Dr Allan Blumenthal
Randy Cech
Rand? by the Brandens. This book was written in 1962 long before the
Brandens and Ayn Rand had their differences.
In chapter 2 (Objectivism and Psychology)[page 65, footnote] young Nathaniel
Branden wrote:" I was very interested to learn from, four different students
attending my lectures on Objectivism in New York City, that they had come at
the specific advice of the psychiatrists who were treating them and who had
suggested that a study of objectivism would help them with their personal
problems. Some years ago, a Los Angeles psychiatrist told of the following
case: he had been treating an extremely unresponsive neurotic who suffered
from almost total passivity; then someone gave the patient a copy of THE
FOUNTAINHEAD; the patient was struck with the novel's emphasis on the
importance of man's creative faculty, he renewed his interest in a career he
had wanted earlier, and was thus started toward recovery. in New York City,
Dr Allan Blumenthal is doing very impressive work in applying Objectivist
principles to the treatment of anxiety disorders and character neuroses."
{all Typos mine}
What I would like to know from those of you who have been around for along
time (Betsy) is: Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal and his
work ? Was anything every published on his work in particular or on this
topic of applying Objectivist principles to psychiatry and psychology.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Randy Cech
R Lawrence
>What I would like to know from those of you who have been around for along
>time (Betsy) is: Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal and his
>work ? Was anything every published on his work in particular or on this
>topic of applying Objectivist principles to psychiatry and psychology.
FWIW, Allan Blumenthal was a cousin of Branden's.
He served as an Associate Lecturer at the Nathaniel Branden Institute for
several years, until Rand broke with the Brandens in 1968. Blumenthal sided
with Rand and was one of the NBI lecturers who signed the statement "For
the Record" in the May 1968 issue of _The Objectivist_, in which they
"condemn[ed] and repudiate[d]" the Brandens. Blumenthal and his wife, Joan
Mitchell Blumenthal, were reportedly among Rand's closest associates after
the break and may have been beneficiaries of her will at one time. The
Blumenthals broke with Rand in 1978.
To my knowledge the only published article by Allan Blumenthal was "The
Base of Objectivist Psychotherapy," which appeared in _The Objectivist_ in
1969. Blumenthal's own views are apparently quite different now than they
were then, because he is quoted extensively in Jeff Walker's _The Ayn Rand
Cult_ saying that Objectivism is a cult and that any attempt to use
Objectivism as part of psychotherapy has damaging results.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Betsy Speicher
> What I would like to know from those of you who have been around for
> along time (Betsy) is: Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal
> and his work ?
Joan and Allan Blumenthal sided with Ayn Rand during the Branden split in
1968. They broke with Ayn Rand over personal and philosophical
differences in the late 1970s. They were involved with David Kelley and
the IOS and, I understand, were on his Board of Directors for a while.
When Kelley asked Nathaniel Branden to speak at his summer conference, the
Blumenthals resigned from IOS in protest.
The last I heard, Allan Blumenthal was practicing psychiatry in NYC but I
have heard reports that he has had health problems,
> Was anything every published on his work in particular or
> on this topic of applying Objectivist principles to psychiatry and
> psychology.
I believe he had an article on psychotherapy in _The_Objectivist_ while
Ayn Rand was publishing it.
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
Brad Aisa
[questions about Dr. Blumenthal, which were well answered by
Betsy Speicher and Richard Lawrence]
>
> [...] Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal and his
> work ? Was anything every published on his work in particular or on this
> topic of applying Objectivist principles to psychiatry and psychology.
I would like to address the last question in particular.
In my experience, Objectivists, from newbies to seasoned veterans, seem
inclined to commit the fallacy of rationalism, that is, divorcing ideas
from their inductive factual base, and instead, attempting to derive
them deductively from abstract principles considered as axioms. This
tendency seems to have been especially acute, with regard to psychology.
One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy. Under this
view, psychological problems are caused by "bad philosophy"; the goal of
psychotheraphy is to identify the "bad philosophy", and supplant it with
"good philosophy". (Edith Packer, an Objectivist psychotherapist,
referred to this process as identifying the erroneous "core metaphysical
value judgments" of the patient, and correcting them.)
While it is true that conclusions of a philosophic nature lie at the
root of personality, this does NOT imply that the solution to
psychological problems is studying philosophy. The ideas one studies
explicitly, are not necessarily linked to those aspects of one's mind
that have been firmly automated as one's personality. In order to
establish a rational basis for psychological study and psychotherapy,
one must have a very clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
the mind, how they develop, and how they may change.
This is NOT purely an "intellectual" matter. For example, it is a
scientific fact that the human brain is wired to support the acquisition
of human language(s). But there is a period of early childhood in which
the brain is "plastic" regarding language, and in this period, a child
can easily acquire one or more languages, and speak it thereafter with
automated efficacy. At a certain point, this "plastic period" ends,
quite dramatically, and is accompanied by substantial neurological
change that can be observed. By contrast, a language acquired after
this period, is centered in different regions of the brain than "native"
languages. Speakers do not develop a native, fully automated facility
with the language, speak it with an accent, etc.
It is doubtless true that similar considerations apply to the
relationship between the mental equivalent of philosophic ideas, and
personality. The foundations of personality are established very early
in life. It must be established what is realistic to change about
personality, later in life, and how this can be achieved.
A friend of mine has a hypothesis that some people end up becoming
extremely bitter towards Rand and Objectivism in the following way. Upon
first encounter with Rand's novels, they are enamoured of her heroes and
heroines, implicitly imagining themselves becoming existential
equivalents merely by adopting Rand's ideas. When their "agreement" with
and espousal of Rand's ideas do not automatically cause them to become
courageous, charming, brilliant, upwardly mobile, and so on, they
(implicitly or explicitly) denounce Rand's ideas as bogus goods, and
become her enemy. We've all seen these annoying types, "I used to agree
with Rand, but then I grew up..." and worse.
My friend has made the point though that character is quite fixed --
sure you always have a choice in individual actions and situations, but
that is not the same as character -- meaning, your fundamental
automatized values, thinking methods, use of your volition, etc.
Believing that one can become the equivalent of John Galt, without
examining what that would take, simply leads to disaster. One has to
establish realistic goals for self-improvement.
There is another great danger in reifying philosophy in the area of
psychology -- this is discounting the physiological foundation of the
mind. Many psychological and psychiatric disorders are simply not
related to anything volitional, and are not ammenable to any kind of
volitional or intellectual remediation via psychotherapy.
Nathan Branden wrote a lot of articles for Rand's magazines that
smacked of "oraclism" -- bold rationalistic pronouncements derived
deductively and arbitrarily from a philosophic base. For example, he
wrote an article about anxiety, and also touched on the subject of
depression. The following is perhaps the most egregious extract in the
article, and perhaps in all his writings in Objectivist magazines (from
"The Nature of Anxiety", THE OBJECTIVIST, November 1966):
"It is generally recognized by clinical psychologists and
psychiatrists that pathological anxiety is the central and
basic problem with which they must deal in psychotherapy --
the symptom underlying the patient's other symptoms.
Sometimes, the other symptoms represent direct physical
*consequences* of anxiety, {list of physical maladies]. Some-
times, they represent *defences* against anxiety, such as
hysterical paralyses, obsessions, compulsions, and passive
depression. But in all cases anxiety is the motor of neurosis.
Well, this is just absolute rubbish. Many kinds of anxiety disorders,
obsessive/compulsive disorder, and depression, are caused by biochemical
imbalances, and are completely immune to psychotherapeutic amelioration.
In fact, psychotherapy can easily be a *further exacerbating irritant*
in such disorders, because the patient doesn't get any better, despite
how hard they are "trying" (to do whatever their psychotherapist is
asking), thus implicitly leading to the conclusion they truly are sick
and worthless, because they can't even help themselves get better,
despite all that their therapist is doing.
Obsessive/compulsive disorder and chronic depression have often been
traced to changes in certain areas of the brain, leading to a deficiency
of the neurotransmitter serotonin. The drug Prozac, and its relatives,
have been godsends for these people, because this neurotransmitter
deficiency can now be corrected with complete efficacy, which completely
ameliorates the otherwise mysterious mental illness, enabling them to
leave normal lives. It must be emphasized that this class of drugs does
not directly alter the patient's mood, merely masking an underlying
disorder (in the words of Prozac maker, Eli Lilly, "Prozac is not a
'happy pill'") -- if so, the underlying disorder would get worse (the
mental equivalent of treating a dangerous physical disorder with a
painkiller, not curing the disorder itself.) No, the patients do not
experience any sensation of being drugged or stimulated, but merely
report the disappearance of the horrible episodes of depression.
Many kinds of anxiety disorder are similar. I knew someone who was the
epitomy of rationality (in daily practice, not just in "talk") and
mental health, yet I was suprised one day when he warned me that he had
been having anxiety attacks, and what to expect should he have one in my
presence. He was greatly distressed by his condition, and had even
considered seeing a psychiatrist. However, he saw several MDs instead,
and one prescribed some form of medication specifically targetting a
neurochemical imbalance often found causing these attacks. My friend
reported that this medication eliminated the episodes with total
efficacy. Now, I know for an absolute fact, based on long-standing
acquaintance with this person, that it simply is *not* possible to be
more psychologically rational -- he independently arrived at most the
fundamental principles of a rational philosophy, all by himself, through
dogged induction. This person was NOT "mentally" ill -- he was
*physically* ill, which illness had mental manifestations.
Given what I know of many of the Objectivist (or ex-Objectivist)
"psychotherapists", such as Allan Blumenthal (who now thinks Objectivism
is a cult), Nathan Branden (who issued streams of rationalistic nonsense
over the years like that quoted above), and Edith Packer (who considers
homosexuality a "developmental disorder", and tries to "cure" gays), I
would say that the state of so-called "Objectivist Psychotherapy" is an
shameful swamp.
A one-time HPO contributor attended an "Objectivist" high school,
started by those close to the "inner circle". According to him,
psychotherapy was *mandatory* for all students. His reports of that
experiment were *not* flattering.
Overall, I would say that so little is known about the nature of
personality development and how to affect it in adulthood, that one is
probably better *not* engaging in psychotherapy, than in doing so. In
particular, if a person is experiencing some kind of mental illness like
obsessive/compulsive disorder, periodic or chronic depression,
manic/depressive mood disorder, or anxiety attacks, I would *highly*
recommend they see one or more MDs who specialize in treating these
disorders, under the assumption that it is *most* likely a treatable
physical disorder, not a purely psychological disorder.
--
Brad Aisa
ba...@NOSPAMistar.ca -- PGP public keys available at:
http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup2?op=index&search=Brad+Aisa
"Laissez faire."
Jim Klein
[some minor snippage]
>In my experience, Objectivists, from newbies to seasoned veterans,
>seem inclined to commit the fallacy of rationalism, that is, divorcing
>ideas from their inductive factual base, and instead, attempting to
>derive them deductively from abstract principles considered as axioms.
What's going on in this post is almost exactly the opposite. What you
are doing is choosing to ignore fundamental facts of reality--
specifically the nature of man and the role of volition in his action--
in order to "reverse-derive" a conclusion which you desperately want to
believe. FWIW, I don't find that a particularly evil motivation or
anything; it's just that it's led you to some factual errors.
>This tendency seems to have been especially acute, with regard to
>psychology.
<Ahem>
>One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly
>dangerous, and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency,
>both in the past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that
>all of psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy.
That's hardly the claim. The claim is rather that man is fundamentally
a volitional animal.
>While it is true that conclusions of a philosophic nature lie at the
>root of personality, this does NOT imply that the solution to
>psychological problems is studying philosophy. The ideas one studies
>explicitly, are not necessarily linked to those aspects of one's mind
>that have been firmly automated as one's personality.
I think what you're saying is that certain aspects of our volitional
behavior are formed at a very young age and that many of them cannot be
"overcome" merely with explicit study. If so I basically agree, with
the caveat that it's possible to overcome _any_ volitional behavior,
with sufficient motivation.
>In order to establish a rational basis for psychological study and
>psychotherapy, one must have a very clear understanding of the
>underlying mechanisms of the mind, how they develop, and how they may
>change.
>
>This is NOT purely an "intellectual" matter. For example, it is a
>scientific fact that the human brain is wired to support the
>acquisition of human language(s). But there is a period of early
>childhood in which the brain is "plastic" regarding language, and in
>this period, a child can easily acquire one or more languages, and
>speak it thereafter with automated efficacy. At a certain point, this
>"plastic period" ends, quite dramatically, and is accompanied by
>substantial neurological change that can be observed. By contrast, a
>language acquired after this period, is centered in different regions
>of the brain than "native" languages. Speakers do not develop a
>native, fully automated facility with the language, speak it with an
>accent, etc.
While interesting, this is all a red herring to the topic of why we do
what we do. Sure, there are many (most) details of the functioning of
the brain with which we're not familiar; and yes, obviously further
study is called for. But none of this affects the essential
identification that we're primarily creatures of volition. The
detailed cellular functions by which we acquire languages, for example,
are irrelevant to this point.
>It is doubtless true that similar considerations apply to the
>relationship between the mental equivalent of philosophic ideas, and
>personality. The foundations of personality are established very early
>in life. It must be established what is realistic to change about
>personality, later in life, and how this can be achieved.
Maybe so, but your overall claim is well beyond this.
>A friend of mine has a hypothesis that some people end up becoming
>extremely bitter towards Rand and Objectivism in the following way.
>Upon first encounter with Rand's novels, they are enamoured of her
>heroes and heroines, implicitly imagining themselves becoming
>existential equivalents merely by adopting Rand's ideas. When their
>"agreement" with and espousal of Rand's ideas do not automatically
>cause them to become courageous, charming, brilliant, upwardly mobile,
>and so on, they (implicitly or explicitly) denounce Rand's ideas as
>bogus goods, and become her enemy. We've all seen these annoying
>types, "I used to agree with Rand, but then I grew up..." and worse.
Sounds reasonable, but personally I've never met anyone who fits this
scenario. Have you? Maybe the people I've been close with just start
out being pretty realistic.
>My friend has made the point though that character is quite fixed --
>sure you always have a choice in individual actions and situations,
>but that is not the same as character -- meaning, your fundamental
>automatized values, thinking methods, use of your volition, etc.
Here is where you begin to open the door for excuse-making.
>Believing that one can become the equivalent of John Galt, without
>examining what that would take, simply leads to disaster.
