mistake (as it was
in
> my case) -- not the philosophy. In my experience, the only people who tend
> to take Ayn Rand's characters to be "modeling repression" (as Branden
> suggests) are people who are prone to it in the first place -- and the
> reason for that has more to do with their own psychology than it does with
> Objectivism.
>
I'm sure it's a little of both, the books and the readers. That's why I
agree your Catholic background was an important factor in
encouraging your repression; but I went on to apparently commit
a Randroid no-no and also point to "Rand's" characters as
encouraging this repression further. Then I made another no-no
by suggesting that the friends you made later provided better
role-modeling for Objectivist behavior.
But of course you would deny that, not only deny it, but
evade it completely without even a response. Why? Because it
tends to uphold Branden's view which you despise.
> As for the rest of your hostile digressions: as I said, I really don't
care
> to respond to ignorant slanders of ARI in general or myself in particular.
Yes, you will rationalize them as slanders in order to avoid answering.
But in fact, I offered the above analysis as a mere hypothesis.
> I've already pointed out several factual inaccuracies in your attacks,
none
> of which you seem interested in addressing. What you do appear more
> interested in is using my responses as a springboard to vilify ARI, and to
> engage in more sneering and inappropriate speculations about the
psychology
> of people you don't like,
I don't care to be given any kind of moral-fascist lectures about what is
and is not appropriate.
> than in dealing with counter-evidence. I don't see
> why I should invest my time in helping you with that agenda.
>
> You haven't impressed me as being interested in a civil discussion,
Neither have you ever given me that impression toward any living
human being. What is stopping you? Moral perfectionism, a tendency
to require absolute compliance to your rigid rules of conversational
conduct.
I suspect that comes from a desire to hide the fact that you are
thin-skinned and overly-sensitive.
> and I don't care to engage in a protracted debate of any other kind; I
don't
have
> the time for it anymore. Please feel free to come to any conclusions on
that
> basis that you like. Your opinion isn't exactly high on my list of
> priorities in life.
"Not having the time for" X has always been a rationalization for
obsessive types in my experience.
The only advantage that can come from you not responding to
me is the fact that your words only continue to provide evidence
to justify my "sneering" evaluations of Randroids.
Phil
> Actually, on reflection, I have to say that the former in fact does
> technically qualify as a "purge" in the literal meaning of the word. It's
> the pejorative connotations that I have to question. Those come from the
> history of religion, when purges were for questioning the church's dogmas of
> faith and were coupled with things like torture for heresy. When one
> peacefully and for rationally explicable reasons decides not to associate
> oneself any longer with people whose ideas one finds destructive, it's hard
> to argue that pejorative connotations that apply to purges by faith and
> force are appropriate.
Yes - that's why Kelley and co. deliberately use those terms;
it's an implicit smear, trying to connote the idea that such rational
exclusion is instead some sort of religious irrationality. It's the
Kelley equivalent, in terms of dishonesty and epistemological
corruption, as the communists calling anti-communists "McCarthyites".
Another popular one is "ARIan", a cheap little smear from impotent
provocateurs of the left who want to play on "Aryan" to connote
Nazis (and of course duly adopted by Kelley and co.)
In fact I've observed for a long time that Kelley and co. seem
to be comprised largely of typically dishonest liberal academics,
who really haven't changed much but see an opportunity to
"distinguish" themselves "just enough" to be different and noticed
and to cash in on Ayn Rand's popularity. (Sciabarra being a
notable example of this.)
--
Philip Oliver
The works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM
www.Objectivism.net
Russell Hanneken
"Phil" <new...@objectivism.net> wrote in message
news:uFGk9.304915$AR1.13...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Yes - that's why Kelley and co. deliberately use those terms;
> it's an implicit smear, trying to connote the idea that such rational
> exclusion is instead some sort of religious irrationality.
They're actually pretty explicit about saying that, aren't they?
> Another popular one is "ARIan", a cheap little smear from impotent
> provocateurs of the left who want to play on "Aryan" to connote
> Nazis (and of course duly adopted by Kelley and co.)
Can you cite an example of David Kelley using the term "ARIan?"
I've always read the word as "AY-ARR-EYE-AN." It never occurred to me that
anyone would connect the word to "Aryan" until an ARI supporter suggested it
in this forum. "ARIan" seems like a natural shorthand for "ARI supporter."
Is there another word you would prefer?
> In fact I've observed for a long time that Kelley and co. seem
> to be comprised largely of typically dishonest liberal academics,
> who really haven't changed much but see an opportunity to
> "distinguish" themselves "just enough" to be different and noticed
> and to cash in on Ayn Rand's popularity. (Sciabarra being a
> notable example of this.)
Do you mean that Chris Sciabarra doesn't really consider himself an
Objectivist, but he calls himself one because he wants to cash in on Rand's
popularity? How do you know that?
Regards,
Russell Hanneken
rhan...@pobox.com
Phil
> [snip]
> Do you mean that Chris Sciabarra doesn't really consider himself an
> Objectivist, but he calls himself one because he wants to cash in on Rand's
> popularity? How do you know that?
It is completely obvious that he is not in fact an Objectivist just
by reading what he writes, regardless of what he may characterize
himself as being. I don't know if he does make the claim to being
an Objectivist but it's irrelevant to my point - he's presented a
grotesquely absurd "theory" about Ayn Rand's origination of
Objectivism, and what Objectivism supposedly is, which is
completely wrong, but which is clothed in modern-academic-speak
to give it the aura of "respectability" among his fellow irrationalist
modern academics.
Phil
Acar
It seems to me that if whims are emotions and they are bad, then every
single emotion is up for moral judgement as we must make sure that they are
not whims. It seems that there are good emotions, neutral emotions and bad
emotions, no?
x
x
x
x
Tony Donadio
> It seems to me that if whims are emotions and they are bad, then every
> single emotion is up for moral judgement as we must make sure that they
are
> not whims. It seems that there are good emotions, neutral emotions and bad
> emotions, no?
Thank you very much for raising a question that so perfectly illustrates the
issue I was trying to address in this thread. This is exactly the kind of
misunderstanding of the actual content of Objectivism that I was talking
about. My answer is no, on all of your questions. Insofar as a whim is an
emotion, experiencing it is *not* a bad or immoral act according to
Objectivism.
Having any emotion, per se, is not immoral from an Objectivist perspective,
for one simple reason: an emotion is an automatized value-response based on
one's ideas and beliefs, and as such it is not experienced volitionally.
Where there is no choice, there can be no morality. One might argue with
Objectivism's views of the nature of emotions (although I don't, obviously),
but given that view of them it is clear-cut that an *emotion itself* can't
be regarded as moral or immoral any more than a patella reflex can.
One could take issue with the *past thinking* process that led one to
automatize a given set of ideas, and which in turn lead one to experience
certain kinds of emotions in the present moment. That past thinking could
have been virtuous and innocent or evasive and immoral (and, of course,
factually correct or incorrect in either case). But it is nevertheless in
the past -- and the worst that it can say about a person is that he *was*
immoral at one time. Whether he still *is* depends on how he thinks and
deals with those emotions in the present moment.
A person who evaded in the past and consequently "programmed" his
subconscious with a lot of self-destructive value-responses, but who now
recognizes his errors and is committed to change, is as innocent as the
driven snow morally. Even if he experiences "bad" emotions (i.e., painful,
self-destructive, inappropriate, etc.) as a result of his past immoral
thinking, that does not make him immoral in the present day and it does not
make those emotions immoral. It is only how one chooses to deal with one's
emotions -- most especially, how and whether one acts on them, and tries to
understand them -- that is of moral import, because that is the only part of
one's emotional life the is open to direct volitional action. Changing one's
automatized thinking patterns can take a lot of time and enormous effort,
and it cannot be made to happen immediately and by an act of will. It's like
correcting a bad tennis swing: one has to unlearn the old habit and form the
new by sustained practice.
This is where the repressor makes his error. Mistakenly believing that
having a certain kind of feeling can be immoral, and perhaps mistakenly
believing that it is even possible to make one's emotions change by an act
of will, he may try to do so. But the only thing that one can do directly
with an emotion by an act of will is to suppress or repress it.
Authentically changing one's emotions by necessity is a long term process,
that has to involve changing one's automatized thinking patterns. And to do
that successfully, you have to allow yourself to fully experience the
emotion, in order to identify it, and to introspect the ideas that are
giving rise to it and develop and sustain an alternative set of "thinking
habits" to replace them.
With regard to whims, as the definition I gave earlier suggests, Ayn Rand
regarded them as more than just emotions. Remember that a whim was an
emotion whose cause one did not know *and does not care to discover*. That
latter goes beyond being just an emotional element; it pertains to one's
choice in the present moment about how to act regarding that emotion. And as
for the Objectivist view of whims, note that it was being a
*whim-worshipper* that Ayn Rand decried. A whim-worshipper is someone who
makes a volitional choice or policy to act on emotions without even trying
to understand their source.
I'll add for the record that I don't even think that it's always necessarily
wrong to act on a whim. Even scrupulous introspecters can have emotions at
times that they don't understand the reasons for. In a case when one has no
reason to believe that introspecting and identifying the cause of that
emotion is of particular importance, and has other things of value to focus
on instead, I don't think it's wrong to let it go. If one does have reason
to think it is important (for example, the emotion is dark or disturbing,
and/or perhaps part of a growing pattern of unidentified emotions), then it
is appropriate to set some time aside to introspect them. But if I'm at the
video store and I "feel like watching an adventure movie tonight," I don't
regard that as an occasion that morally requires an immediate bout of
introspection to identify why.
Malenor
> One could take issue with the *past thinking* process that led one to
> automatize a given set of ideas, and which in turn lead one to experience
> certain kinds of emotions in the present moment. That past thinking could
> have been virtuous and innocent or evasive and immoral (and, of course,
> factually correct or incorrect in either case). But it is nevertheless in
> the past -- and the worst that it can say about a person is that he *was*
> immoral at one time. Whether he still *is* depends on how he thinks and
> deals with those emotions in the present moment.
>
Yes indeed, this and the rest of your psychological theory I read in
Branden's books. The Objectivists have borrowed, or should I
say PLAGIARIZED, most if not all the theory Branden brought into
the movement.
Tony Donadio
> Yes indeed, this and the rest of your psychological theory I read in
> Branden's books. The Objectivists have borrowed, or should I
> say PLAGIARIZED, most if not all the theory Branden brought into
> the movement.
My, your hostility never seems to end, does it?
News flash: Branden was associated with Rand for 20 years and wrote
extensively for the Objectivist movement for a decade. I seriously doubt
that many others besides you regard the fact that he might have had input
into the Objectivist literature on psychology to be controversial or to
constitute some kind of scandal.
Malenor
He never made an issue of it. But in fact your analysis was a
repetition of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel
Branden, Ph.D., whether or not anybody choose to make a
scandal out of the plagiarism.
Tony Donadio
> He never made an issue of it. But in fact your analysis was a
> repetition of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel
> Branden, Ph.D., whether or not anybody choose to make a
> scandal out of the plagiarism.
A great deal of which was developed and previewed in articles written for
The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist *before* The Psychology of
Self-Esteem was published.
Malenor
> A great deal of which was developed and previewed in articles written for
> The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist *before* The Psychology of
> Self-Esteem was published.
Yes, and became the intellectual property of your ARI. Thus
you are given an excuse to bite the hand that fed you, by taking
the product of Branden's thought on the one hand and then
attacking him on the other.
Tony Donadio
Estate of Ayn Rand, not ARI.
I never said that Nathaniel Branded didn't have any good ideas or never
wrote anything worthwhile. He certainly did. That shouldn't make him immune
to criticism for other things that he's done that aren't quite so deserving
of admiration.
Now, that's all I intend to say on those subjects. If Acar (or anyone other
than Malenor, for that matter) wants to follow up on what I wrote about the
moral status of emotions, please feel free.
Tony Donadio
> Yes indeed, this and the rest of your psychological theory I read in
> Branden's books. The Objectivists have borrowed, or should I
> say PLAGIARIZED, most if not all the theory Branden brought into
> the movement.
Let me get this straight. NOW Malenor's denouncing us because he thinks that
we *agree* with him??
Obviously, he's not going to be satisfied regardless of what we say or do.
Malenor
> Obviously, he's not going to be satisfied regardless of what we say or do.
Just change your [plural] views on Kant.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G4Rk9.868$jj2...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
And become like this, Malenoid?
http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zombenco.html
And just so he won't feel left out, here's one for Gordon.
http://www.wutsamada.com/comix/phlneigh.htm
Fred Weiss
Malenor
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:an1n54$q1l$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:G4Rk9.868$jj2...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zombenco.html
> http://www.wutsamada.com/comix/phlneigh.htm
>
Yes, cartoons are about on your level of argumentation, Freddy.
Malenor
> It was the suprious and irrelevant psychological "speculations" about
myself
> and others (you gave parargraphs of it to LP, for example), that I found
> sprinkled throughout your posts, that I didn't and still don't care to
> respond to. You're probably right that it's not exactly a clear example of
> psychologizing; the "comdemnation" was implicit rather than explicit, in
> your sneering tone and frequent hostility. That doesn't make it any less
> creepy or any more worth the time and energy of a rebuttal.
>
> So, in summary: sorry, guy, but I've already said what I had to say, and
> that was on the topic of Objectivism and repression. The simple fact of
the
> matter is that Objectivism does *not* encourage repression, either
> explicitly, or implicitly as Branden suggests.
Branden is not so much concerned with Objectivism or the ARI as he
is with "Rand's" published works, and their influence on her readers.
Now you will protest that you and your friends don't have any kind of
repression going on, that you like Beethoven and don't feel
any guilt, etc. However, "Rand's" works are still out there ready
to infect the minds of any newbies who don't have your understanding
of how Objectivism should be and ought to be. The fact remains,
there is a great deal of shaming in the Romantic Manifesto toward
those who enjoy the "wrong" kinds of art; the fact remains, "Rand's"
heroes often put out bad psychological role-modeling.
Tom S.
A couple cans short of a six pack?
Tom Scheeler
--
"If civil engineers built bridges the way
software "engineers" built software,
they would collapse when the first
person tried to cross it."
Acar
>
> Having any emotion, per se, is not immoral from an Objectivist
perspective,
> for one simple reason: an emotion is an automatized value-response based
on
> one's ideas and beliefs, and as such it is not experienced volitionally.
> Where there is no choice, there can be no morality
You have misunderstood the objection and devoted your reply to defending a
thesis which has not been attacked. When one expresses disagreement with the
Objectivist moral condemnation of a given emotion, the reference is not to
the mere emergence of the emotion but to the manner of dealing with the
emotion. In order to deal with the objection you would have to claim that
*the manner* in which one deals with emotions and validates them is immune
from moral judgment. For example you say that you enjoy Beethoven. You have
no conflict with those feelings because (a) you feel that Rand was wrong
about Beethoven and (b) you have seen no evidence that Beethoven had a
malignant sense of life. If you were certain that Rand was correct or if you
had seen evidence that Beethoven had a malignant sense of life, you might be
concerned about the admiration and affinity that you feel for his music. But
the Beethoven example is moot, for lack of information. However if you are
an admirer, collector and promoter of abstract art, this affinity would be
clearly in conflict with the realist approach to existence which is promoted
by Objectivism. You would have to wonder about your metaphysical value
judgments and your sense of life and you would be facing a conflict between
your feelings and your beliefs. Rand's objection to certain kinds of art was
philosophical. There are real life examples of individuals whose personal
relationships and literary tastes have been condemned on a philosophical
basis. That is fact and there is no point in trying to dance one's way
around it.