Well of course. But believing that one CAN become the equivalent of
John Galt _and_ examining what that would take _and_ doing it, is how
one becomes the equivalent of John Galt. And it's achievable by
anyone; Rand took great pride in considering Galt a NORMAL person.
>One has to establish realistic goals for self-improvement.
Feh...this is just pre-rationalization for failure. There is NO reason
that EVERY person in the world isn't their own ideal of the perfect
person. If they're not, then they have the ability to change.
>There is another great danger in reifying philosophy in the area of
>psychology -- this is discounting the physiological foundation of the
>mind. Many psychological and psychiatric disorders are simply not
>related to anything volitional,
Bullshit. Yes, there are chemical imbalances and various physical
debilitations. But none of that overules the simple and true FACT that
humans are essentially and fundamentally volitional.
>and are not ammenable to any kind of volitional or intellectual
>remediation via psychotherapy.
Well maybe not via psychotherapy, but your claim is a whole lot wider
than that.
>Obsessive/compulsive disorder and chronic depression have often been
>traced to changes in certain areas of the brain, leading to a
>deficiency of the neurotransmitter serotonin.
Big deal...sex and gambling do that too. Do you now want to offer that
we're instinctually driven to play the lottery? Do you think maybe my
being a southpaw explains why I bet the "Don't" at a craps table?
I've always assumed that it was because I'm contrarian to the core,
clearly a volitional decision. But maybe you've given me grounds to
blame my genes when I lose. [I concede this approach is appealing.
After all...when I win on sports it's because I'm so damn smart, but
when I lose it's because I'm so damn unlucky!]
>The drug Prozac, and its relatives, have been godsends for these
>people, because this neurotransmitter deficiency can now be corrected
>with complete efficacy, which completely ameliorates the otherwise
>mysterious mental illness, enabling them to leave normal lives.
Sure, but then they've been less of a godsend to those who've been
mass-murdered by folks using these drugs, which is a large percentage
of all the folks mass-murdered in the past few years.
>It must be emphasized that this class of drugs does not directly alter
>the patient's mood, merely masking an underlying disorder (in the
>words of Prozac maker, Eli Lilly, "Prozac is not a 'happy pill'") --
>if so, the underlying disorder would get worse (the mental equivalent
>of treating a dangerous physical disorder with a painkiller, not
>curing the disorder itself.) No, the patients do not experience any
>sensation of being drugged or stimulated, but merely report the
>disappearance of the horrible episodes of depression.
Obviously, you're not familiar with very many people who've used these
drugs. I am, and this is false. If you don't believe this, then have
one stop taking 'em for a day and watch what happens.
[Note: DO NOT do that. Some of these drugs are incredibly powerful,
and the dosage must be _very_ incrementally reduced, to the point of
taking quarter pills and less. You figure out why.]
>Many kinds of anxiety disorder are similar. I knew someone who was the
>epitomy of rationality (in daily practice, not just in "talk") and
>mental health, yet I was suprised one day when he warned me that he
>had been having anxiety attacks, and what to expect should he have one
>in my presence. He was greatly distressed by his condition, and had
>even considered seeing a psychiatrist. However, he saw several MDs
>instead,
Get your facts straight...psychiatrists are MDs, at least here in the
States. Are you saying that they're not, in Canada?
>and one prescribed some form of medication specifically targetting a
>neurochemical imbalance often found causing these attacks. My friend
>reported that this medication eliminated the episodes with total
>efficacy.
For every one of those, there are a million for whom knowing Jesus
accomplished the same result.
>Now, I know for an absolute fact, based on long-standing
>acquaintance with this person, that it simply is *not* possible to be
>more psychologically rational -- he independently arrived at most the
>fundamental principles of a rational philosophy, all by himself,
>through dogged induction.
You make it sound like this is some miraculous accomplishment, when the
truth is that almost all humans can do likewise. It's only the madness
of "social mores" and irrational education that undo it.
>This person was NOT "mentally" ill -- he was *physically* ill, which
>illness had mental manifestations.
Not impossible, but not really supportive of your overall hypothesis.
>Given what I know of many of the Objectivist (or ex-Objectivist)
>"psychotherapists", such as Allan Blumenthal (who now thinks
>Objectivism is a cult)
Gee...now why would anyone think that??
>Edith Packer (who considers homosexuality a "developmental disorder",
>and tries to "cure" gays),
That's her problem if she thinks they ought to be "cured." But then,
you might want to concede the same courtesy to those who disagree with
you, and not offer that they're "sick," or that they "have the mind of
a murderer."
>I would say that the state of so-called "Objectivist Psychotherapy" is
>an shameful swamp.
The state of Objectivism generally is a shameful swamp. True again,
but irrelevant to what you're trying to imply here.
>A one-time HPO contributor attended an "Objectivist" high school,
>started by those close to the "inner circle". According to him,
>psychotherapy was *mandatory* for all students. His reports of that
>experiment were *not* flattering.
Maybe they were just practicing for the P.O.G.!
>Overall, I would say that so little is known about the nature of
>personality development and how to affect it in adulthood, that one is
>probably better *not* engaging in psychotherapy, than in doing so.
Okay, at least we can part in complete agreement about this. Of
course, I blame the sorry state of psychotherapy on _their_ (the
psychotherapists') volitional behavior; I wonder if you think it's a
genetic mutation or something which caused them to be so derelict.
If not, why not? What's the diff?
>In particular, if a person is experiencing some kind of mental illness
>like obsessive/compulsive disorder, periodic or chronic depression,
>manic/depressive mood disorder, or anxiety attacks, I would *highly*
>recommend they see one or more MDs who specialize in treating these
>disorders, under the assumption that it is *most* likely a treatable
>physical disorder, not a purely psychological disorder.
This is a wrong assumption leading to a false conclusion and ending
with poor advice. Silly though it sounds, the way to fix _any_ problem
of a psychological nature is quite simple---just decide to fix it.
jk
Betsy Speicher
> There is another great danger in reifying philosophy in the area of
> psychology -- this is discounting the physiological foundation of the
> mind. Many psychological and psychiatric disorders are simply not
> related to anything volitional, and are not ammenable to any kind of
> volitional or intellectual remediation via psychotherapy.
This was exactly the point psychiatrist Dr. Arthur Mode made in his
lecture on "Physical Problems that Masquerade as Physchological Disorders"
which I heard at an Objectivist conference.
> Given what I know of many of the Objectivist (or ex-Objectivist)
> "psychotherapists", such as Allan Blumenthal (who now thinks Objectivism
> is a cult), Nathan Branden (who issued streams of rationalistic nonsense
> over the years like that quoted above), and Edith Packer (who considers
> homosexuality a "developmental disorder", and tries to "cure" gays), I
> would say that the state of so-called "Objectivist Psychotherapy" is an
> shameful swamp.
I don't think so. I know a lot of Objectivist psychiatrists and
psychologists. (There are so many that an Objectivist conference is a
great place to have a nervous breakdown. ;-) ) Most of them take an
integrated mind-body approach and tend to favor the Cognitive Psychology
of Aaron Beck. If you want to see how a typical psychologist who is an
Objectivist operates nowadays, tune in to Ellen Kenner's "The Rational
Basis of Happiness" in RealAudio on Saturday mornings:
Ka6l3279
> But believing that one CAN become the equivalent of
>John Galt _and_ examining what that would take _and_ doing it, is how
>one becomes the equivalent of John Galt. And it's achievable by
>anyone; Rand took great pride in considering Galt a NORMAL person.
However, becoming the equivalent of Itzak Perlman (sp?) is NOT achievable by
everyone, and in fact likely requires special physical and mental faculties.
It certainly requires taking up the violin at an early age, since it appears
music, like language, is best learned at a young age. A 40 year-old tone deaf
person who thinks he can become a concert violinist may be operating under "bad
philosophy," but might also be operating under a chemical imbalance that
stimulates the part of the brain that creates images of grandeur. Objectivist
philosophy might cure the former, but would be powerless agains the latter.
>There is NO reason
>that EVERY person in the world isn't their own ideal of the perfect
>person. If they're not, then they have the ability to change.
By definition perfection is impossible. As long as there is room for
improvement there is no perfection.
>Yes, there are chemical imbalances and various physical
>debilitations. But none of that overules the simple and true FACT that
>humans are essentially and fundamentally volitional.
Perhaps, but humans are fundamentally walking, talking, and feeling creatures
as well. Our evolutionary and societal development revolves around the fact
that humans have opposable fingers, hands, legs, noses, ears and eyes.
However, this does not suggest that a blind person can be taught to see, or
that a deaf person suffers from "incorrect philosophy."
--
Kathryn P. O'Mara
cath...@my-dejanews.com
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 1999, Randy Cech wrote:
>
> > What I would like to know from those of you who have been around for
> > and his work ?
>
> Joan and Allan Blumenthal sided with Ayn Rand during the Branden split in
> 1968. They broke with Ayn Rand over personal and philosophical
> differences in the late 1970s.
Apparently the "personal differences" included their differences about whether
they could have a life apart from Rand without being accused of secrecy. And
the "philosophical differences" apparently revolved around their views about
art, for which they would have endless debates leading nowhere. After a while
Allan and Joan couldn't stand it any longer, and decided they couldn't bear to
see Ayn any longer. Interesting that Allan didn't mind being cut out of her
will as long as he didn't have to put up with her endless haranguing, while
Leonard was one of the very few members of the original Collective that stuck
it out to the end.
"It was a tree, damn it! How dare you try to undermine my rationality about
the tree!"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brad Aisa
no intention of commenting. If anyone is interested in what I wrote, or
asking questions, I will be pleased to respond, publicly or privately.
However, I find wading through and answering almost anything written by
Mr. Klein to be the equivalent of wading in sewage up to my neck, and I
normally haven't the stomach for it.
Jim Klein
<ka6l...@aol.com> writes:
>Jim Klein wrote:
>
>> But believing that one CAN become the equivalent of
>>John Galt _and_ examining what that would take _and_ doing it, is how
>>one becomes the equivalent of John Galt. And it's achievable by
>>anyone; Rand took great pride in considering Galt a NORMAL person.
>
>However, becoming the equivalent of Itzak Perlman (sp?) is NOT
>achievable by everyone, and in fact likely requires special physical
>and mental faculties.
Debatable, but irrelevant to my point anyway. Obviously the way to
become a "John Galt" is through our rational faculty. And that faculty
will eliminate physically impossible goals.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
>>There is NO reason
>>that EVERY person in the world isn't their own ideal of the perfect
>>person. If they're not, then they have the ability to change.
>
>By definition perfection is impossible. As long as there is room for
>improvement there is no perfection.
I thought the context was sufficiently clear---that of a human life.
In such a life, perfection _includes_ room for improvement. Again,
sorry if I wasn't detailed enough.
>>Yes, there are chemical imbalances and various physical
>>debilitations. But none of that overules the simple and true FACT
>>that humans are essentially and fundamentally volitional.
>
>Perhaps, but humans are fundamentally walking, talking, and feeling
>creatures as well. Our evolutionary and societal development
>revolves around the fact that humans have opposable fingers, hands,
>legs, noses, ears and eyes.
Yes and no. Our evolutionary development may, but our societal
development revolves around our rationality for the most part.
>However, this does not suggest that a blind person can be taught to
>see, or that a deaf person suffers from "incorrect philosophy."
Were you thinking that perhaps I meant to imply it did?
jk
David J. Rodman
made by people who espouse an idea, and expects that to be
taken as absolute inductive proof of the fallacy of the idea.
Brad Aisa wrote in message <36AA1918...@istar.ca>...
>
>
>One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
>and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
>past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
>psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy.
This is true but has nothing to do with Objectivist psychotherapy.
Suggestion:
learn something about Objectivist psychotherapy, define its fundamental
principles and methods, and start from there if you wish to criticize it.
[examples of errors by Edith Packer, Allan Blumenthal and Nathaniel Branden
snipped ]
>While it is true that conclusions of a philosophic nature lie at the
>root of personality, this does NOT imply that the solution to
>psychological problems is studying philosophy.
That's a straw man. No psychiatrist in his right mind would say to a
patient,
"Go study philosophy, that will solve your psychological problem."
Mr. Aisa is extrapolating from non-essentials and coming up with a
conclusion that is unrelated to his premises. This is not induction,
dogged or otherwise. It's just sloppy thinking.
[ theories about how people become bitter snipped]
[ unsupported floating hypotheses about the nature of personality snipped]
>
>It is doubtless true that similar considerations apply to the
>relationship between the mental equivalent of philosophic ideas, and
>personality
The mental equivalent of philosophic ideas? Of what would they be
the equivalent? Brad, did you take your medication today?
Now, on the question of anxiety. Branden says "anxiety is the
motor of neurosis", and Brad says "rubbish. Some anxiety is
caused by physiological changes which can be treated by drugs".
>Well, this is just absolute rubbish. Many kinds of anxiety disorders,
>obsessive/compulsive disorder, and depression, are caused by biochemical
>imbalances, and are completely immune to psychotherapeutic amelioration.
How could you possibly know that they are completely immune to properly
applied Objectivist psychotherapy? Cite the study, please.
> It must be emphasized that this class of drugs does
>not directly alter the patient's mood, merely masking an underlying
>disorder (in the words of Prozac maker, Eli Lilly, "Prozac is not a
>'happy pill'") -- if so, the underlying disorder would get worse (the
>mental equivalent of treating a dangerous physical disorder with a
>painkiller, not curing the disorder itself.) No, the patients do not
>experience any sensation of being drugged or stimulated, but merely
>report the disappearance of the horrible episodes of depression.
This is true, and a valid use of Prozac. However, while the drugs do
not simply mask the underlying problem, they also do nothing to cure it.
The proper use of these drugs is to get the symptoms out of the way
long enough to cure the disease. In some cases this is unnecessary
because the symptoms are not debilitating enough to warrant the
drug treatment.
The thing about anxiety in particular is that it can be both a cause and
an effect. Anxiety causes biochemical changes which themselves can
create feelings of anxiety.
There are physical disorders which present as anxiety. Both atrial and
ventricular fibrillation, for example, feel exactly like anxiety and when
they
are sporadic they are frequently mis-diagnosed as free-floating
anxiety.
On the other end of the scale, Mr. Aisa presents an excellent example:
>
>Many kinds of anxiety disorder are similar. I knew someone who was the
>epitomy of rationality (in daily practice, not just in "talk") and
>mental health, yet I was suprised one day when he warned me that he had
>been having anxiety attacks
[ and went to a doctor and got drugs and the attacks ceased. ]
Many questions remain - why was this person subject to that particular
biochemical disorder at that particular time in his life? Even rational
gods,
as this fellow would seem to be, are subject to immune-system disorders
which are related to the content and methodology of their consciousness.
Is the drug treatment something he now has to
live with for the rest of his life? Was there any meta-anxiety and did he
treat
that, or even ask the question, or even know that that means?
>
>Given what I know of many of the Objectivist (or ex-Objectivist)
>"psychotherapists", such as Allan Blumenthal (who now thinks Objectivism
>is a cult), Nathan Branden (who issued streams of rationalistic nonsense
>over the years like that quoted above), and Edith Packer (who considers
>homosexuality a "developmental disorder", and tries to "cure" gays), I
>would say that the state of so-called "Objectivist Psychotherapy" is an
>shameful swamp.
Here's the payoff. Blumenthal and Branden are not, by your lights,
Objectivists
at all, so how can you use their putative errors as examples of the
terpitude
of Objectvist psychotherapy? Instead of setting up the straw man of
'so-called
"Objectivist Psychotherapy"', why don't you either address the question at
hand
or admit that you are fully ignorant of the subject and shut up?
Here, in a nutshell, is Objectivist psychotherapy:
How do you know what's a problem and whether you're fixing it or making it
worse?
You use an objective standard of mental health, based on the volitional,
rational
nature of man's consciousness. Objectivist psychotherapy is biocentric, not
sociocentric. Its goal is to achieve a happy, productive person with a high
level
of self-esteem and a harmonious relationship between reason and emotion.
Objectivist psychotherapy regards mental illness as composed of disorders in
two
aspects: the content of thought (values, goals, self-evaluations, basic
premises), and
its methodology - the means by which an individual arrives at fundamental
premises
and conclusions - i.e. psycho-epistemology.
The practice of Objectivist psychotherapy is involved with examing the
content and
methodology, identifying ares where, for example, childhood emotional
generalization
has left the patient with a subconsciously held self-destructive premise,
and effecting
a change by first enabling the patient to consciously verbalize the problem
and why
it's a problem, and second by re-formulating the context of premises and
conclusions,
re-automatizing a different response to the circumstances in question, based
on
one's adult perspective and concsiously held healthy premises.
I'm simplifying greatly and perhaps making it sound like a matter of just
sitting and
thinking about things - it's not that easy. For the patient to learn to
identify inner
content is extremely difficult in many cases - and I believe that patients
who have
the greatest difficulty with introspection and monitoring are more likely to
choose
Objectivist therapists -- but that's a different thread.
>particular, if a person is experiencing some kind of mental illness like
>obsessive/compulsive disorder, periodic or chronic depression,
>manic/depressive mood disorder, or anxiety attacks, I would *highly*
>recommend they see one or more MDs who specialize in treating these
>disorders,
Here in the English-speaking world we have a name for MDs who specialize
in treating these disorders. It's "psychiatrist".
My suggestion for someone who is experiencing psychological problems: Don't
try
to diagnose yourself. Interview several therapists and pick one you trust,
who
makes sense to you, and who can tell you clearly what the goal is and how
you'll
know when you've reached it.
Ron Hickman
I didn't have to stomach to finish, but I want to reply to this gross
distortion:
>One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
>and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
>past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
>psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy. Under this
>view, psychological problems are caused by "bad philosophy"; the goal of
>psychotheraphy is to identify the "bad philosophy", and supplant it with
>"good philosophy". (Edith Packer, an Objectivist psychotherapist,
>referred to this process as identifying the erroneous "core metaphysical
>value judgments" of the patient, and correcting them.)
While I cannot vouch for the current work of Blumenthal or Packer, I
know firsthand that neither of them propogated this bullshit. A central,
core value judgement, even a metaphysical one, simply means a basic
conclusion one has drawn about oneself or the world or other people.
It could be anything from, "I'm not likeable", to "I'm not graceful", to
"I'll never be smart." This type of conclusion can effect one's entire
personality, hopes, wishes, plans, actions. But neither Blumenthal nor
Packer maintained that these were philosophical errors or that the cure
was to discover the right philosophy. (Packer, for one, would often treat
a patient for years before even mentioning philosophy, Ayn Rand, or
Objectivism.)
These value judgements are thinking errors, since they are erroneous
conclusions. (This discussion assumes the conclusions were not justified.)
And they can be said to be "metaphysical" since they involve one's
fundamental views about oneself, the world and others. Blumenthal and
Packer maintained that the cure for these mistaken ideas was to identify
them and to rethink them. The patient then monitor's his thinking
through introspection to catch himself thinking these erroneous
conclusions, reminds himself that the conclusion is wrong, then rethinks
the issue one more time to arrive at a proper conclusion. In this way,
subconsciously held and automated premises can be identified, rethought
and slowly replaced with healthier ones.
If this sounds different from what Brad said above, it's simply because
he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Ron Hickman
Ron Hickman
I didn't have to stomach to finish, but I want to reply to this gross
distortion:
>One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
>and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
>past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
David Friedman
>In my experience, Objectivists, from newbies to seasoned veterans, seem
>inclined to commit the fallacy of rationalism, that is, divorcing ideas
>from their inductive factual base, and instead, attempting to derive
>them deductively from abstract principles considered as axioms. This
>tendency seems to have been especially acute, with regard to psychology.
>
>One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
>and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
>past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
>psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy.
and goes on to say some sensible things about psychology.
I wonder if he has considered looking at Objectivist political theory in
the same light. Rand's "refutation" of anarchism was not based on any
study of real societies--so far as I can tell, she knew nothing at all
about primitive stateless societies, societies with privately enforced
law, or related topics--but on a brief conjectural account of how it
"must" break down.
The arguments that her supporters make, on this and a variety of other
political topics, seem to fit two patterns:
1. They make the same (plausible, perhaps correct) arguments that
non-Objectivists make for the same conclusions.
2. They make "Objectivist" arguments analogous to the ones Brad attacks in
the context of psychology: "my conclusion must be true because it follows
from fundamental principles established by Rand."
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Rod Nibbe
entertained with :...
>Our evolutionary and societal development revolves around the fact
>that humans have opposable fingers, hands, legs, noses,
<eyebrows arched ... cheek-to-cheek grin>
Opposable noses! Where are you posting from?!
-RKN
(rni...@alaska.net)
Betsy Speicher
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.99012...@usr08.primenet.com>,
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Jan 1999, Randy Cech wrote:
> >
> > > What I would like to know from those of you who have been around for
> > > along time (Betsy) is: Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal
> > > and his work ?
> >
> > Joan and Allan Blumenthal sided with Ayn Rand during the Branden split in
> > 1968. They broke with Ayn Rand over personal and philosophical
> > differences in the late 1970s.
>
> Apparently the "personal differences" included their differences about
> whether they could have a life apart from Rand without being accused of
> secrecy. And the "philosophical differences" apparently revolved around
> their views about art, for which they would have endless debates leading
> nowhere. After a while Allan and Joan couldn't stand it any longer, and
> decided they couldn't bear to see Ayn any longer.
I think the philosophical differences weren't just about art. Joan told
my husband and me, with Allan nodding agreement, that -- and this is a
direct quote -- "Ayn Rand never had a right idea in her life except here
and there in politics." When I asked her why they stayed with Ayn Rand
for so long if that is what they thought, she said "We were brainwashed."
> Interesting that Allan didn't mind being cut out of her will as long as
> he didn't have to put up with her endless haranguing, while Leonard was
> one of the very few members of the original Collective that stuck it out
> to the end.
Actually, Joan expressed outrage that Rand had included Leonard in her
will to begin with. "Leonard was always disagreeing with her [Ayn Rand].
WE never did that. Why did she ever pick HIM!??"
Brad Aisa
>Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> >[...]Under this
> >view, psychological problems are caused by "bad philosophy"; the goal of
> >psychotheraphy is to identify the "bad philosophy", and supplant it with
> >"good philosophy". (Edith Packer, an Objectivist psychotherapist,
> >referred to this process as identifying the erroneous "core metaphysical
> >value judgments" of the patient, and correcting them.)
>
> know firsthand that neither of them propogated this bullshit. A central,
> core value judgement, even a metaphysical one, simply means a basic
>
> These value judgements are thinking errors, since they are erroneous
> conclusions. (This discussion assumes the conclusions were not justified.)
> And they can be said to be "metaphysical" since they involve one's
> fundamental views about oneself, the world and others. Blumenthal and
> Packer maintained that the cure for these mistaken ideas was to identify
> them and to rethink them. The patient then monitor's his thinking
> through introspection to catch himself thinking these erroneous
> conclusions, reminds himself that the conclusion is wrong, then rethinks
> the issue one more time to arrive at a proper conclusion. In this way,
> subconsciously held and automated premises can be identified, rethought
> and slowly replaced with healthier ones.
This is EXACTLY what I said -- replacing bad philosophy with good.
My whole point is that it is a *only a hypothesis* that this kind of
activity can address various psychological problems.
Now, I know from first hand evidence, that my own psychological health
has improved over the years since I began to integrate and act on
Objectivist ideas. In particular, I found, quite early, that my
emotional responses to all manner of conditions became much more clear,
and pronounced -- I became capable of experiencing a greater range and
intensity of emotions (good and bad).
However, there are other areas of my character that I have not observed
much significant change in -- areas where, if I could order character
attributes from a menu selection, I might select differently. And I do
not believe this is related to any shortcoming on my part of careful
attention to all the nuances of a correct philosophy.
As I stated, until someone can map out and demonstrate what are the
mental equivalents of various automated premises that are held, and how
these mental existents are formed and can be changed (if they can), then
psychology, and especially psychotherapy, are arts, not sciences.
Brad Aisa
>Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> >It is doubtless true that similar considerations apply to the
> >relationship between the mental equivalent of philosophic ideas, and
> >personality
>
> The mental equivalent of philosophic ideas? Of what would they be
> the equivalent?
Philosophic idea #2: "reality is ruled by causal laws"
Philosophic idea #2: "reality is ruled by inexplicable miracles"
The "mental equivalent of a philosophic idea" is the identity, in the
human mind, of the content of the idea. How would the minds of two
different people contain and express the two different ideas above?
Brad, did you take your medication today?
> >Well, this is just absolute rubbish. Many kinds of anxiety disorders,
> >obsessive/compulsive disorder, and depression, are caused by biochemical
> >imbalances, and are completely immune to psychotherapeutic amelioration.
>
> How could you possibly know that they are completely immune to properly
> applied Objectivist psychotherapy? Cite the study, please.
These illnesses have been treated via every conceivable form of
psychotheraphy, some of which are not that different from the techniques
you refer to as "Objectivist psychotherapy" (although I deny the
legitimacy of that term.), to no avail.
The reason, is that these disorders are often caused by neuroanatomical
changes or problems. Many studies have been done that demonstrate this.
You want studies?
Try:
Post, Robert M. and Ballinger, James C., eds., *Neurobiology of Mood
Disorders* (Baltimore, Md.: Wilkins & Wilkins, 1984).
One of the things discovered about many depressions, is the role of
stress, particularly one or more episodes of severe stress in early
life, in causing a measurable, permanent change in certain brain
structures responsible for the production and/or regulation of the
neurotransmitter serotonin.
Lower levels of serotonin make the patient increasingly susceptible to
mental illnesses like depression. These illnesses often cause more
stress, leading to further damage to the serotonin region, thus leading
to a positive feedback loop. This is indeed what is often observed in
cases of depression: after the first episode, subsequent episodes are
more likely, and if two or more occur, become almost predicable,
increasing in severity and frequency.
Clicking your heels together three times, and intoning, "A is A", is not
going to change this situation.
> This is true, and a valid use of Prozac. However, while the drugs do
> not simply mask the underlying problem, they also do nothing to cure it.
> The proper use of these drugs is to get the symptoms out of the way
> long enough to cure the disease.
There is at present no known cure for the type of illnesses I cited.
Once again, you seem to be implicitly asserting that the "cure" is some
amount of "talk" or "think" therapy. But the facts simply don't support
this idea.
> Even rational gods,
> as this fellow would seem to be, are subject to immune-system disorders
> which are related to the content and methodology of their consciousness.
Well, this is just more of reifying conscious-think.
Let's get this straight. Reason is an attribute of human beings,
specifically of human minds. Reason is not the faculty that "tunes,
shapes, and controls brain functioning". The brain is an enormously
complex organ, only parts of which are devoted to man's higher
faculties, and in which there are many causal pathways, probably only a
fraction of which can be traced back to the operations of the rational
faculty.
> Here's the payoff. Blumenthal and Branden are not, by your lights,
> Objectivists at all, so how can you use their putative errors as
> examples of the terpitude of Objectvist psychotherapy?
I was referring to Branden's writings as of the time he was associated
with Rand. I was using Blumenthal's now wild-eyed comments (see Betsy's
comments too) to discredit Blumenthal's intellectual credentials. (I did
not specifically critique his comments about so-called "Objectivist
psychotherapy" -- that sounds like another post.)
Remember, Rand and Branden were co-editors of that publication.
>
> Here, in a nutshell, is Objectivist psychotherapy:
>[alleged definition of "Objectivist psychotherapy]
readers should be given a "truth in advertising" warning here: Mr.
Rodman attaches *no* specific meaning to the term "Objectivist".
I have used the term "Objectivist psychotherapy" to principally refer to
those theories about mental illness and its treatment which were
included in Rand's publications. Mr. Rodman, I believe, probably thinks
it means "psychotheraphy that is consistent with Objectivism".
> The practice of Objectivist psychotherapy is involved with examing the
> content and
> methodology, identifying ares where, for example, childhood emotional
> generalization
> has left the patient with a subconsciously held self-destructive premise,
> and effecting
> a change by first enabling the patient to consciously verbalize the problem
[...etc.]
As I've pointed out -- this is a *hypothesis*, not a demonstrated
theory.
It is pure rationalism to declare that this is the model that can be
used to address illness.
For example, it doesn't begin to address a whole variety of severe
criminal por "think therapy" has been demonstrated to have much
significant effect in these cases.
> Here in the English-speaking world we have a name for MDs who specialize
> in treating these disorders. It's "psychiatrist".