I understand that any moral system is prescriptive. The question is whether
a materialist reason based morality realistically addresses the human
condition.
Malenor
What concerns me is not so much what the Randroids
enjoy as art, but which art genres they have to give
up when joining the cult. Rock and roll for instance.
Or at least, you don't want to be caught listening to it.
Rock and roll is whim-oriented anarchy; classical
music is at least in principle mind-oriented, rational.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Onkl9.2597$jj2...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What concerns me is not so much what the Randroids
> enjoy as art, but which art genres they have to give
> up when joining the cult. Rock and roll for instance.
> Or at least, you don't want to be caught listening to it.
> Rock and roll is whim-oriented anarchy; classical
> music is at least in principle mind-oriented, rational.
Malenoid, you are such a moron. I cracked up when I read this because I just
happen to be listening to a rock station as I write this - a station, btw, I
listen to quite often (CBS FM 101.1 in the NYC area)
I guess that means I'm a whim-oriented anarchist destined for immediate
excommunication?
Fred Weiss
Malenor
>
> Malenoid, you are such a moron. I cracked up when I read this because I
just
> happen to be listening to a rock station as I write this - a station, btw,
I
> listen to quite often (CBS FM 101.1 in the NYC area)
>
> I guess that means I'm a whim-oriented anarchist destined for immediate
> excommunication?
I have no proof that you were listening to such and such.
Tom S.
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:an4li0$pgo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
Hey, Fred! I'm taking my daughter (my version of "Family Values") to a
Rammstein concert here in Phoenix in October; should I get another ticket
for you? :~)
Tom Scheeler
--
I have a lot of bad habits, but good cigars is my favorite.
Tony Donadio
> You have misunderstood the objection and devoted your reply to defending a
> thesis which has not been attacked. When one expresses disagreement with
the
> Objectivist moral condemnation of a given emotion, the reference is not to
> the mere emergence of the emotion but to the manner of dealing with the
> emotion. In order to deal with the objection you would have to claim that
> *the manner* in which one deals with emotions and validates them is immune
> from moral judgment.
You seem to have misunderstood the argument and devoted your reply to
attacking a thesis that has not been defended. Why on earth would I want to
claim something as ridiculous as that the manner in which one deals with
emotions should be immune to moral judgment? That thesis has nothing to do
with what was claimed in the post that started this thread or in any of the
posts that it lead to.
The way you phrase your objection makes me wonder if you are still not
understanding the point. There is no such thing as an "Objectivist moral
condemnation of a given emotion." The condemnation (if one is appropriate)
goes only to the (past) evaluations that give rise to it, and to the
(present) choice of how the person decides to deal with it. If these were or
are irrational and arrived at in an atmosphere of evasion, then that
*thinking* and *acting* were or are immoral. The emotion is morally neutral
in either case. You cannot package-deal emotions with how one chooses to
respond to them; these are different issues. If you want to argue about what
you think Objectivism says about *how to deal* with one's emotions, then go
for it. But don't characterize that as an "Objectivist moral condemnation"
of emotions. There's no such thing.
> However if you are an admirer, collector
> and promoter of abstract art, ...
Let me preface my response by saying that I think art is not the best choice
to illustrate these issues, because artistic preferences and emotional
responses to art are extremely complex and often based on value-judgments
that are very deep and difficult to identify by introspection without
enormous effort. Honest and rational people often disagree vehemently over
such issues (I've seen some beauts on OSG and HBL over movies, for example).
Esthetic emotions are probably the worst-case example; most emotions are
much easier to deal with. But, that said...
>... this affinity would be clearly in conflict with the realist
> approach to existence which is promoted by Objectivism.
> You would have to wonder about your metaphysical value
> judgments and your sense of life...
So what? Having a malevolent sense of life, or some philosophically
"non-optimal" metaphysical value-judgments, is not a _moral_ issue.
Objectivism does not and never has claimed that it is.
Let's omit that we're talking about Ayn Rand and abstract art to clear the
air of preconceptions for a moment, and just say it's "Type X" art. You
learn that a great philosopher you admire despised Type X art and that he or
she claims they can prove why it is objectively not a value. The situation
might give you reason to consider their argument, and to introspect and ask
yourself what it is that you're responding to in such art and whether those
things really are values; and if you rationally decide they are not, you
probably should decide to make a change (for example, to stop collecting
it). Consistently holding the conviction that it is no longer a value to you
will eventually cause your emotions to come in line with those beliefs and
change how you feel about it as well. That's how people change their lives
over time, Objectivist or otherwise, and with regard to any issue, not just
art.
As far as moral evaluations are concerned, you might ask yourself when and
why you decided that the things you like in Type X art were values and
whether or not you were being honest and rational about it. If you decide
you weren't, then you should judge yourself and make a commitment to being
more honest and rational in the future. If you decide that you made an
_honest_ mistake, then you should treat it accordingly. If you decide that
you weren't wrong and that these things are legitimate values, then you
should decide that you disagree with the philosopher's argument and stick to
your guns. If you evade in dealing with the issue in the present day, then
you are behaving immorally and should also be judged for it. But nowhere in
that mix is there any legitimacy to the idea that you should feel guilt or
moral blame in the current moment for actually *liking* Type X art. If you
approach the issue that way, you will head straight into the trap of
repression.
Having a benevolent sense of life or "good" metaphysical value judgments are
issues of _value_ and not _virtue_. These things are values to have because
they can help you to live your life more happily and more successfully. But
if you don't have them, then all that means is that you have some room to
grow in your life. It doesn't make you immoral.
> and you would be facing a conflict
> between your feelings and your beliefs.
Most people face such conflicts constantly in everyday life. So what? You
deal with it.
> There are real life examples of individuals whose
> personal relationships and literary tastes...
Literary tastes and personal relationships are not the same thing as
emotions. They're not unrelated, but they're not the same thing by a long
shot. Don't change the subject.
> ...have been condemned on a philosophical basis. That is fact
> and there is no point in trying to dance one's way around it.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Condemned by who? Ayn
Rand? And for what reason? Condemned morally, or esthetically? Your
accusation is just too vague to evaluate. If you want me to answer, please
clarify what you mean -- and be explicit and give examples, backed up by
evidence. I suspect that you're just promulgating more "Objectivist legends"
with this, but I'll give you a hearing and a response if you can give a
straight, no-spin answer.
Regarding art: I never knew Ayn Rand, but I do know many people who did know
her. All of them have described her as being quite willing to accept
differences of esthetic opinion, *when they were offered with reasons*. It
was the kind of person who bristled at the _idea_ of being asked for the
_reasons_ why they liked something, that I have been told that Ayn Rand
found cause to disdain. In such cases she would have been both consistent
and justified, because she would have been objecting not to their esthetic
emotions but to the whim-worshipping way in which they were developed and
held.
Anyway, to get to the heart of your issue: if you think there's something
wrong with how Objectivism says you should _deal_ with your emotions, then
a) state what you think Objectivism actually _says_ on this score, and b)
what you think is wrong with it. So far, you haven't -- at least, not
clearly.
Tony Donadio
news:Onkl9.2597$jj2...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What concerns me is not so much what the Randroids
> enjoy as art, but which art genres they have to give
> up when joining the cult. Rock and roll for instance.
> Or at least, you don't want to be caught listening to it.
> Rock and roll is whim-oriented anarchy; classical
> music is at least in principle mind-oriented, rational.
What nonsense! Malenor, you truly don't have a CLUE as to what you're
talking about.
I know plenty of hard-core, ARI-supporting Objectivists who like rock and
roll. They have no qualms about stating it openly and certainly don't get
morally denounced for it, or told that they should "change their ways or get
out." That includes a lot of Rush fans, a band that isn't exactly noted for
being musically tame. What dimension are you living in?