An MD might suggest visiting a psychiatrist; a psychiatrist will never
likely suggest visiting an MD. The potential for psychological harm is
much greater in visiting a psychiatrist.
And for your information, many MD's *do* specialize in treating the kind
of psychiatric orders I listed (and more) that are likely treated purely
with drugs.
>
> My suggestion for someone who is experiencing psychological problems: Don't
> try to diagnose yourself. Interview several therapists and pick one you
> trust,
> who makes sense to you, and who can tell you clearly what the goal is and how
> you'll know when you've reached it.
This is Ann Landers banality.
First, I never suggested that anyone self-diagnose. There is a
difference between identifying the symptoms -- "I am depressed all the
time"; "I experience attacks of anxiety"; etc. -- and determining the
cause(s). I suggested that a person consult a Medical Doctor (MD)
*first*.
Let me reiterate my reasons:
1) many common psychological illnesses, such as depression, can be
treated via drugs, and are not caused by something that requires "talk
therapy".
2) the modern state of the psychological and psychiatric profession is
so primitive, and consists of so many disparate and mutually
incompatible theories, that the odds of being harmed by this profession
are much higher than of being helped.
If a person simply wants to improve their lives, then I agree that a
therapist could be helpful, in which case Mr. Rodman's advice is
indicated. But I was principly referring to illness, not a desire for
self-development. (I would make an analagous distinction in physical
terms, between seeing a doctor if one was sick, vs. wanting to get in
much better shape -- for the latter, one would seek a personal trainer.)
David J. Rodman
just tie down one itty-bitty detail and then I'll let it drop.
Brad Aisa wrote in message <36AAC5F9...@istar.ca>...
>>[alleged definition of "Objectivist psychotherapy]
>
>readers should be given a "truth in advertising" warning here: Mr.
>Rodman attaches *no* specific meaning to the term "Objectivist".
>
>I have used the term "Objectivist psychotherapy" to principally refer to
>those theories about mental illness and its treatment which were
>included in Rand's publications. Mr. Rodman, I believe, probably thinks
>it means "psychotheraphy that is consistent with Objectivism".
Mr. Aisa has no idea and no way of even validly forming a hypothesis as to
what meaning I attach to the term "Objectivist".
The definition I presented of Objectivist psychotherapy means exactly what
it means, not what Mr. Aisa would like it to mean. It is congruent with Ayn
Rand's definition of Objectivism, quoted almost verbatim from a publication
she personally edited, from an article which explicitly credits her with the
origination of the terminology and the development of the therapeutic
practice.
Does Mr. Aisa now want to accuse Ayn Rand of improperly labeling her own
publication "The Objectivist", and her own ideas "Objectivism"? Has he
really fallen that far over the edge?
Brad Aisa
> The definition I presented of Objectivist psychotherapy means exactly what
> it means, not what Mr. Aisa would like it to mean. It is congruent with Ayn
> Rand's definition of Objectivism, quoted almost verbatim from a publication
> she personally edited, from an article which explicitly credits her with the
> origination of the terminology and the development of the therapeutic
> practice.
>
> Does Mr. Aisa now want to accuse Ayn Rand of improperly labeling her own
> publication "The Objectivist", and her own ideas "Objectivism"? Has he
> really fallen that far over the edge?
Mr. Aisa thinks that the definition Mr. Rodman is giving him, is exactly
what he was referring to, so he doesn't understand the complaint.
But this raises an interesting question -- if one is to accept
"Objectivist psychotheraphy" as meaning that which Ayn Rand defined as
such, then shouldn't "Objectivism" be likewise defined, i.e., as what
she defined it as?
Uh, checkmate. :)
David J. Rodman
Brad Aisa wrote in message <36AAD915...@istar.ca>...
>Mr. Aisa thinks that the definition Mr. Rodman is giving him, is exactly
>what he was referring to, so he doesn't understand the complaint.
>
So in other words, what you were referring to as "so-called Objectivist
Psychotherapy" is in fact formally part of Objectivism? Is that what you
think you said? Really smoking your own dope on this one, Brad. Nice try,
though. I really like the sudden retreat into amiable confusion, it's
worthy of Ellsworth Toohey, your spiritual guru.
>But this raises an interesting question -- if one is to accept
>"Objectivist psychotheraphy" as meaning that which Ayn Rand defined as
>such, then shouldn't "Objectivism" be likewise defined, i.e., as what
>she defined it as?
Yes, precisely - contrary to your previous claim about Objectivist
Psychotherapy.
>Uh, checkmate. :)
>
Thank you. :-)
Jim Klein
>However, there are other areas of my character that I have not
>observed much significant change in --
Undoubtedly an accurate observation.
>areas where, if I could order character attributes from a menu
>selection, I might select differently.
This is complete and utter bullshit, both in detail and in sentiment.
When we speak of "character attributes," we're not speaking of being
deaf or being 7' tall or even of having those debatable "prodigy"
attributes. We're speaking of what we say we're speaking--CHARACTER.
And character is 100% a reflection of volitional decisions. Period.
This is so basic that I'm astonished that even you would bring it into
question.
Now if you want to say that those volitonal decisions are greatly
influenced by our experiences--especially those at a young age--then
fine. If you want to say they're influenced by our physical state--
whether genetic or imposed--then that's fine too. But DON'T pretend
that they're something other than volitional decisions.
Please. To do so is to deny the very nature of man.
>And I do not believe this is related to any shortcoming on my part of
>careful attention to all the nuances of a correct philosophy.
Nobody's claiming that it is, except maybe Edith Packer if your
representation is correct. It's YOU who are scolding yourself for
"choosing something on the menu when you really want something else."
You should be scolding yourself, but not for that. You should be
scolding yourself for even considering the possibility that you're not
doing what you're doing. This is metaphysics, not ethics. You choose
what you prefer; that's what people do.
>As I stated, until someone can map out and demonstrate what are the
>mental equivalents of various automated premises that are held, and
>how these mental existents are formed and can be changed (if they
>can), then psychology, and especially psychotherapy, are arts, not
>sciences.
YOU are turning an art into a science, by claiming--without the
slightest bit of evidence--that there exist unchangeable premises in
the brain. This is just wrong--something being a "premise" MEANS that
it's consciously alterable. "Premises" only occur subsequent to
volitional cognitive action. Sure, some are "automated" such that we
don't ever bother to consider them; but that's not what you're saying.
You're saying that they CAN'T be changed, and that's just wrong, wrong,
wrong. Even the goddammed axiom of identity--an absolute _necessity_
if we wish to be coherent at all--can be volitionally overidden. True,
one couldn't eat or drink since one couldn't identify food or water for
what they are; but one could surely do it and die forthwith. I'd
guess that this route is ACTUALLY taken by some, from time to time.
C'mon Brad, this is too much even for you. If you're proud of who you
are, and IMO you basically should be, then try to understand why (or
think about something else). But if you're not, then CHANGE; don't
try to come up with extensive theories to explain why you can't.
Leave that to Wrathbone; he enjoys it and he's pretty good at it.
jk
Jim Klein
>These illnesses have been treated via every conceivable form of
>psychotheraphy,
You admit yourself that this is a ludicrous assertion, in view of the
state of modern psychotherapy. A similar argument would be that a just
government is impossible, because every conceivable form has been
tried. But you don't like that one so much, do you?
You're in a metaphysical and ethical swamp here, and instead of
reaching for the vine right in front of your face, you're calling for
buckets of mud.
>some of which are not that different from the techniques
>you refer to as "Objectivist psychotherapy" (although I deny the
>legitimacy of that term.), to no avail.
>
>The reason, is that these disorders are often caused by
>neuroanatomical changes or problems. Many studies have been done that
>demonstrate this.
>
>You want studies?
>
>Try:
>
>Post, Robert M. and Ballinger, James C., eds., *Neurobiology of Mood
>Disorders* (Baltimore, Md.: Wilkins & Wilkins, 1984).
>
>One of the things discovered about many depressions, is the role of
>stress, particularly one or more episodes of severe stress in early
>life, in causing a measurable, permanent change in certain brain
>structures responsible for the production and/or regulation of the
>neurotransmitter serotonin.
You're missing the whole point. Of course the brain reacts to
experience; this is just one example. [For a better, albeit less well
understood, phenomenon...look into the causes and manifestations of
fibromyalgia, which may be related to almost every syndrome you've ever
heard of. Apparently, the actual _cause_ is the lack of production of
a particular enzyme produced in the brain exclusively during Level 4
sleep; and when traumatic incidents happen-- especially over an
extended period of time, like child molestation-- the lack of that
sleep causes a lack of that enzyme which causes a lack of ability of
the body to dissolve certain phosphates which causes a very painful
condition in the joints which is almost universally diagnosed as
arthritis. The condition affects a notable percentage of the
population, especially females; it's understood by only a handful of
physicians. And no, I'm not claiming any expertise here; I was just
very familiar with it a few years back.]
Anyway, this is all neither here nor there to the point of whether
volitional actions can be corrected by volitional decisions. While you
probably won't admit that you're claiming they can't be, it's _exactly_
what you're claiming.
>Lower levels of serotonin make the patient increasingly susceptible to
>mental illnesses like depression. These illnesses often cause more
>stress, leading to further damage to the serotonin region, thus
>leading to a positive feedback loop. This is indeed what is often
>observed in cases of depression:
And tears are often observed after severe gambling losses. Would you
likewise argue that the way to stop gambling is to take an anti-tear
drug? Read what you're writing; the analogy is nearly perfect.
>after the first episode, subsequent episodes are more likely, and if
>two or more occur, become almost predicable, increasing in severity
>and frequency.
>
>Clicking your heels together three times, and intoning, "A is A", is
>not going to change this situation.
No...but denying that A is A might change it for the worse. You're
denying that volition is volition. This is _precisely_ the attitude of
the educational system that you so elequently rail against.
>There is at present no known cure for the type of illnesses I cited.
That's because they're not illnesses. Just as there's no cure for the
serotonin levels created by various experiences, there's no cure for
the Earth revolving around the Sun.
Cancer is an illness; polio is an illness; a cold is an illness;
chicken pox is an illness. Doing things not in your best interest, or
which cause internal strife or agony, is NOT an illness. The
differentia between the two is volition--we don't CHOOSE to have a
cold, or chicken pox, or any illness. But we DO choose our behavior,
ever and always. NOBODY is EVER "out of control" except and unless
they're in convulsions. So we may consider convulsions an illness.
>Once again, you seem to be implicitly asserting that the "cure" is
>some amount of "talk" or "think" therapy. But the facts simply don't
>support this idea.
"Talk therapy" often implies that the answers lie somewhere outside the
person--usually with a specific therapy advocated by a specific group
of people. Well, the therapy that _works_, regardless of the brand
name, is the therapy that turns the patient's focus into himself and
allows his volition to "do the right thing." Usually this is through
understanding the causes of your so-called "automatized" behavior
(classical therapy); sometimes it's through endless rationalization
(est); sometimes it's through a complete "replacement" therapy
(born-again religion); sometimes it's done with physical apparati
(various new age therapies); and sometimes it's accomplished with
physical imposition (sweat lodges and the like).
But ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS...the "cure" is the PATIENT curing him or
herself. There are NO exceptions to this, with regard to psychological
problems. And of course there couldn't be, since nobody controls a
body except that person himself.
Whatever method is used--from drugs to hypnosis to primal screams to
speaking in tongues--the method is used for the purpose of CAUSING the
PATIENT to change himself. The "bad therapies" usually encourage a
change on behalf of the changers; the "good therapies" cause a change
on behalf of what the changers believe is in the best interest of the
patient. Of course, since altruism is the predominant philsophy of our
times, the good therapies usually encourage bad changes themselves.
Well...when you realize all of this, you realize that you can cut out
the middle man. Why not change how YOU want to change, and become the
person YOU want to be?
Fine...you want to believe that a large percentage of the population is
suffering from "brain disorders" that require medication? Then believe
it. Give 'em all the drugs you, and they, and the drug-makers want;
then see what happens. Clearly you have no idea of the degree to which
this stuff is over-prescribed. You don't see the children suffering--
both during medication and withdrawal--from Ritalin. You don't
understand that single line in the news stories after each mass murder,
about how "he was under psychiatric care," and what that means.
Apparently you don't know what's going on in the asylums and in the
"social-care system" and in the psych wards of every hospital.
Well I do, and it ain't a pretty picture. I recognize that you don't
realize this and so you aren't fully culpable, but you're offering here
the exact POISON which will make the disease worse.
I'll be blunt. No rational and egoistic person really gives a shit
whether you're gay, or bi, or religious or atheist. Nor do they care
whether you're black or white or foreign or short or tall. All they
care about is what you mentioned earlier---your CHARACTER. And in the
end, that's all you care about too. So stop making a mountain out of a
molehill. If you don't like your character, then change it. If you
do, then be proud of it.
But DON'T come around defending the most reprehensible action possible
to man---the usurping of his volition via physical means. Do you
really think there's that much difference between a pill and a gun?
This Objectivism is about something, you know, and it ain't the ARI or
IOS or Peikoff or Kelley. It's about reality and the nature of man.
Your defending the usage of psychotropic drugs to "correct" volitional
behavior is no different than trying to make a better society by
sending people into showers with no drains.
You can't stomach to read ME?? Do you have the foggiest idea of what
YOU are saying?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don't.
jk
Gordon G. Sollars
In article <DDFr-23019...@ddfr.vip.best.com>, DD...@best.com
writes...
[...]
> 2. They make "Objectivist" arguments analogous to the ones Brad attacks in
> the context of psychology: "my conclusion must be true because it follows
> from fundamental principles established by Rand."
This is inevitable. The fundamental principles of Objectivism (but
not psychology) are based upon correct identifications. (Unless it turns
out they're not, in which case the context has changed.) (But
Objectivism's context is all of existence, and that context can't
change.)
If I've made a mistake or been too quick here, I'm sure someone will
correct me.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@virginia.edu
Phil Oliver
>Actually, Joan expressed outrage that Rand had included Leonard in her
>will to begin with. "Leonard was always disagreeing with her [Ayn Rand].
>WE never did that. Why did she ever pick HIM!??"
That's really funny. I think that single quote captures the essence of
the entire mentality of the Kelley/Branden crowd, who reveal their
second-handededness and need to be "accepted" by projecting it
onto people such as Leonard Peikoff who wasn't, and isn't, like that.
I'm sure the last thing Ayn Rand wanted around her were Keatings
"yes ma'am"'ing all the time.
Phil Oliver
Chris Wolf
And it's this sort of half-assed psychologizing that is the hallmark of
Leonard Peikoff and his followers (such as Phil Oliver).
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Leonard Peikoff Sues Barbara Branden
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/peikoff/barb.html
Eric Lancaster
(a really excellent article about the problems with psychotherapy
(objectivist or otherwise) which attempts to explain all psychological
problems as philosophical problems)
> Obsessive/compulsive disorder and chronic depression have often been
> traced to changes in certain areas of the brain, leading to a deficiency
> of the neurotransmitter serotonin. The drug Prozac, and its relatives,
> have been godsends for these people, because this neurotransmitter
> deficiency can now be corrected with complete efficacy, which completely
> ameliorates the otherwise mysterious mental illness, enabling them to
> leave normal lives. It must be emphasized that this class of drugs does
> not directly alter the patient's mood, merely masking an underlying
> disorder (in the words of Prozac maker, Eli Lilly, "Prozac is not a
> 'happy pill'") -- if so, the underlying disorder would get worse (the
> mental equivalent of treating a dangerous physical disorder with a
> painkiller, not curing the disorder itself.) No, the patients do not
> experience any sensation of being drugged or stimulated, but merely
> report the disappearance of the horrible episodes of depression.
Actually, it is much more complicated than this. There are many
populations of neurons within the brain which release serotonin as a
transmitter - and many which respond to it because they have specific
receptors for it. When you give a drug like Prozac, it alters the
activity at various serotonergic synapses (places where one neuron
releases transmitter onto another, or itself) - but each type of synapse
could be altered in a different way. For instance, there are (to my
knowledge), at least 7 types of serotonin receptors in the brain - some
more affected by serotonin, some less, no two exactly the same.
Anyway, so a drug like prozac does thousands of distinct things in
thousands of places (not simply correct a global deficiency in serotonin,
which probably doesn't exist in depression). Some synapses will respond
by strengthening, weakening, or modifying neurons in more subtle ways.
The actions of prozac take 4-8 weeks to occur, even though brain levels
rise in hours! Probably some really complex long term changes in neurons
are occuring here.
So, although we know THAT these drugs are significantly more
effective than placebos, it is not entirely understood WHY or HOW. But,
there is undoubtedly a genetic disposition (independent of upbringing!)
for these diseases AND a biochemical basis (which remains to be unravelled
completely). And (SOME) biochemical treatments have been proven to help -
unlike the "philosophical" forms of psychotherapy (Young, Frued, or
"objectivist").
> Overall, I would say that so little is known about the nature of
> personality development and how to affect it in adulthood, that one is
> probably better *not* engaging in psychotherapy, than in doing so. In
> particular, if a person is experiencing some kind of mental illness like
> obsessive/compulsive disorder, periodic or chronic depression,
> manic/depressive mood disorder, or anxiety attacks, I would *highly*
> recommend they see one or more MDs who specialize in treating these
> disorders, under the assumption that it is *most* likely a treatable
> physical disorder, not a purely psychological disorder.
> Brad Aisa
(Fruedian Psycho-analysis has actually been shown, in several
studies, to make schizophrenics WORSE. Think about it, asking someone
with a loose grip on reality to delve into the hidden subconscious
motivations behind his actions and dreams.)
It should also be said that certain types of very pragmatic
behavior-modification therapies (for phobias, for depression) have been
shown to help somewhat, especially in combination with medication. These
are often not based on any moral philosophy but rather on empiracle data
on what coping techniques help or harm a patient's ability to cope.
And I totally agree with Mr. Aisa's last statement - if you think
you may have a problem like that see a psychiatrist. The field does have
kooks, but also many competent practitioners who use evidence and science
to pick treatments which are proven to work.
Would you see an orthopod who tried to set your bones based on his
moral philosophy? Do you think LESS data, experiment, and evidence is
needed to find treatments aimed at an organ infinitely more complex than a
bone - your brain?
Eric
David J. Rodman
Eric Lancaster wrote in message ...
> And I totally agree with Mr. Aisa's last statement - if you think
>you may have a problem like that see a psychiatrist.
Excuse me, but that is the exact opposite of Mr. Aisa's intended meaning.
He did say see an MD who specializes in mental disorders, and indeed that is
a psychiatrist, however if you follow the rest of the thread you will see
that, as usual. Mr. Aisa is using his own private definitions again, and he
means very clearly: do NOT see a psychiatrist.
The problem with looking at psychotherapy from the standpoint of
biochemistry is simply this: the problems addressed by psychotherapy do are
not manifest in the realm of biochemistry. Patients do not seek help
because they are experiencing problems with their seratonin levels, they
seek help because they feel terrible or are experiencing difficulty relating
to themselves, their work, their families, or because they are experiencing
paralysis of the will of one kind or another.
While drugs can certainly modify these experiences, the root cause of
psychological problems is mental, not biochemical. Two factors complicate
the issue: first, many physical and biochemical disorders present as
psychological disorders; second, many psychological disorders cause physical
and biochemical disorders.
In the example that Brad gave, an otherwise happy, healthy, rational,
productive person suddenly and without apparent reason began to experience
periodic anxiety attacks. In such a case I agree with Brad that the first
question should be: is there a physical, biochemical problem? If so, solve
that and see if everything goes back to normal.
On the other hand, I have worked with otherwise happy, healthy, rational,
productive people who suddenly start experiencing periodic anxiety attacks
for no apparent reason. Having ruled out any obvious physical/biochemical
causes, a little delving into the current life situation, in many cases,
reveals an event which the person himself does not consciously evaluate as
crucial or even important, yet it is the proximate cause of the anxiety.
The root of this current thread was Brad's unfounded attack on the entire
field of psychotherapy in general, and Objectivist therapy in particular;
after he repudiated the very validity of the concept of Objectivist
Psychotherapy, I pointed out to him that it was originated by Ayn Rand. He
has since switched to a different topic, naturally.
Robert J. Kolker
David J. Rodman wrote:
> The problem with looking at psychotherapy from the standpoint of
> biochemistry is simply this: the problems addressed by psychotherapy do are
> not manifest in the realm of biochemistry. Patients do not seek help
> because they are experiencing problems with their seratonin levels, they
> seek help because they feel terrible or are experiencing difficulty relating
> to themselves, their work, their families, or because they are experiencing
> paralysis of the will of one kind or another.
One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The underlyingcauses
of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of a neurochemical
nature. There is no mind (as a substantial stand along thing) , but there is a
brain and nervous system. All the x-rays of all the human skulls have yet
to reveal a mind. I wonder why people talk as though the mind exists.
Bob Kolker
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
Brad Aisa
>
> Eric Lancaster wrote in message ...
>
> > And I totally agree with Mr. Aisa's last statement - if you think
> >you may have a problem like that see a psychiatrist.
>
> Excuse me, but that is the exact opposite of Mr. Aisa's intended meaning.
> He did say see an MD who specializes in mental disorders, and indeed that is
> a psychiatrist, however if you follow the rest of the thread you will see
> that, as usual. Mr. Aisa is using his own private definitions again, and he
> means very clearly: do NOT see a psychiatrist.
I said see a general practitioner -- a MD (medical doctor) *first*. In
fact, in many medical regimes, you have to do that anyway to get
referred to a specialist.
> While drugs can certainly modify these experiences, the root cause of
> psychological problems is mental, not biochemical.
This is simply false, and refuted by a vast array of scientific
evidence.
The root cause of *some* psychological problems is mental, not all.
> The root of this current thread was Brad's unfounded attack on the entire
> field of psychotherapy in general, and Objectivist therapy in particular;
I did *not* attack psychotherapy in general -- I have no doubt it can be
very valuable, **when the problem is purely mental**.
> after he repudiated the very validity of the concept of Objectivist
> Psychotherapy, I pointed out to him that it was originated by Ayn Rand. He
> has since switched to a different topic, naturally.
I reviewed that article by Blumenthal, and there are many rationalistic
assumptions in it. I don't doubt that many of the techniques listed are
valuable, but the entire exercise needs to be put on a *much* more
scientific founding.
For instance, the article did not even mention once, the fact that many
psychological disorders can have physical causes. It just blithely
asserts that mental problems are caused by various problems with the
rational faculty.
This is extremely irresponsible, not to mention dangerous, for the
reasons I mentioned in my original article.
Brad Aisa
>
> One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The underlying
> causes
> of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of a neurochemical
> nature.
This is an arbitrary, unfounded assertion.
It appears that learning is facilitated primarily by neuroanatomical
changes -- the strengthing or weakening of synapses, or the growth of
new synaptic connections altogether. The actions of the mind cause these
physical pathways to change. Subsequent actions of the mind, say via
psychotherapy, can alter these pathways, effecting mental change.
> There is no mind (as a substantial stand along thing) , but there is a
> brain and nervous system. All the x-rays of all the human skulls have yet
> to reveal a mind. I wonder why people talk as though the mind exists.
The same reason they talk as though computer programs exist. ;)
Robert J. Kolker
Brad Aisa wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> >
> > One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The underlying
> > causes
> > of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of a neurochemical
> > nature.
>
> This is an arbitrary, unfounded assertion.
Show me one iota of evidence for the existence of mind
as a substantial stand alone thing. I believe you will
come up empty handed. There is no such *thing*
as mind. There are such things as brains and neural tissue.
Bob Kolker
David J. Rodman
Brad Aisa wrote in message <36AD0EF7...@istar.ca>...
>"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>>
>> One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The underlying
>> causes
>> of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of a neurochemical
>> nature.
>
>This is an arbitrary, unfounded assertion.
>
>changes -- the strengthing or weakening of synapses, or the growth of
>new synaptic connections altogether. The actions of the mind cause these
>physical pathways to change. Subsequent actions of the mind, say via
>psychotherapy, can alter these pathways, effecting mental change.
>
That's exactly right. What Rob's missing is this:
The problems we're talking about can be detected, often, through objective
neuroanatomical or biochemical means. Leaving aside for the moment
the mechanism of correction, when these problems have been corrected,
the neuroanatomical or biochemical assay reveals the change as well.
Taking it a step further, it has been shown that, in many cases, adjusting
the body's chemistry effects a change in the problem, even a correction.
BUT! (Here's the part Rob's missing) the problem is a mental problem, and
you
absolutely cannot tell whether it's been corrected without reference to the
patient's
mental state. Every single study confirms this - the reported success does
not
claim that success is measured by the biochemical change, but rather by the
perceived improvement in the mental functioning of the patient.
So, yes, you can apparently correct some mental problems my making a
biochemical adjustment; others, however, are not so receptive to correction
in that way and require psychotherapy or some other form of addressing the
mental state of the patient.
Here's an analogy. Brad and Rob are talking, and they both enthusiastically
agree on one point: "If only I had enough money to buy an elephant, I'd be
perfectly happy."
Mike, who wants everyone to be perfectly happy, goes out and buys each of
them an elephant. Rob is thereafter perfectly happy; Brad, on the other
hand,
shows no sign of any change in his mental state. Upon further
investigation,
it comes to light that Rob wanted enough money to buy an elephant because he
really wanted an elephant. Brad, on the other hand, wanted enough money
to buy an elephant because with that much money he could buy a Porsche,
which
is what he really wanted.
The elephant, for our west-coast audience, represents the biochemical
treatment.
David J. Rodman
Brad Aisa wrote in message <36AD0DE3...@istar.ca>...
>"David J. Rodman" wrote:
>>
>> Eric Lancaster wrote in message ...
>>
>> > And I totally agree with Mr. Aisa's last statement - if you think
>> >you may have a problem like that see a psychiatrist.
>>
>> Excuse me, but that is the exact opposite of Mr. Aisa's intended meaning.
>> He did say see an MD who specializes in mental disorders, and indeed that
is
>> a psychiatrist, however if you follow the rest of the thread you will see
>> that, as usual. Mr. Aisa is using his own private definitions again, and
he
>> means very clearly: do NOT see a psychiatrist.
>
>I said see a general practitioner -- a MD (medical doctor) *first*. In
>fact, in many medical regimes, you have to do that anyway to get
>referred to a specialist.
No, that's not what you said. However, it makes total sense and if
that's what you meant to say, I'm with you 100%. Start by
eliminating the physical - it's the easiest to diagnose and treat.
>
>
>> While drugs can certainly modify these experiences, the root cause of
>> psychological problems is mental, not biochemical.
>
>This is simply false, and refuted by a vast array of scientific
>evidence.
>
>The root cause of *some* psychological problems is mental, not all.
>
I disagree. No vast array of scientific evidence, based as it is upon
asking the wrong question, can dissuade me - make of that what you will.
>> after he repudiated the very validity of the concept of Objectivist
>> Psychotherapy, I pointed out to him that it was originated by Ayn Rand.
He
>> has since switched to a different topic, naturally.
>
>I reviewed that article by Blumenthal, and there are many rationalistic
>assumptions in it. I don't doubt that many of the techniques listed are
>valuable, but the entire exercise needs to be put on a *much* more
>scientific founding.
That's certainly true, if one's goal is to develop the scientific theory
of psychotherapy. I don't believe that was Dr. Blumenthal's purpose.
>
>For instance, the article did not even mention once, the fact that many
>psychological disorders can have physical causes. It just blithely
>asserts that mental problems are caused by various problems with the
>rational faculty.
I agree - and this is one of the seriously dated and incomplete aspects
of the article. It also unfortunately reflects the state of Ayn Rand's
thinking
at the time, and the iron handedness with which she ruled the content
of The Objectivist.
Surely the "let 'em eat cake" approach to psychotherapy does more harm
than good - i.e. the position that *all* psychological problems are simply
errors in thinking which can be corrected by better thinking. By the same
token, the Clockwork Orange approach also does more harm than good.
There is no single answer to "what causes psychological problems" because
the *entire patient* must be considered in each case before the cause and
cure
can be known. A good therapist - medical, psychological, or otherwise -
will
treat the patient, not the disease. This is a lot more work than treating
the
symptoms, and invariably produces better, longer-lasting results - sometimes
with exactly the same treatment!
I think, Mr. Aisa, that we are substantially in agreement on this issue.
How
is that possible?
Phil Roberts, Jr.