My own tastes tend to range over a lot of different types of music, from
classical to easy listening to some rock as well. So if I admit publicly,
for example, that I happened to have been listening to some Heart and Jethro
Tull this morning, how does that square with your idiotic prejudices that
Objectivists have to give up or hide liking rock and roll music? Please
explain; I'm really curious.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Xkl9.2644$jj2....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Malenoid reaches for new depths of moronness.
It wouldn't matter anyway because you could never be sure of whatever
evidence was provided. It's even questionable, isn't it, if I can be sure
what I was listening to? I might have just thought I was listening to rock
music (the "phenomena") when actually I was listening to Gregorian chants
(the "noumena").
I know. I know. That's just innuendo. No one really knows what Kant actually
believed about anything. And why not? Why shouldn't he be as unintelligible
as the world which he imagines we live in?
But none of this matters because I will shortly be denounced by the other
Objectivists in the group for being a whim-oriented anarchist. Then when the
word reaches ARI I will be excommunicated. Also watch my web page. In a few
weeks I should be out of business as word gets out that, oh my God, Fred
Weiss actually likes...could it be..please don't say its true....rock music.
(What's even worse is that I also like Beethoven...and even worse,
Mozart...so I'm doubly, even triply, damned).
Woe is me!
Fred Weiss
Tony Donadio
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:an4li0$pgo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I cracked up when I read this because I just happen
> > to be listening to a rock station as I write this...
>
> I have no proof that you were listening to such and such.
ROTFL!
This, I submit, ends the discussion. Faced with counter-evidence to his
blind, ignorant, dogmatic prejudice that ARI-supporting Objectivists MUST be
too "cultish" to ever publicly admit to listening to rock music (since,
after all, Ayn Rand disapproved of it so strongly), Malenor simply retreats
into denial. I expect next that he will be refusing to believe my post about
listening to Tull this morning as well.
Of course (and it's probably just cruel of me to point this out, since
Malenor's already made such a fool of himself), the mere fact that Fred and
I were willing to say this publicly refutes his dogma, even if his denial
fantasy were correct and we were lying. After all, this is a public forum!
Someone might see our posts and forward them to ARI or to Leonard Peikoff,
and then we'd be summarily excommunicated from the Objectivist movement for
sanctioning immoral music!
As this post makes undeniably clear, Objectivism-bashers like Malenor are
living in a DREAMWORLD when it comes to the Objectivist movement. They
invent fantasies and rationalizations about us that have no relationship to
reality to justify their blind hatred of us, and they refuse to let
themselves see and cannot cope with the truth even when it smacks them in
the face. My thanks to him for providing such a clear and irrefutable
demonstration of the issues I've been trying to raise on this thread. All I
can say is QED.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Xkl9.2644$jj2....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:an4li0$pgo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > > I cracked up when I read this because I just happen
> > > to be listening to a rock station as I write this...
> >
> > I have no proof that you were listening to such and such.
>
> ROTFL!
>
Freddy offered no proof that he was doing such and
such. No proof -- par for the course for Randroids.
Malenor
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Xkl9.2644$jj2....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:an4li0$pgo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Woe is me!
>
> Fred Weiss
>
Blah blah blah...
Malenor
> My own tastes tend to range over a lot of different types of music, from
> classical to easy listening to some rock as well. So if I admit publicly,
> for example, that I happened to have been listening to some Heart and
Jethro
> Tull this morning, how does that square with your idiotic prejudices that
> Objectivists have to give up or hide liking rock and roll music? Please
> explain; I'm really curious.
If they are idiotic prejudices then they should get along well with your
idiotic anti-Kant prejudices.
By the way, your tastes in rock music are outdated.
Malenor
> The way you phrase your objection makes me wonder if you are still not
> understanding the point. There is no such thing as an "Objectivist moral
> condemnation of a given emotion."
There is a difference between the principles of Objectivism and
the cultish religious principles upheld by the ARI.
I have never attacked Objectivism, myself. I have criticized
it, but not attacked. Perhaps Objectivism can be repaired.
But what is standing in the way of progress with this theory?
Randroidism; ARI McCarthyism.
Tony Donadio
> By the way, your tastes in rock music are outdated.
Yep, they are. I prefer classic rock.
Tony Donadio
> There is a difference between the principles of Objectivism and
> the cultish religious principles upheld by the ARI.
Oh, you mean cultish religious principles like "thou shalt not like rock
music?"
I think we've already established that "the cultish religious principles
upheld by the ARI" are a series of paranoid (or should I say "Malenoid")
delusions that only exist nowhere but in the minds of Malenor others like
him.
Malenor
I've been on a Beatles kick lately -- in between listening to Stormtroopers
of Death and the like.
Malenor
> I think we've already established that "the cultish religious principles
> upheld by the ARI" are a series of paranoid (or should I say "Malenoid")
> delusions that only exist nowhere but in the minds of Malenor others like
> him.
I didn't really expect you to divulge the secret rituals and strange inner
workings of your cult anyway.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qtol9.2899$jj2...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Blah blah blah...
A pretty good rendition of the Critique of Pure Reason.
Fred Wiess
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ttol9.2900$jj2....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think it's time for your encounter group.
http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zombenco.html
When you return to sanity, feel free to rejoin us.
Fred Weiss
Acar
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:an4li0$pgo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You may have the wrong sense of life and not know it. Or you may not have
completely integrated the implications of your beliefs in regard to the kind
of tastes and emotions that expected from a "rational" set of values. :-)) A
lot of Objectivists enjoy a lot of things that they shouldn't and don't even
know that they're going to hell for it. Objectivism is a very prescriptive
philosophy because reason, as applied by Rand, is intransigently
prescriptive. I suspect that a rock and roll aficionado has much to
understand about Objectivism.
x
x
x
x
Malenor
Just another Freddy "Re: one-liner."
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jTol9.2907$jj2....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I didn't really expect you to divulge the secret rituals and strange inner
> workings of your cult anyway.
Malenoid offers no proof. No proof -- par for the course for a Malenoid.
Fred Weiss
Malenor
> Malenoid offers no proof. No proof -- par for the course for a Malenoid.
>
> Fred Weiss
>
Proof of what, Freddie?
Malenor
>
> You may have the wrong sense of life and not know it. Or you may not have
> completely integrated the implications of your beliefs in regard to the
kind
> of tastes and emotions that expected from a "rational" set of values. :-))
A
> lot of Objectivists enjoy a lot of things that they shouldn't and don't
even
> know that they're going to hell for it. Objectivism is a very prescriptive
> philosophy because reason, as applied by Rand, is intransigently
> prescriptive. I suspect that a rock and roll aficionado has much to
> understand about Objectivism.
>
Agreed. The Randroids here have not sufficiently integrated their
Objectivist principles, and need to be brought into the fold more
thoroughly. They haven't learned that aesthetics, like their morality,
is a strictly black and white Objectivist school of thought.
For every issue that a Randroid confronts, no matter how tiny
and insignificant it may seem, the first thing he should ask himself is:
Do I want to live, or to die? Since a philosophical system such as
Objectivism is an integrated whole, this question runs as a thread
throughout the 5 levels of their hierarchy, from the metaphysics
to the aesthetics.
For example, when a Randroid finds himself at the music CD display,
he should thoroughly examine each individual artist and genre,
and ask himself: is this genre promoting life, or death? Is this
artist's message malevolent, or life-enhancing?
The choice is yours.
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:repl9.17258$Cz.21...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> You may have the wrong sense of life and not know it.
It's highly doubtful that there is such a thing as a "wrong" sense of life,
at least within a certain range.
You know, Carmichael, one of these days you might actually read something
Ayn Rand wrote so that you might be able to occasionally claim that you know
what you are talking about when you pontificate about Objectivism.
Fred Weiss
Acar
When Rand expressed disapproval of Beethoven's sense of life, as reported
here, I get a clear implication that in her opinion, it did not arise from
rationally oriented metaphysical value judgmnets. That can not be good.
To the best of my knowledge Rand never wrote that positive sanction of
emotions such as the enjoyment, collection and promotion of abstract art is
immune from moral judgement, which is John's claim. Contrary to you, John
has attempted to correct me, but so far his argument is inconsistent with
other reports and instructions that I receive from time about Objectivism.
Tony Donadio
>
> "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:UKnl9.4257$9d3.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> > that Objectivists have to give up or hide liking rock and roll music?
>
> idiotic anti-Kant prejudices.
Don't change the subject. Answer the question, if you're not a coward.
Malenor
Lol, you were watching "Back to the Future part 3" perhaps? The bully always
goads Michael J. Fox into fighting by calling him "yeller" or "chicken."
"Nobody calls me chicken..."
Objectivists who like music banned by the cult are phonies or
hypocrites, not real Objectivists. Randroids perhaps, but
not Objectivists.
Acar
> understanding the point. There is no such thing as an "Objectivist moral
> condemnation of a given emotion." The condemnation (if one is appropriate)
Condemnation by whom? That is the question that you ask from me below, yet
from your reference here it appears that the question asked below is
argumentative.
> goes only to the (past) evaluations that give rise to it, and to the
> (present) choice of how the person decides to deal with it. If these were
or
> are irrational and arrived at in an atmosphere of evasion, then that
> *thinking* and *acting* were or are immoral. The emotion is morally
neutral
> in either case. You cannot package-deal emotions with how one chooses to
> respond to them; these are different issues. If you want to argue about
what
> you think Objectivism says about *how to deal* with one's emotions, then
go
> for it. But don't characterize that as an "Objectivist moral condemnation"
> of emotions. There's no such thing.
There is no misunderstanding. I already explained that the inappropriate
moral condemnation is a condemnation of the manner in which certain
allegedly irrational emotions are *embraced and indulged.*
> > However if you are an admirer, collector
> > and promoter of abstract art, ...
>
> Let me preface my response by saying that I think art is not the best
choice
> to illustrate these issues,...
Esthetics is one of the branches of Objectivism and Rand is credited with
revolutionizing the concept of esthetics. Art appeals to emotion and thus it
is a perfect choice for a discussion of the relation between reason and
emotion, when morality is defined in terms of reason.
> >... this affinity would be clearly in conflict with the realist
> > approach to existence which is promoted by Objectivism.
> > You would have to wonder about your metaphysical value
> > judgments and your sense of life...
>
> So what? Having a malevolent sense of life, or some philosophically
> "non-optimal" metaphysical value-judgments, is not a _moral_ issue.
> Objectivism does not and never has claimed that it is.
>
This expression is at odds with a theory that hangs good or evil on rational
or irrational, having defined rationality in terms of metaphysical value
judgments. This is one of the reasons why I say that your claims are
mutually inconsistent. Malevolence is regarded as anti-life and thus very
much a moral issue. According to O. a sense of life does not configure
itself at random. It emerges from metaphysical value judgments. Metaphysical
value judgments are the parameters of good and evil (reason and unreason).
Thus an abiding affinity for abstract art is a moral issue, regardless of
your non-contributory explanation of how a good student of Objectivism would
try to deal with it (to get rid of it. Out, damn spot!) To any such
introspector I wish the best of luck. How does it differ from
self-brain-washing?
The basic problem which you are talking around is the idealized objective of
putting art preferences on an objective basis. It is an assault on
individual freedom based on a fallacy.
> As far as moral evaluations are concerned, you might ask yourself when and
> why you decided that the things you like in Type X art were values and
> whether or not you were being honest and rational about it. If you decide
> you weren't, then you should judge yourself and make a commitment to being
> more honest and rational in the future.
If it is not a moral issue why question it? Perhaps you are forgetting that
O. morality is about rationality. Questioning the life enhancing value of an
emotion is already a moral question, by O. This is in open contradiction to
your claim. You say that it is not a moral issue but that you would do well
to determine if it is rational or life enhancing. It is not a camel but it
is a camel.
> that mix is there any legitimacy to the idea that you should feel guilt or
> moral blame in the current moment for actually *liking* Type X art. If you
> approach the issue that way, you will head straight into the trap of
> repression.
You are relying on an artificial distinction between raising a moral issue
with and without blame or guilt.. First you have to raise the moral issue,
then you decide to introspect. At what point you use the terms "blame" or
"guilt" is a contrived distraction.
> Having a benevolent sense of life or "good" metaphysical value judgments
are
> issues of _value_ and not _virtue_.
But O virtues are about values. And life is the highest value and it is the
axis of morality.
Metaphysical value judgments (a person's views about reality, existence) is
what Objectivism is about. Objectivist morality claims to be a reality based
(metaphysical-based) morality. Rand went to great pains to conclude that
life as the highest value is a reality (metaphysically) based concept. It
would be difficult to deny that Objectivist morality hinges on metaphysical
value judgments. It is those judgments that establish (by O) life as the
standard of morality.
> Literary tastes and personal relationships are not the same thing as
> emotions. They're not unrelated, but they're not the same thing by a long
> shot. Don't change the subject.
Whoa! Love is not an emotion? And how is liking Kafka or Poe different from
liking Beethoven or Aerosmith? Literature is not art? Didn't you have an
emotional response to The Fountainhead?
> > ...have been condemned on a philosophical basis. That is fact
> > and there is no point in trying to dance one's way around it.
>
> I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Condemned by who? Ayn
> Rand? And for what reason? Condemned morally, or esthetically? Your
> accusation is just too vague to evaluate.
You already agreed that there may be condemnation in some circumstances. See
above.
> Regarding art: I never knew Ayn Rand, but I do know many people who did
know
> her. All of them have described her as being quite willing to accept
> differences of esthetic opinion, *when they were offered with reasons*. It
> was the kind of person who bristled at the _idea_ of being asked for the
> _reasons_ why they liked something, that I have been told that Ayn Rand
> found cause to disdain. In such cases she would have been both consistent
> and justified, because she would have been objecting not to their esthetic
> emotions but to the whim-worshipping way in which they were developed and
> held.
I don't see any reason why being able to justify your tastes should be a
moral issue. I agree with you when you say that it shouldn't be. But here
you say that to Rand, it was, and that you agree with her.
> Anyway, to get to the heart of your issue: if you think there's something
> wrong with how Objectivism says you should _deal_ with your emotions, then
> a) state what you think Objectivism actually _says_ on this score, and b)
> what you think is wrong with it. So far, you haven't -- at least, not
> clearly.
Objectivism says that rational thinkers, as a by-product of their
rationality, will experience certain emotions but not others. In view of the
kind of emotions which are expected, this is false. It condemns emotional
responses that do not conform to its peculiar version of reality based life
enhancing choices.
Tony Donadio
> Agreed. The Randroids here have not sufficiently integrated their
> Objectivist principles, and need to be brought into the fold more
> thoroughly. They haven't learned that aesthetics, like their morality,
> is a strictly black and white Objectivist school of thought.
and
> Objectivists who like music banned by the cult are phonies or
> hypocrites, not real Objectivists. Randroids perhaps, but
> not Objectivists.
Oh, this is just RICH! Now I'm being denounced, not for acting like a cult
member, but for *not* acting like a cult member!
This is really amazing. Never in my most morbid imaginings did I expected to
see such naked evasion on this issue being exercised in public.
Let me be crystal clear here. I didn't just say that I like some rock music.
I said that I know many Objectivists who like rock music. Not wayward
"fringe" Objectivists, who need to be "brought into the fold," but ARI
supporters who are active, well known and well thought of in the movement,
op-ed writers and officers of Objectivist clubs and so on, who aren't
"excommunicated" (whatever that means) by anyone. I'm saying that rock music
has been played at Objectivist conference dances, and that I've danced to it
alongside prominent Objectivist intellectuals and even officers of the Ayn
Rand Institute. I said that "liking the right kind of music" and having the
"right kind of emotions" are NOT considered by Objectivism or by anyone who
actually *understands* it to be moral issues, and I explained why in some
detail.