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
>
> One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The underlying
> causes
> of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of a neurochemical
> nature. There is no mind (as a substantial stand along thing) , but ther
> e is a
> brain and nervous system. All the x-rays of all the human skulls have yet
> to reveal a mind. I wonder why people talk as though the mind exists.
>
There's also no physical evidence of causal attributes. Are you suggesting
that causality is not a part of nature because it can never be observed
(only inferred) via physical means.
There is also no physical evidence of 'feelings of worthlessness', and yet
I dare say that, it you are at all like me, the avoidance of such and the
attaining or maintaining an adequate sense of worth is the
dominant motivational factor underlying 99% of your thought and behavior.
Do you disagree?
--
Phil Roberts, Jr.
Feelings of Worthlessness and So-Called Cognitive Science
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476
Jim Klein
>For instance, the article did not even mention once, the fact that
>many psychological disorders can have physical causes.
What kind of complaint is this? Car manuals don't mention that the
cars are made of molecules either, even though they are.
OF COURSE psychological disorders (ALL of them, not just some), have
"physical causes;" what other causes do you imagine there to be?
That's hardly germaine to the topic under discussion.
>It just blithely asserts that mental problems are caused by various
>problems with the rational faculty.
That's not a blithe assertion; it's close to an accurate definition.
Your gripe should be that it hardly says anything at all, not that is
says anything wrong.
>This is extremely irresponsible, not to mention dangerous, for the
>reasons I mentioned in my original article.
Except your original article was all wrong, both in terms of philosophy
as I've demonstrated and in terms of psychotherapy as David has
demonstrated.
Philosophically, your entire argument is based upon the premise that
volition isn't volition, a rather blithe assertion itself.
jk
Jim Klein
>>One must distinguish between the symptoms and the ailment. The
>>underlying causes of feeling terrible or paralysis of the will are of
>>a neurochemical nature.
>
>This is an arbitrary, unfounded assertion.
Surely you jest.
>It appears that learning is facilitated primarily by neuroanatomical
>changes -- the strengthing or weakening of synapses, or the growth of
>new synaptic connections altogether. The actions of the mind cause
>these physical pathways to change. Subsequent actions of the mind, say
>via psychotherapy, can alter these pathways, effecting mental change.
IOW, Bob's statement was entirely accurate. Either that, or you don't
know what the hell "neurochemical" means.
jk
Randy Cech
Sandra Mendoza (sandr...@aol.com) from Tiburon, California , March 21,
1998
5 out of 5 stars
"The most devastating critique of ISM'S & cults ever written
Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman who wrote elegant philosophical prose. I read
THE TRUE BELIEVER when I was involved with Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement
and recognized myself and everyone I knew. Have your youngster read this
book and I guarantee they will never join the Moonies or any other cult
while away at college.This is a great book. "
I have lots of research on cults and there needs to be some distinctions
drawn between the different variations. The word cult has come to mean
Dangerous cult. Unfortunately the word is thrown around way to often.
Because many Objectivists have reverence for the philosophy's creator, Ayn
Rand, we're Cultists? When I think of a cult, I think of Jonestown,
Heavensgate, Scientology, etc. Groups that do not encourage individualism,
but rather collectivism and group thinking.
Webster Handy College Dictionary (the only one here at my office) says:
cult: the person and rites associated with an object or veneration.
Steve Hassan's Combating Cult Mind Control is an other really good book, and
there is a section in it where mind control is defined. I am at the office
now so I can't give further details. I guess I will have to do some digging
and put together a post with pertinent data, that is reasons why Objectivism
is not a cult, in the way most people currently define the term, a dangerous
cult.
All for now.
Randy Cech
Henrik Bejke wrote in message ...
>>dh...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> Rand herself was at times aware of the danger of
>> collecting 'disciples'. She often referred to a
>> book 'The True Beleiver'.This examinated cults,
>> fanaticism's and the notion of 'gospel truth'.
>> I have forgotten the authors name. Anyone out
>> there know of it ?
>The name of the author is Eric Hoffer. You can take a look at this link to
>Amazon Books:
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060916125/rpcman/002-1938214-013980
1
Brad Aisa
> Show me one iota of evidence for the existence of mind
> as a substantial stand alone thing. I believe you will
> come up empty handed. There is no such *thing*
> as mind. There are such things as brains and neural tissue.
Minds *exist*.
Not everything that exists is an entity.
Actions exist, but they are not things.
Betsy Speicher
> Here is an atrocious comment from the web page referenced in the above post:
>
> Sandra Mendoza (sandr...@aol.com) from Tiburon, California , March 21,
> 1998
> 5 out of 5 stars
> "The most devastating critique of ISM'S & cults ever written
> Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman who wrote elegant philosophical prose. I read
> THE TRUE BELIEVER when I was involved with Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement
> and recognized myself and everyone I knew. Have your youngster read this
> book and I guarantee they will never join the Moonies or any other cult
> while away at college.This is a great book. "
What a strange comment!
Eric Hoffer's _The_True_Believer_ is a wonderful book by an insightful man
who understood what it means to think in principles. Hoffer shows what
all mass movements from Christianity to Marxism have in common:
disparagement of the mind, emphasis on the collective, calls for
self-sacrifice, etc.
Does that sound like Objectivism?
Seth David Johnson
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> > Show me one iota of evidence for the existence of mind
> > as a substantial stand alone thing. I believe you will
> > come up empty handed. There is no such *thing*
> > as mind. There are such things as brains and neural tissue.
>
> Minds *exist*.
>
> Not everything that exists is an entity.
>
> Actions exist, but they are not things.
Thoughts, etc. are attributes of an entity (brain). I think what Bob might
be getting at (and it is something I agree with) is that what a brain
_does_ cannot be "ill," only the brain itself. (I apologize to Bob if I am
assuming too much.)
This is one of many reasons why the psychiatric industry is all but a
scam. If the brain has physically detectable lesions, then the illness
from which they arose can be treated by a _neurologist_. Any other mental
"illness" is bullshit, and anyone who claims that such an "illness" exists
either is out to bilk you or your insurance company, or gets some
perverse joy out of "helping" you against your will.
Thomas Szasz, though I do not agree with him on many philosophical issues,
has written some very good books on this subject, namely "The Myth of
Mental Illness" and "The Manufacture of Madness."
-Seth
Robert J. Kolker
Brad Aisa wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> > Show me one iota of evidence for the existence of mind
> > as a substantial stand alone thing. I believe you will
> > come up empty handed. There is no such *thing*
> > as mind. There are such things as brains and neural tissue.
>
> Minds *exist*.
>
> Not everything that exists is an entity.
>
> Actions exist, but they are not things.
O.K. If I read you right, you claim minding isan action or a process.
Carried out by what?
The brain and neural system? Which supports
my claim that mind is not a substance, and it
should stop being referred to by a noun. Refer
to mind by a verb construction, such as minding.
Doing this will make the so-called mind/body problem
go away. We do not have a stomach/digestion problem.
or a lung/breathing problem. Likewise we should not
have a brain/minding problem either. What the brain
does (among other things) is to integrate sensory
input and retain data. The brain's processes are not
disembodied and any science that treats minding/data
processing as a THING is bogus prima facia.
Psychology, pyschiatry are scams. Brain neurophysiology
and brain pharmacology may turn out to be useful.
Would you go to a doctor who tried to cure cancer by
driving out the evil spirits? I wouldn't.
Bob Kolker
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> I have lots of research on cults and there needs to be some
> distinctions drawn between the different variations. The word cult
> has come to mean Dangerous cult. Unfortunately the word is thrown
> around way to often. Because many Objectivists have reverence for
> the philosophy's creator, Ayn Rand, we're Cultists? When I think of
> a cult, I think of Jonestown, Heavensgate, Scientology, etc. Groups
> that do not encourage individualism, but rather collectivism and
> group thinking.
Believe it or not, Randy, there are people who think that that is an
accurate description of Objectivism, or at least some factions of it.
The fact that a particular group claims to encourage individualism and
free thought does not prove that they really do.
-- M. Ruff
David Friedman
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Randy Cech wrote:
>>
>> I have lots of research on cults and there needs to be some
>> distinctions drawn between the different variations. The word cult
>> has come to mean Dangerous cult. Unfortunately the word is thrown
>> around way to often. Because many Objectivists have reverence for
>> the philosophy's creator, Ayn Rand, we're Cultists? When I think of
>> a cult, I think of Jonestown, Heavensgate, Scientology, etc. Groups
>> that do not encourage individualism, but rather collectivism and
>> group thinking.
>
>Believe it or not, Randy, there are people who think that that is an
>accurate description of Objectivism, or at least some factions of it.
It is a pity we don't have any scientologists posting here--at least, none
that I know. A year or so back I was giving a talk in the Pacific NW, and
the people who arranged it told me they had an arrangement with a local
private school to invite their speakers to talk to the students. I agreed.
It turned out that the school was the Delphi Institute--the parent school
of the Scientology school system. I gave a talk (on what economics is) to
the student body, and a briefer talk at a "headmaster's tea," looked at
some of their schoolbooks, and talked at some length with the founder. One
of the things that struck me was that, if you judged Scientology by what
they say about themselves in that sort of context, it looks quite similar
to Objectivism. In particular, it is very strong about being pro-reason.
On the basis of other evidence, I think Scientology is quite a lot nuttier
than that particular view of it suggested--and quite a lot nuttier than
Objectivism. But seen from the right angle, that isn't obvious, and I
suspect many Scientologists would find the idea that Scientology is a cult
just as odd as Objectivists find the idea that Objectivism is.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Mike Rael
A cult gets has a number of characteristics, as a charismatic
leader, thought control, restriction of reading matter, and loaded
vocabulary. When Rand lived and the Nathaniel Branden Institute
flourished, you had *all* these characteristics going on in many folks of
the "Collective" (Rand's term).
It's true enough that Objectivism had something that *no* cult
has had:an explicit enunication of what "reason" is and its placement as
the primary psychoepistemological value.
So we end up with a quasi-cult that has the potential of growing
out of being a cult by those people who take the actual philosophy of
increasing awareness *seriously*.
best wishes,
Mike
Randy Cech (Sam_P...@email.msn.com) wrote:
The word cult has come to mean
: Dangerous cult. Unfortunately the word is thrown around way to often.
: Because many Objectivists have reverence for the philosophy's creator, Ayn
: Rand, we're Cultists? When I think of a cult, I think of Jonestown,
: Heavensgate, Scientology, etc. Groups that do not encourage individualism,
: but rather collectivism and group thinking.
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
db...@tampatrib.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmaill.com> wrote:
> The brain and neural system? Which supports
> my claim that mind is not a substance, and it
> should stop being referred to by a noun. Refer
> to mind by a verb construction, such as minding.
Your objection is purile. Gerunds are nouns.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brad Aisa
> [...] the psychiatric industry is all but a
> scam. If the brain has physically detectable lesions, then the illness
> from which they arose can be treated by a _neurologist_. Any other mental
> "illness" is bullshit, and anyone who claims that such an "illness" exists
> either is out to bilk you or your insurance company, or gets some
> perverse joy out of "helping" you against your will.
Let's see -- consciousness has *identity*, is one of the most complex
phenomena in the known universe, but is arbitrarily deemed to be
axiomatically "perfect".
Uh, huh.
> Thomas Szasz, though I do not agree with him on many philosophical issues,
> has written some very good books on this subject, namely "The Myth of
> Mental Illness" and "The Manufacture of Madness."
Mental illness exists, in a boggling variety of ailments, some
(primarily) physically caused, many others undoubtably mental, or a
mixture of physical and mental (for example, drug addiction, which has
elements of both.)
Denying these irrefutable facts requires a wholesale rape of the process
of cognition.
Perhaps denying mental illness is itself a peculiar form of same.
Brad Aisa
> Would you go to a doctor who tried to cure cancer by
> driving out the evil spirits? I wouldn't.
Would you hire a Software Test Engineer who diagnosed the problem with
every program as being hardware based?
:)
Robert J. Kolker
Brad Aisa wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> > Would you go to a doctor who tried to cure cancer by
> > driving out the evil spirits? I wouldn't.
>
> Would you hire a Software Test Engineer who diagnosed the problem with
> every program as being hardware based?
Two things: 1. Software is embodied in stored states in machine store.
Inshort, it is a physical as the flip flops. It is as much a product of
intention
and planning as the chips. The only thing that distinguishes software from
hardware is the ability to rewrite same.
2. What corresponds to software in humans? The closest things I can come
up with are what is stored in memory and learned behaviour patterns. In
short
mental illness is really bad habits. Anything else is a brain lesion or a
disruption in the production of neuro-transmitters and neuro inhibitors.
The next time I get bronchitis I expect to be treated with anti-biortics,
not lectures on how to breath better.
There is no such THING as the mind. The mind if anything is what a living
brain does. Mind is not substance. It is at most a derivative of neuro
physiological processing and any attempt to reify mind is bound to lead to
error. As I pointed out before we have a mind/brain problem but not
a stomach/digestion problem. That is because we have incorrectly
conceptualized
what we mean by mind.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> Your objection is purile. Gerunds are nouns.
Picky, picky. My point was that we tend to
reify nouns. Whenever we encounter a noun
we tend to look for an entity to which it
corresponds. This is sometimes erroneous. There
is not such THING as the mind. You can slice and
dice corpses. You can crack open skulls, and you
will never find a mind. What we called mind (expressed)
as a noun is the doings (ongoing processeses) of the
brain. There is no mind w.o. a living brain to make it
happen. The mind, if anything, is a happening, not
a solid, stand-alone substantial thing.
This is why the mind sciences (so called) have been
total failures. Psychology is a scam. Psychotherapy
is a scam. It wasn't until neuro active drugs were
developed that so-called "mentally ill" people have be
helped to function properly. Lithium and prozak have
done more good for mankind than Sigmund Fraud and
all of his psycho-quack brethren.
Bob Kolker
Seth David Johnson
> Seth David Johnson wrote:
>
> > [...] the psychiatric industry is all but a
> > scam. If the brain has physically detectable lesions, then the illness
> > from which they arose can be treated by a _neurologist_. Any other mental
> > "illness" is bullshit, and anyone who claims that such an "illness" exists
> > either is out to bilk you or your insurance company, or gets some
> > perverse joy out of "helping" you against your will.
>
> Let's see -- consciousness has *identity*, is one of the most complex
> phenomena in the known universe, but is arbitrarily deemed to be
> axiomatically "perfect".
>
> Uh, huh.
Did I say that? No. People undoubtedly choose to do stupid/evasive things
and take part in destructive behavior. But to call behavior "illness"
and treat it as a medical condition is like using a hammer to fix a
software bug.
> > Thomas Szasz, though I do not agree with him on many philosophical issues,
> > has written some very good books on this subject, namely "The Myth of
> > Mental Illness" and "The Manufacture of Madness."
>
> Mental illness exists, in a boggling variety of ailments, some
> (primarily) physically caused,
And are properly treated by _neurologists_ at the consent of the patient.
> many others undoubtably mental, or a
> mixture of physical and mental (for example, drug addiction, which has
> elements of both.)
What is a "mental" illness, if a physical lesion is not present, and how
do you go about detecting it? Either strange behavior is caused by a
physically detectable problem, or the actor has chosen to be strange out
of his own free-will. Any other explanation is pure subjective nonsense.
By the way, since when does it require a committee vote (as with the APA)
to decide whether something is an illness? Homosexuality, for example, was
voted a non-disease in the 70s after "treating" it (read: locking up fags
and giving them shock-treatment against their will) ceased to be popular.
> Denying these irrefutable facts requires a wholesale rape of the process
> of cognition.
Considering bad behavior without physical cause to be illness entails
evading the existence of free-will, and destroys the objective definition
of illness.
> Perhaps denying mental illness is itself a peculiar form of same.
Like drowning is evidence of an accused witch's innocence.
-Seth
Houman Shadab
>Mental illness exists, in a boggling variety of ailments, some
>(primarily) physically caused, many others undoubtably mental, or a
>mixture of physical and mental (for example, drug addiction, which has
>elements of both.)
I have found this to be an interesting debate of late. I was hoping
that you could please define what you mean by "mental illness."
Right now, I'm having trouble understand what mental illness is. If
it is not a neurological problem and if it is not the result of false
ideas, then just what is a mental illness. As of right now I'd define
a mental illness as: the effect of the acceptance of one or more false
ideas to such an extent that it is so deeply embedded in one's
subconscious that one is not directly aware of the false idea, yet it
is having negative emotional effects on the person.
Regards,
__________________________________
Houman Brian Shadab
sha...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
http://www.ocfberkeley.edu/~shadab/
__________________________________
Phil Roberts, Jr.
Houman Shadab wrote:
>
> Brad Aisa <ba...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mental illness exists, in a boggling variety of ailments, some
> >(primarily) physically caused, many others undoubtably mental, or a
> >mixture of physical and mental (for example, drug addiction, which has
> >elements of both.)
>
> I have found this to be an interesting debate of late. I was hoping
> that you could please define what you mean by "mental illness."
> Right now, I'm having trouble understand what mental illness is. If
> it is not a neurological problem and if it is not the result of false
> ideas, then just what is a mental illness. As of right now I'd define
> a mental illness as: the effect of the acceptance of one or more false
> ideas to such an extent that it is so deeply embedded in one's
> subconscious that one is not directly aware of the false idea, yet it
> is having negative emotional effects on the person.
>
Assume that 98% of all mental illness entails a catastrophic loss of
self-esteem and you probably won't be far off the mark. The basis
for this contention is not empirical data, since it would
be a very difficult thing to measure, as a realization that 98 percent
of everything humans do is in one way or another involved with
attempting to attain or maintain self-esteem. If so, (and certainly
even this can be contested), then its crashingly obvious that
nature would not have us expending huge quantities of effort and
energy on such nonsense if it were not TERRIBLY IMPORTANT. As such,
I assume that emotional disorder is simply the consequence of failing
to measure up to ma's expectations in the self-worth department.
Certainly physiology plays a role, but the dominance of self-esteem
motivation in human affairs suggests that, at its core, emotional
disorder is A VALUATIVE AFFLICTION:
A Divergent Theory of Emotional Disorder
Objective: To account for self-worth related emotion (i.e., needs for
love, acceptance, moral integrity, recognition, achievement,
purpose, meaning, etc.) and emotional disorder (e.g., depression,
suicide, etc.) within the context of an evolutionary scenario; i.e., to
synthesize natural science and the humanities; i.e., to answer the
question: 'Why is there a species of naturally selected organism
expending huge quantities of effort and energy on the survivalistically
bizarre non-physical objective of maximizing self-worth?'
Observation: The species in which rationality is most developed is
also the one in which individuals have the greatest difficulty in
maintaining an adequate sense of self-worth, often going to
extraordinary lengths in doing so (e.g., Evel Knievel, celibate monks,
self-endangering Greenpeacers, etc.).
Hypothesis: Rationality is antagonistic to psychocentric stability (i.e.,
maintaining an adequate sense of self-worth).
Synopsis: In much the manner reasoning allows for the subordination
of lower emotional concerns and values (pain, fear, anger, sex, etc.)
to more global concerns (concern for the self as a whole), so too,
these more global concerns and values can themselves become
reevaluated and subordinated to other more global, more objective
considerations. And if this is so, and assuming that emotional
disorder emanates from a deficiency in self-worth resulting from
precisely this sort of experiencially based reevaluation, then it can
reasonably be construed as a natural malfunction resulting from
one's rational faculties functioning a tad too well.
Normalcy and Disorder: Assuming this is correct, then some
explanation for the relative "normalcy" of most individuals would
seem necessary. This is accomplished simply by postulating
different levels or degrees of consciousness. From this perspective,
emotional disorder would then be construed as a valuative affliction
resulting from an increase in semantic content in the engram indexed
by the linguistic expression, "I am insignificant", which all persons of
common sense "know" to be true, but which the "emotionally
disturbed" have come to "realize", through abstract thought,
devaluing experience, etc.
Implications: So-called "free will" and the incessant activity presumed
to emanate from it is simply the insatiable appetite we all have for
self-significating experience which, in turn, is simply nature's way of
attempting to counter the objectifying influences of our rational
faculties. This also implies that the engine in the first "free-thinking"
artifact is probably going to be a diesel.
"Another simile would be an atomic pile of less than critical size: an
injected idea is to correspond to a neutron entering the pile from
without. Each such neutron will cause a certain disturbance which
eventually dies away. If, however, the size of the pile is sufficiently
increased, the disturbance caused by such an incoming neutron will
very likely go on and on increasing until the whole pile is destroyed.
Is there a corresponding phenomenon for minds?" (A. M. Turing).
Additional Implications: Since the explanation I have proposed
amounts to the contention that the most rational species
(presumably) is beginning to exhibit signs of transcending the
formalism of nature's fixed objective (accomplished in man via
intentional self-concern, i.e., the prudence program) it can reasonably
be construed as providing evidence and argumentation in support of
Lucas (1961) and Penrose (1989, 1994). Not only does this imply
that the aforementioned artifact probably won't be a computer,
but it would also explain why a
question such as "Can Human Irrationality Be Experimentally
Demonstrated?" (Cohen, 1981) has led to controversy, in that it
presupposes the possibility of a discrete (formalizable) answer to a
question which can only be addressed in comparative
(non-formalizable) terms (e.g. X is more rational than Y, the norm, etc.).
Along these same lines, the theory can also be construed as an
endorsement or metajustification for comparative approaches in
epistemology (explanationism, plausiblism, etc.)
"The short answer [to Lucas/Godel and more recently, Penrose]
is that, although it is established that there are limitations to the
powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without
any sort of proof, that no such limitations apply to human intellect "
(A. M. Turing).
"So even if mathematicians are superb cognizers of mathematical
truth, and even if there is no algorithm, practical or otherwise,
for cognizing mathematical truth, it does not follow that the power
of mathematicians to cognize mathematical truth is not entirely
explicable in terms of their brain's executing an algorithm. Not
an algorhithm for intuiting mathematical truth -- we can suppose that
Penrose [via Godel] has proved that there could be no such thing.
What would the algorithm be for, then? Most plausibly it would be an
algorithm -- one of very many -- for trying to stay alive ... " (D. C.
Dennett).
Oops! Sorry! Wrong again, old bean.
"My ruling passion is the love of literary fame" (David Hume).
"I have often felt as though I had inherited all the defiance and all the
passions with which our ancestors defended their Temple and could
gladly sacrifice my life for one great moment in history" (Sigmund
Freud).
"He, too [Ludwig Wittgenstein], suffered from depressions and for long
periods considered killing himself because he considered his life
worthless, but the stubbornness inherited from his father may have
helped him to survive" (Hans Sluga).
"The inquest [Alan Turing's] established that it was suicide. The
evidence was perfunctory, not for any irregular reason, but because
it was so transparently clear a case" (Andrew Hodges)
Mike Rael
There really is no "Objectivist psychotherapy" extant as yet.
There are a number of psychotherapists who are Objectivists,
philosophically, but they tend to have their own distinct views of what
the psyche is and how to treat it.
Some folks believe you focus on thoughts first of all, then
actions, then feelings. Others go into feelings first. Still others
tackle behaviors first.
Some believe that the Present is All. Others believes that there
are such things as repressed feelings that affect the present. Still
others believe, with Frankl, that one's purpose in life is the primary
value of significance.
Some go along with Branden, when he uses exercises to help affect
self-esteem directly, and uses that affect to aid one in eradicating old
behaviors and instituting new ones.
Others reject the idea that self-esteem can be dealt with directly.
And there are categories and other subcategories, depending upon
the use of hypnosis, Reichian bodywork, fantasy work a la Shorr, unusual
group work as Satir wrote about...
About the only thing uniting these "Objectivist" therapists is an
agreement that there is only one reality outside of us and that reason is
the basic and only way of knowing it.
Philosophic therapy, by the way, is not confined to Objectivists.
Ellis uses it, as do the existentialists. Personally, I agree with you
that *generally* it does not work well longterm.
Branden's writings about anxiety or depression focus on what is
volitional, since that is the realm that psychologists deal with. There
is no question that, at times, the psychogenic drugs or orthomolecur
psychiatry are the best ways to go. The problem is when folks take drugs
and use them to avoid self-responsibility--after all, since
they can affect their pain with a pill, why deal with the underlying
problem?!
best wishes,
Mike
Brad Aisa (ba...@istar.ca) wrote:
: Randy Cech wrote:
: [questions about Dr. Blumenthal, which were well answered by
: Betsy Speicher and Richard Lawrence]
: >
: > [...] Does any one know what became of Dr. Blumenthal and his
: > work ? Was anything every published on his work in particular or on this
: > topic of applying Objectivist principles to psychiatry and psychology.
: I would like to address the last question in particular.
: In my experience, Objectivists, from newbies to seasoned veterans, seem
: inclined to commit the fallacy of rationalism, that is, divorcing ideas
: from their inductive factual base, and instead, attempting to derive
: them deductively from abstract principles considered as axioms. This
: tendency seems to have been especially acute, with regard to psychology.
: One approach to the issue of mental health that is incredibly dangerous,
: and which I think has had a substantial degree of currency, both in the
: past and present amongst Objectivists, is the notion that all of
: psychology somehow derives, mechanistically, from philosophy. Under this
: view, psychological problems are caused by "bad philosophy"; the goal of
: psychotheraphy is to identify the "bad philosophy", and supplant it with
: "good philosophy". (Edith Packer, an Objectivist psychotherapist,
: referred to this process as identifying the erroneous "core metaphysical
: value judgments" of the patient, and correcting them.)
: While it is true that conclusions of a philosophic nature lie at the
: root of personality, this does NOT imply that the solution to
: psychological problems is studying philosophy. The ideas one studies
: explicitly, are not necessarily linked to those aspects of one's mind
: that have been firmly automated as one's personality. In order to
: establish a rational basis for psychological study and psychotherapy,
: one must have a very clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
: the mind, how they develop, and how they may change.
: This is NOT purely an "intellectual" matter. For example, it is a
: scientific fact that the human brain is wired to support the acquisition
: of human language(s). But there is a period of early childhood in which
: the brain is "plastic" regarding language, and in this period, a child
: can easily acquire one or more languages, and speak it thereafter with
: automated efficacy. At a certain point, this "plastic period" ends,
: quite dramatically, and is accompanied by substantial neurological
: change that can be observed. By contrast, a language acquired after
: this period, is centered in different regions of the brain than "native"
: languages. Speakers do not develop a native, fully automated facility
: with the language, speak it with an accent, etc.
: It is doubtless true that similar considerations apply to the
: relationship between the mental equivalent of philosophic ideas, and
: personality. The foundations of personality are established very early
: in life. It must be established what is realistic to change about
: personality, later in life, and how this can be achieved.
: A friend of mine has a hypothesis that some people end up becoming
: extremely bitter towards Rand and Objectivism in the following way. Upon
: first encounter with Rand's novels, they are enamoured of her heroes and
: heroines, implicitly imagining themselves becoming existential
: equivalents merely by adopting Rand's ideas. When their "agreement" with
: and espousal of Rand's ideas do not automatically cause them to become
: courageous, charming, brilliant, upwardly mobile, and so on, they
: (implicitly or explicitly) denounce Rand's ideas as bogus goods, and
: become her enemy. We've all seen these annoying types, "I used to agree
: with Rand, but then I grew up..." and worse.
: My friend has made the point though that character is quite fixed --
: sure you always have a choice in individual actions and situations, but
: that is not the same as character -- meaning, your fundamental
: automatized values, thinking methods, use of your volition, etc.
: Believing that one can become the equivalent of John Galt, without
: examining what that would take, simply leads to disaster. One has to
: establish realistic goals for self-improvement.
: There is another great danger in reifying philosophy in the area of
: psychology -- this is discounting the physiological foundation of the
: mind. Many psychological and psychiatric disorders are simply not
: related to anything volitional, and are not ammenable to any kind of
: volitional or intellectual remediation via psychotherapy.
: Nathan Branden wrote a lot of articles for Rand's magazines that
: smacked of "oraclism" -- bold rationalistic pronouncements derived
: deductively and arbitrarily from a philosophic base. For example, he
: wrote an article about anxiety, and also touched on the subject of
: depression. The following is perhaps the most egregious extract in the
: article, and perhaps in all his writings in Objectivist magazines (from
: "The Nature of Anxiety", THE OBJECTIVIST, November 1966):
: "It is generally recognized by clinical psychologists and
: psychiatrists that pathological anxiety is the central and
: basic problem with which they must deal in psychotherapy --
: the symptom underlying the patient's other symptoms.