And yet we still see believers in the myth of the Objectivist "cult" here
clinging to their stories, in full-blown denial against facts of reality
that they obviously have no firsthand knowledge of themselves. After getting
caught red-handed falsely claiming that we promote repression and demand
conformity on musical tastes, and getting laughed at for trotting out
Beethoven and rock and roll music as "obvious" examples, we now see Acar and
Malenor stubbornly closing their minds to evidence that the "Randroids" they
denounce don't actually accept the dogmas they ascribe to us. Obviously, we
must be phonies, hypocrites and exceptions, because they just *know* that we
belong to a cult and that it bans some of the kind of music we like. And
most amazing of all, admitting that they might actually be *wrong* about us
or our ideas, or that they might have misinterpreted Ayn Rand's writings on
these issues, never seems to occur to them as a possibility.
At a certain point, naked evasion like this becomes embarrassing to comment
on further.
Tony Donadio
With my last posts, I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion for a
while. I've got some large assignments due next week and I need to focus my
attention on getting them done. (Contrary to some of Malenor's
"inappropriate psychologizing," I really don't have time to waste on
unproductive discussions. If he doesn't get that, then perhaps he should try
combining working on a physics degree with a full-time systems engineering
career and see what it's like.)
I'll check in next weekend when the smoke clears to see if anything worth
responding to has appeared -- though I'm not sanguine given what I've seen
so far.
Malenor
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. The Randroids here have not sufficiently integrated their
> > Objectivist principles, and need to be brought into the fold more
> > thoroughly. They haven't learned that aesthetics, like their morality,
> > is a strictly black and white Objectivist school of thought.
>
> and
>
> > Objectivists who like music banned by the cult are phonies or
> > hypocrites, not real Objectivists. Randroids perhaps, but
> > not Objectivists.
>
> Oh, this is just RICH! Now I'm being denounced, not for acting like a cult
> member, but for *not* acting like a cult member!
>
They have apparently relaxed their standards. But that's no excuse for
your backsliding. 'Rand' is watching...
> This is really amazing. Never in my most morbid imaginings did I expected
to
> see such naked evasion on this issue being exercised in public.
>
That wouldn't be an "evasion" at any rate. Is that your word for the week?
Next week: egoism.
> Let me be crystal clear here. I didn't just say that I like some rock
music.
> I said that I know many Objectivists who like rock music. Not wayward
> "fringe" Objectivists, who need to be "brought into the fold," but ARI
> supporters who are active, well known and well thought of in the movement,
> op-ed writers and officers of Objectivist clubs and so on, who aren't
> "excommunicated" (whatever that means) by anyone. I'm saying that rock
music
> has been played at Objectivist conference dances, and that I've danced to
it
> alongside prominent Objectivist intellectuals and even officers of the Ayn
> Rand Institute. I said that "liking the right kind of music" and having
the
> "right kind of emotions" are NOT considered by Objectivism or by anyone
who
> actually *understands* it to be moral issues, and I explained why in some
> detail.
>
Did they play any Stormtroopers of Death? Nirvana? Marilyn Manson?
No, but I'm sure they did play some music that the cult leaders at the
ARI (Peikoff and his circle) considered acceptable.
> And yet we still see believers in the myth of the Objectivist "cult" here
> clinging to their stories, in full-blown denial against facts of reality
> that they obviously have no firsthand knowledge of themselves. After
getting
> caught red-handed falsely claiming that we promote repression and demand
> conformity on musical tastes, and getting laughed at for trotting out
> Beethoven and rock and roll music as "obvious" examples,
No, you merely denied that Objectivism promotes repression, and stated that
neither you nor your friends promote repression. But apparently your
leaders don't want you to be too repressed. I wonder, which music is
unacceptable at those meetings and such? As an aside, I wonder if
*non-smoking* is allowed.
> we now see Acar and
> Malenor stubbornly closing their minds to evidence that the "Randroids"
they
> denounce don't actually accept the dogmas they ascribe to us. Obviously,
we
> must be phonies, hypocrites and exceptions, because they just *know* that
we
> belong to a cult and that it bans some of the kind of music we like. And
> most amazing of all, admitting that they might actually be *wrong* about
us
> or our ideas, or that they might have misinterpreted Ayn Rand's writings
on
> these issues, never seems to occur to them as a possibility.
>
Do you belong to a cult? Perhaps not, but the effects are the same as a
cult:
brainwashing, manipulation, psychology, pinning all one's hopes on a "great
leader" with a powerful personality whose ideas one dares not question.
> At a certain point, naked evasion like this becomes embarrassing to
comment
> on further.
It is always amusing to see you using Randroid terminology like "evasion,"
and
to watch you attempt to emulate your personal heroine and savior "Ayn Rand"
in other ways, while at the same time hearing you deny your repressive
Randroidism.
Betsy Speicher
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Fred Weiss wrote:
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
[Fred admits to listening to Rock music.]
> But none of this matters because I will shortly be denounced by the
> other Objectivists in the group for being a whim-oriented anarchist.
> Then when the word reaches ARI I will be excommunicated. Also watch my
> web page. In a few weeks I should be out of business as word gets out
> that, oh my God, Fred Weiss actually likes...could it be..please don't
> say its true....rock music. (What's even worse is that I also like
> Beethoven...and even worse, Mozart...so I'm doubly, even triply,
> damned).
>
> Woe is me!
Woe is Leonard Peikoff! He loves Beethoven and Mozart too.
Woe is ARI! They sanction Rock and Roll. In fact, paid a wild and wooly
Rock group, The Fenwicks <http://www.thefenwicks.com>, to perform at last
year's Campus Club student conference. (See Amy Peikoff's comments at
<http://www.thefenwicks.com/comments/>).
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.4cybernet.com/
Malenor
"Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02092...@shell.forethought.net...
>
> Woe is ARI! They sanction Rock and Roll. In fact, paid a wild and wooly
> Rock group, The Fenwicks <http://www.thefenwicks.com>, to perform at last
> year's Campus Club student conference. (See Amy Peikoff's comments at
> <http://www.thefenwicks.com/comments/>).
>
Thank G*D their name wasn't "Atlas Shrugged"!
Tony Donadio
tomorrow...
> As an aside, I wonder if *non-smoking* is allowed.
It gets even better! Now we're being treated to the "thou shalt smoke
cigarettes" myth!
I hate to burst Malenoid's little bubble of paranoid cult rationalizations,
but very few Objectivists smoke these days. I know some, but probably not
more than a dozen or so. And my wife and I run a large club in New York and
regularly interact with scores of Objectivists, so I have some idea what I'm
talking about. From my experience fewer Objectivists smoke than in the
general population these days. I sure don't.
> Do you belong to a cult? Perhaps not, but the effects are the same as a
> cult: brainwashing, manipulation, psychology, pinning all one's hopes on
> a "great leader" with a powerful personality whose ideas one dares not
> question.
To quote Spock, "a difference that makes no difference, is no difference."
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and if it
doesn't, it's not. The same goes for cults and their attributes. But we've
already established that Malenor's track record of identifying the actual
attitudes and attributes of Objectivists in the real world leaves -- well, a
little something to be desired, shall we say. His little list above is about
in keeping with his current batting average.
Acar
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And yet we still see believers in the myth of the Objectivist "cult" here
> clinging to their stories, in full-blown denial against facts of reality
> that they obviously have no firsthand knowledge of themselves. After
getting
> caught red-handed falsely claiming that we promote repression and demand
> conformity on musical tastes, and getting laughed at for trotting out
> Beethoven and rock and roll music as "obvious" examples, we now see Acar
and
> Malenor stubbornly closing their minds to evidence that the "Randroids"
they
> denounce don't actually accept the dogmas they ascribe to us. Obviously,
we
> must be phonies, hypocrites and exceptions, because they just *know* that
we
> belong to a cult and that it bans some of the kind of music we like. And
> most amazing of all, admitting that they might actually be *wrong* about
us
> or our ideas, or that they might have misinterpreted Ayn Rand's writings
on
> these issues, never seems to occur to them as a possibility.
Are you the one person who understands Objectivism as well as Rand? Have you
spent hundreds of hours discussing in depth all aspects of Objectivism one
on one with Rand? Did you ever sleep with her? Have you separated yourself
from Objectivism so that you can look at it critically? Forgive me if I
discount your opinion of the teachings of Objectivism when you disagree with
Nathaniel Branden.
x
x
x
x
Matt Ruff
>
> "Malenor" wrote:
>
>> Was I attacking you?
>
> Yes, you were. I'm one of those Objectivists that supports ARI, so your
> ignorant slander included me. The truth is that it's been widely understood
> among us for decades that emotions are not subject to moral evaluation and
> that repression is not a healthy thing.
And how do you feel about that?
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff
>
> Let's omit that we're talking about Ayn Rand and abstract art to clear the
> air of preconceptions for a moment, and just say it's "Type X" art. You
> learn that a great philosopher you admire despised Type X art and that he or
> she claims they can prove why it is objectively not a value.
At this point I recognize that the great philosopher is a crank, at
least where the subject of art is concerned. Which isn't to say I
wouldn't want to hear her proof. It might be entertaining.
-- M. Ruff
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:sztl9.17782$Cz.23...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> When Rand expressed disapproval of Beethoven's sense of life, ...
When did she ever express "disapproval" of Beethoven's alleged sense of
life?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:dXwl9.18140$Cz.24...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>...Forgive me if I
> discount your opinion of the teachings of Objectivism when you disagree
with
> Nathaniel Branden.
Excuse us. Next time we'll have to check to see if our opinions are in
accord with Branden before we dare present them. Not having read anything by
Ayn Rand yourself, Branden has become your authority figure on the subject?
And why him? If you're looking for authority figures, why not Peikoff, who
knew her longer and who certainly grasped the philosophy far, far better
than did Branden? How do you decide which authority figure you will use to
substitute for your own judgement?
Fred Weiss
Jason Lockwood
> roll. They have no qualms about stating it openly and certainly don't get
> morally denounced for it, or told that they should "change their ways or
get
> out." That includes a lot of Rush fans, a band that isn't exactly noted
for
> being musically tame. What dimension are you living in?
Count me in as another example of a ARI donor who digs a fair amount of rock
music. Geez, I just saw Rush in Phoenix this Friday evening (9/27/02) and
no, they ain't tame! I've been a fan since the 1970s, long before I ever
discovered Ayn Rand. I never saw any reason to give up my musical taste once
I did start reading (and integrating) her philosophy.
Did I acquire some new tastes? You bet, but to this day, Rachmaninov is not
my favorite composer -- Dvorak is. So damn me to Objectivist hell and
excommunicate me, too!
-Jason Lockwood
Tony Donadio
you
> spent hundreds of hours discussing in depth all aspects of Objectivism one
> on one with Rand? Did you ever sleep with her? Have you separated yourself
> from Objectivism so that you can look at it critically? Forgive me if I
> discount your opinion of the teachings of Objectivism when you disagree
with
> Nathaniel Branden.
Oh, you mean the guy who admitted that he lied to Ayn Rand and to a number
of other people systematically over the course of years? The guy who has an
obvious axe to grind on the matter? Of course he's a reliable source to take
on faith, regardless of whether his claims pass the smell test.
Forgive me if I discount YOUR opinion, when it's based on nothing but
hearsay from such a self-admitted liar, no firsthand experience of your own,
and when it contradicts a decade and a half of my own firsthand experience
with Objectivists, with the Objectivist movement, and with studying the
philosophy. If you think that invoking blind faith in Nathaniel Branden's
words constitutes a counter-argument to that, then you've just refuted
yourself for me.
BTW, yes, I DID separate myself from Objectivism so that I could look at it
critically. I mentioned this in one of my initial posts in reply to Malenor
on this thread.
P.S. My apologies for breaking my "I've gotta get to work" rule, but this
was quick and I had a few minutes this morning before getting started.
Tony Donadio
> Excuse us. Next time we'll have to check to see if our opinions are in
> accord with Branden before we dare present them. Not having read anything
by
> Ayn Rand yourself, Branden has become your authority figure on the
subject?
> And why him? If you're looking for authority figures, why not Peikoff, who
> knew her longer and who certainly grasped the philosophy far, far better
> than did Branden? How do you decide which authority figure you will use to
> substitute for your own judgement?
That's easy, Fred. You choose the one that gives you the best
rationalizations for your hostility toward the people that you want to hate.
Robert Kolker
IMS in one of her articles in the Newsletter. Unfortunately I no longer
have them (I gave them to an Objectivist I met out in Colorado). Perhaps
someone who still has them could check this out.
Bob Kolker
Malenor
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:dXwl9.18140$Cz.24...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > Are you the one person who understands Objectivism as well as Rand? Have
> you
> > spent hundreds of hours discussing in depth all aspects of Objectivism
one
> > on one with Rand? Did you ever sleep with her? Have you separated
yourself
> > from Objectivism so that you can look at it critically? Forgive me if I
> > discount your opinion of the teachings of Objectivism when you disagree
> with
> > Nathaniel Branden.
>
> Oh, you mean the guy who admitted that he lied to Ayn Rand and to a number
> of other people systematically over the course of years?
Why is it that a "systematic" lie is worse than a non-systematic lie? This
thread
gets funnier (and better) each day.
By the way, "To Whom It May Concern" was the biggest pack of
lies ever written by an intellectual.
> The guy who has an obvious axe to grind on the matter?
If NB had an axe to grind he could have done much, much worse
than what he has done, and that is, merely write and give lectures
on the subject. Whoopie.
>Of course he's a reliable source to take
> on faith, regardless of whether his claims pass the smell test.
>
> Forgive me if I discount YOUR opinion, when it's based on nothing but
> hearsay from such a self-admitted liar,
Lying which "Rand" herself took part in.
> no firsthand experience of your own,
> and when it contradicts a decade and a half of my own firsthand experience
> with Objectivists, with the Objectivist movement, and with studying the
> philosophy.
Having firsthand experience with your brother and sister cultists
doesn't prove much.
> If you think that invoking blind faith in Nathaniel Branden's
> words constitutes a counter-argument to that, then you've just refuted
> yourself for me.
>
Blind faith, blind faith... someone put a towel over the parrot cage please!
> BTW, yes, I DID separate myself from Objectivism so that I could look at
it
> critically. I mentioned this in one of my initial posts in reply to
Malenor
> on this thread.
>
No, you gave up the religion after a Branden lecture, then after
some time went by you made some kind of egregious error, which
you blamed on yourself for having backslid from your religion.
> P.S. My apologies for breaking my "I've gotta get to work" rule, but this
> was quick and I had a few minutes this morning before getting started.
Couldn't resist, could ya?
Malenor
"Jason Lockwood" <ja...@lockwood.nu> wrote in message
news:updihj6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Did I acquire some new tastes? You bet, but to this day, Rachmaninov is
not
> my favorite composer -- Dvorak is. So damn me to Objectivist hell and
> excommunicate me, too!
>
> -Jason Lockwood
>
Backslider....
dave odden
any composer (of course that is not an exhaustive search). A Navigator
interview with Alexandra York refers to Rand's "off-hand denunciation of
Beethoven. To be fair, if I remember correctly (I was in the audience), she
said only that his "sense of life" was the opposite of hers" <quote from AY
interview>. This does not seem to me to be a clear indication of her
personal opinion of Beethoven's music.
The only reason I can imagine that she failed to definitively decide that
Beethoven was evil or good (or that Mozart was evil or good), from an
Objectivist viewpoint, is that it ain't so and she knew it: she essentially
says as much in "Art and Cognition", in disclaiming scientific knowledge of
how music invokes emotions. My brief discussions with cognitive
ethnomusicologists suggests that they are not generally interested in
constructing a restrictive theory, and are happy with simply describing
what's there.
Fred Weiss
"dave odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:a%Fl9.19484$kF.19...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> I cannot locate any written statement by Rand approving or disapproving of
> any composer (of course that is not an exhaustive search). A Navigator
> interview with Alexandra York refers to Rand's "off-hand denunciation of
> Beethoven. To be fair, if I remember correctly (I was in the audience),
she
> said only that his "sense of life" was the opposite of hers" <quote from
AY
> interview>.
This is all quite different from a "denunciation" of Beethoven or
"disappoval" of his "sense of life".
>This does not seem to me to be a clear indication of her
> personal opinion of Beethoven's music.
Oh, it's a clear indication of her "personal opinion". She didn't like
Beethoven's music and has said why. She didn't like the sense of life he
projected.
> The only reason I can imagine that she failed to definitively decide that
> Beethoven was evil or good (or that Mozart was evil or good), from an
> Objectivist viewpoint, is that...
...it is not part of the issue of evaluating their music at all.
To anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding this issue, I
recommend Mary Ann Sures and Charles Sures recent book, "Facets of Ayn
Rand", especially the section where Mary Ann and Sue Ludel try and explain
to Ayn Rand why they loved Frank Sinatra (Ayn Rand didn't).
Fred Weiss
dave odden
> >This does not seem to me to be a clear indication of her
> > personal opinion of Beethoven's music.
> Oh, it's a clear indication of her "personal opinion". She didn't like
> Beethoven's music and has said why. She didn't like the sense of life he
> projected.
This is interesting. In the antecedent post, your retort to Acar was "When
did she ever express "disapproval" of Beethoven's alleged sense of life?".
In this post, you assert that she didn't like the sense of life he
projected. Does this indicate that you've come in possession of new
information in the past 9 hours? Or was that simply a tongue-in-cheek
challenge to Acar to do the research?
Did Rand ever put an evaluation of Beethoven's music on paper (or do such
comments exist on tape), and can you tell me where? The Alexandra York quote
is the most substantive evidence that I've seen, and statements like "if I
remember correctly" and "she only said" do not constitute clear evidence.
I'm not trying to impugn York's credibility, I'm saying that her report
falls into the category of "recollections" and not rock-solid testimony. If
more people had witnessed this (or similar statements) then it would be
evidence that Rand did have this opinion. At any rate, I assume that you
accept York's statement as an accurate report of events (I don't know *why*
you would, given the tenor of her comments).
The statement attributed to Rand does not specifically impute a rejection of
Beethoven's music: that is, it does not say that "Beethoven's music portrays
a poor sense of life". If she had said that, the conclusion would be much
clearer.
Are you saying that "Facets of Ayn Rand" contains quotes from Rand that make
her evaluation of Beethoven's music clear? Or are you saying that her
opinion is so well-known that it is not necessary to demonstrate what her
view was?
Acar
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:an6g0j$p02$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
There you go again, whipping ghosts. I said that if John's version of a
specific Objectivist position is the diametric opposite of Branden's I will
believe Branden for the reasons mentioned. As to whether Branden understands
Ayn Rand's ideas, I have no way of knowing except by the testimony of Ayn
Rand. She said he did, you say he doesn't and there you are. Who to believe?
x
x
x
Tony Donadio
> Did Rand ever put an evaluation of Beethoven's music on paper (or do such
> comments exist on tape), and can you tell me where?
It's in the question period to her taped lecture, _The Age of Mediocrity_.
Acar
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:dXwl9.18140$Cz.24...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > Are you the one person who understands Objectivism as well as Rand? Have
> you
> > spent hundreds of hours discussing in depth all aspects of Objectivism
one
> > on one with Rand? Did you ever sleep with her? Have you separated
yourself
> > from Objectivism so that you can look at it critically? Forgive me if I
> > discount your opinion of the teachings of Objectivism when you disagree
> with
> > Nathaniel Branden.
>
> Oh, you mean the guy who admitted that he lied to Ayn Rand and to a number
> of other people systematically over the course of years?
Yes. The man who hid his other affair from Rand even as Rand was hiding hers
from her followers. He lied pretty much like Rand lied to her followers as
to the cause for his excommunication. I would not use the fact that Rand
lied to herself and to others as proof that she did not understand her own
ideas. Branden's lies to Rand gave him an even more extended opportunity to
discuss her ideas with her, so your argument favors my claim.
>The guy who has an
> obvious axe to grind on the matter? Of course he's a reliable source to
take
> on faith, regardless of whether his claims pass the smell test.
Branden's accounts of the incidents in question have been judged believable
by impartial observers. The fact that you have an axe to grind balances the
equation as to who is believable by the axe test.
> Forgive me if I discount YOUR opinion,
You were forgiven since you responded for the first time to a post of mine.
>when it's based on nothing but
> hearsay from such a self-admitted liar, no firsthand experience of your
own,
> and when it contradicts a decade and a half of my own firsthand experience
> with Objectivists, with the Objectivist movement, and with studying the
> philosophy.
Yes, that's what I say. That his decade plus with Rand is more believable
than your decade and a half with books and "second handers." Makes sense?
>If you think that invoking blind faith in Nathaniel Branden's
> words constitutes a counter-argument to that, then you've just refuted
> yourself for me.
If you think that lies taint an argument you should not lie about what I
said. I have blind faith in no one, but on the specific issue of Objectivist
theory I gave reasons for choosing to believe one version over another. But
if lying about what I said gives you a sense of righteousness then you will
continue to do it, I suppose.
x
x
x
x
Acar
Dvorak was a very fine composer but he doesn't hold a candle to
Rachmaninoff, even as R. doesn't hold a candle to Mahler, Wagner, Richard
Strauss, Stravinsky, etc. It may be no coincidence that Rachmaninoff and
Dvorak write from the heart while the others mentioned are musical
intellectuals, as was Brahms, by the way. I don't see this as a conflict
between the heart and the mind but more as an issue of levels of complexity
and accesibility.
x
x
x
Fred Weiss
"dave odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:3ZGl9.19948$kF.19...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> > >This does not seem to me to be a clear indication of her
> > > personal opinion of Beethoven's music.
>
> > Oh, it's a clear indication of her "personal opinion". She didn't like
> > Beethoven's music and has said why. She didn't like the sense of life he
> > projected.
>
> This is interesting. In the antecedent post, your retort to Acar was "When
> did she ever express "disapproval" of Beethoven's alleged sense of life?".
> In this post, you assert that she didn't like the sense of life he
> projected.
There is truly something fundamentally wrong with your mind. It is not that
you are stupid. But you have this wierd mechanism for distorting what people
say. You should have yourself evaluated. You might represent some
interesting kind of psychological phenomenon.
In this instance note how you twist "disapproval" to mean the same thing as
"doesn't like".
Since I have had this experience with you before and just recently, I have
no desire to repeat it, so you can assume that this discussion is over.
Incidentally, I find it absolutely bizarre that you regard yourself as an
Objectivist. I can't even imagine the distortions and contortions you must
perform in your mind to come to that conclusion.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:xPHl9.20570$Cz.26...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Tony Donadio" <tdon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:MPBl9.19972$9d3.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > Forgive me if I discount YOUR opinion,
>
> You were forgiven since you responded for the first time to a post of
mine.
Which I rather suspect he has realized was a mistake as I have realized over
the years, since any discussion with you quickly ends up in deeper and
deeper sewers where one does not want to go.
Fred Weiss