: Sometimes, the other symptoms represent direct physical
: *consequences* of anxiety, {list of physical maladies]. Some-
: times, they represent *defences* against anxiety, such as
: hysterical paralyses, obsessions, compulsions, and passive
: depression. But in all cases anxiety is the motor of neurosis.
: Well, this is just absolute rubbish. Many kinds of anxiety disorders,
: obsessive/compulsive disorder, and depression, are caused by biochemical
: imbalances, and are completely immune to psychotherapeutic amelioration.
: In fact, psychotherapy can easily be a *further exacerbating irritant*
: in such disorders, because the patient doesn't get any better, despite
: how hard they are "trying" (to do whatever their psychotherapist is
: asking), thus implicitly leading to the conclusion they truly are sick
: and worthless, because they can't even help themselves get better,
: despite all that their therapist is doing.
: Obsessive/compulsive disorder and chronic depression have often been
: traced to changes in certain areas of the brain, leading to a deficiency
: of the neurotransmitter serotonin. The drug Prozac, and its relatives,
: have been godsends for these people, because this neurotransmitter
: deficiency can now be corrected with complete efficacy, which completely
: ameliorates the otherwise mysterious mental illness, enabling them to
: leave normal lives. It must be emphasized that this class of drugs does
: not directly alter the patient's mood, merely masking an underlying
: disorder (in the words of Prozac maker, Eli Lilly, "Prozac is not a
: 'happy pill'") -- if so, the underlying disorder would get worse (the
: mental equivalent of treating a dangerous physical disorder with a
: painkiller, not curing the disorder itself.) No, the patients do not
: experience any sensation of being drugged or stimulated, but merely
: report the disappearance of the horrible episodes of depression.
: Many kinds of anxiety disorder are similar. I knew someone who was the
: epitomy of rationality (in daily practice, not just in "talk") and
: mental health, yet I was suprised one day when he warned me that he had
: been having anxiety attacks, and what to expect should he have one in my
: presence. He was greatly distressed by his condition, and had even
: considered seeing a psychiatrist. However, he saw several MDs instead,
: and one prescribed some form of medication specifically targetting a
: neurochemical imbalance often found causing these attacks. My friend
: reported that this medication eliminated the episodes with total
: efficacy. Now, I know for an absolute fact, based on long-standing
: acquaintance with this person, that it simply is *not* possible to be
: more psychologically rational -- he independently arrived at most the
: fundamental principles of a rational philosophy, all by himself, through
: dogged induction. This person was NOT "mentally" ill -- he was
: *physically* ill, which illness had mental manifestations.
: Given what I know of many of the Objectivist (or ex-Objectivist)
: "psychotherapists", such as Allan Blumenthal (who now thinks Objectivism
: is a cult), Nathan Branden (who issued streams of rationalistic nonsense
: over the years like that quoted above), and Edith Packer (who considers
: homosexuality a "developmental disorder", and tries to "cure" gays), I
: would say that the state of so-called "Objectivist Psychotherapy" is an
: shameful swamp.
: A one-time HPO contributor attended an "Objectivist" high school,
: started by those close to the "inner circle". According to him,
: psychotherapy was *mandatory* for all students. His reports of that
: experiment were *not* flattering.
: Overall, I would say that so little is known about the nature of
: personality development and how to affect it in adulthood, that one is
: probably better *not* engaging in psychotherapy, than in doing so. In
: particular, if a person is experiencing some kind of mental illness like
: obsessive/compulsive disorder, periodic or chronic depression,
: manic/depressive mood disorder, or anxiety attacks, I would *highly*
: recommend they see one or more MDs who specialize in treating these
: disorders, under the assumption that it is *most* likely a treatable
: physical disorder, not a purely psychological disorder.
: --
: Brad Aisa
: ba...@NOSPAMistar.ca -- PGP public keys available at:
: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup2?op=index&search=Brad+Aisa
: "Laissez faire."
Robert J. Kolker
Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
> Assume that 98% of all mental illness entails a catastrophic loss of
> self-esteem and you probably won't be far off the mark. The basis
> for this contention is not empirical data, since it would
> be a very difficult thing to measure, as a realization that 98 percent
> of everything humans do is in one way or another involved with
> attempting to attain or maintain self-esteem.
How can you possibly assert this for anyone but yourself. You
are presuming to know the private "mental state" (which is really
a brain state) of another person without being able to know in detail
the particular neurons which are firing and the amount of dopamine
in the other fellow's synapses. That is a very strong claim, and I
would suggest you ought not to make in the absence of any solid
evidence.
You seem to be making the same category error as others on this board
have made (or at least suggested by what they write). You cannot
possible know what another person is thinking. You can only know
what they say, what they write and the overt disposition of their bodies.
Only God can know what is in the mind of an another, and lately He
has been conspicous by His absence.
Shame on you for apparently practicing psychology which is a sham, a
scam and an utter excercise in bullshit.
Bob Kolker
Eric Lancaster
> Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
> > Assume that 98% of all mental illness entails a catastrophic loss of
> > self-esteem and you probably won't be far off the mark. The basis
> > for this contention is not empirical data, since it would
> > be a very difficult thing to measure, as a realization that 98 percent
> > of everything humans do is in one way or another involved with
> > attempting to attain or maintain self-esteem.
> How can you possibly assert this for anyone but yourself. You
> are presuming to know the private "mental state" (which is really
> a brain state) of another person without being able to know in detail
> the particular neurons which are firing and the amount of dopamine
> in the other fellow's synapses. That is a very strong claim, and I
> would suggest you ought not to make in the absence of any solid
> evidence.
> You seem to be making the same category error as others on this board
> have made (or at least suggested by what they write). You cannot
> possible know what another person is thinking. You can only know
> what they say, what they write and the overt disposition of their bodies.
> Only God can know what is in the mind of an another, and lately He
> has been conspicous by His absence.
I won't touch the issue of self-esteem psychotherapy, but I will
say that you are implying that a person has some special understanding of
his OWN thoughts that others lack. (Descartes, and many others, assumed
the same thing).
Is this really true? We are conscious of the CONTENT of our
thoughts, but the mechanism of our thoughts is not so clear. And any
thought but the current one can be mis-remembered, distorted, or
forgotten as time goes by.
For instance, most of you reading this post (hours after I write
it) probably will have a clearer understanding what I was thinking
when I wrote it than I
will (at the time you have just read it and I have mostly forgotten it).
The fact that we don't have some magical means to know exactly
what the content of another's thoughts are doesn't seem very important to
me - we don't have any magical, infallible way of knowing what our OWN
thoughts are/were. So what?
There is a really nice essay on the distinction between the
objects of consciousness and the TOOLS of consciousness (thoughts) by
Mortimer J Adler.
Eric
Mike Rael
I won't go along with that 98% figure of Phils:), because it is
unclear how some issues, as some active forms of schizophrenia, directly
involve self-esteem, though I understand that some of Laing's work
clearly suggests this.
I think that, for most of us whose thoughts are not in the
nethersphere of the active schizophrenic, virtually every goal we attempt,
including *every* attempt
we make to focus, is based on a vision of ourselves as being *worthy* of
that effort. Further, any time we attempt a goal that we don't know about
fully, so that some risk is involved, we have to rely on a kind of
native, general self-confidence, a feeling that "I can do it, because I
can do things."
Both these areas are at the heart of what self-esteem means. So,
it makes sense, analytically, to presume that problems in function,
generally, are going to involve self-esteem issues in some way.
What do you think of this reasoning?
best wishes,
Mike
Robert J. Kolker (robert...@hotmaill.com) wrote:
: Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
: > Assume that 98% of all mental illness entails a catastrophic loss of
: > self-esteem and you probably won't be far off the mark. The basis
: > for this contention is not empirical data, since it would
: > be a very difficult thing to measure, as a realization that 98 percent
: > of everything humans do is in one way or another involved with
: > attempting to attain or maintain self-esteem.
: How can you possibly assert this for anyone but yourself. You
: are presuming to know the private "mental state" (which is really
: a brain state) of another person without being able to know in detail
: the particular neurons which are firing and the amount of dopamine
: in the other fellow's synapses. That is a very strong claim, and I
: would suggest you ought not to make in the absence of any solid
: evidence.
: You seem to be making the same category error as others on this board
: have made (or at least suggested by what they write). You cannot
: possible know what another person is thinking. You can only know
: what they say, what they write and the overt disposition of their bodies.
: Only God can know what is in the mind of an another, and lately He
: has been conspicous by His absence.
: Shame on you for apparently practicing psychology which is a sham, a
: scam and an utter excercise in bullshit.
: Bob Kolker
jal...@icsi.net
Randy Cech <Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
[...]
RE: Cults and Objectivism
Keep in mind that people that make this sort of accusation are usually
dishonest and have as their goal to smear. Since they can't deal with
Objectivism on its own merits, they create strawmen to attack.
> Because many Objectivists have reverence for the philosophy's creator, Ayn
> Rand, we're Cultists? When I think of a cult, I think of Jonestown,
> Heavensgate, Scientology, etc. Groups that do not encourage individualism,
> but rather collectivism and group thinking.
Having a hero is hardly a crime, nor the sign that one is involved in a
cult. Indeed, such a view comes from our modern culture, where thinking is
sloppy and wreckless. Cults are in essence groups of people who follow
blindly some leader. They give up their minds to the leader. This means
that they lose their individuality and become puppets of that leader.
By this understanding it is clear that an Objectivist (a true Objectivist)
is as far from being a cultist as is possible. To be an Objectivist means to
be *independent* minded, to follow reason and to pursue *your* values. I
can't think of anything less cult like than that.
But, note, there is a strong cultish element in Christianity. There you
are supposed to give up your mind to the authority of "god", as interpreted
from the bible or by the church.
> Webster Handy College Dictionary (the only one here at my office) says:
> cult: the person and rites associated with an object or veneration.
> Steve Hassan's Combating Cult Mind Control is an other really good book, and
> there is a section in it where mind control is defined. I am at the office
> now so I can't give further details. I guess I will have to do some digging
> and put together a post with pertinent data, that is reasons why Objectivism
> is not a cult, in the way most people currently define the term, a dangerous
> cult.
At its essence Objectivism can't be cultish.
...John
Phil Roberts, Jr.
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Assume that 98% of all mental illness entails a catastrophic loss of
> > self-esteem and you probably won't be far off the mark. The basis
> > for this contention is not empirical data, since it would
> > be a very difficult thing to measure, as a realization that 98 percent
> > of everything humans do is in one way or another involved with
> > attempting to attain or maintain self-esteem.
>
> How can you possibly assert this for anyone but yourself. You
> are presuming to know the private "mental state" (which is really
> a brain state) of another person without being able to know in detail
> the particular neurons which are firing and the amount of dopamine
> in the other fellow's synapses. That is a very strong claim, and I
> would suggest you ought not to make in the absence of any solid
> evidence.
I agree. But its inifinitesimal compared to some of the extravagant
claims already made here, including your own that there is no such
thing as mind in nature's ontic repetoire and the originators claim
that all emotional disorder is a physiological malfunction. I just
thought someone ought to balance the extravagance scales with some
extravagance on the other side of the argument. I suspect communication
with someone who still hasn't gotten around to noticing that thoughts
and feelings are real and ontically distinct from C fibre firings
is hardly going to be receptive to much of anything I have to say, or
99% of the rest of the human race, come to think of it.
>
> You seem to be making the same category error as others on this board
> have made (or at least suggested by what they write). You cannot
> possible know what another person is thinking. You can only know
> what they say, what they write and the overt disposition of their bodies.
There are two major points which not everyone is always fully aware
on this introspectionism stuff.
1. Science is not based on what is objectively observable, but rather
on what is INTERSUBJECTIVELY REPRODUCIBLE.
2. Science is not about specific prediction and control and focused on
Humean constant conjunctions, but rather heavily dependent on such
techniques as stratification, abstraction and generalization.
Assuming I am might be right about these two points, it then becomes
apparent that so long as I restrict my introspective observations to
only what can be REASONABLY ASSUMED to be intersubjectively reproducible
(e.g., atoms of oxygen, feelings of worthlessness), then I am on solid
ground empirically speaking. Of course, I am assuming:
a. 30 years of careful self-analysis about my own motivational
foundations has produced relatively reliable results, including
my conclusion that 98% of my thought and behavior is self-worth
driven in one way or another
b. I am not a freak of nature, and therefore what I have observed to
be the case in myself can be independently confirmed by others
PROVIDED THEY ARE PREPARED TO SPEND A BIT OF UNIMPASSIONED
TIME REFLECTING ON THE MATTER.
Are you saying that self-worth is of no consequence in your own motivional
repertoire? Can you give the rest of us some examples of your own behavior
which you feel have been completely self-worth free in their motivation
origins?
> Only God can know what is in the mind of an another, and lately He
> has been conspicous by His absence.
>
At any given moment in time perhaps, but we aren't doing technology (specific
prediction and control) here. Let's leave that to the behaviorists.
If we want to emulate science, then we
must restrict ourselves to very broad generalizations, particularly
given the significant amount of individualization we are likely to
incounter in a reasoning species. I believe 'feelings are worthlessnes'
are sufficiently pervasive to on fairly safe ground in pointing to them
as an intersubjectively reproducible NON_PHYSICAL feature of nature.
Do you disagree?
> Shame on you for apparently practicing psychology which is a sham, a
> scam and an utter excercise in bullshit.
>
Shame on you for practicing metaphysics and then wrapping yourself in
the cloak of science to justifiy it. Psychology is indeed a basket
case, as you suggest, but that is not proof that materialism is
true, merely that psychology is harder to do, IMHO.
Igor S. Livshits
> At its essence Objectivism can't be cultish.
I certainly agree with you here. However, I also have to stress that you
will always have a group of people who will misunderstand a given
philosophy, adopt it at face value, and regurgitate it without rumination.
Having discussed matters with some who ardently believe themselves to be
the true champions Objectivism, I see a flavor of cultism that I cannot
quite reconcile with the essence of Objectivism. Perhaps I misunderstand
Objectivism; perhaps I misunderstand those individials... But for now, the
flavor is defintiely there...
Cheers, Igor
--
Life Sciences; University of Illinois <mailto:ig...@life.uiuc.edu>
jal...@icsi.net
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
[...]
RE: Sandra Mendoza's commentary on Objectivism and The True Believer
> What a strange comment!
> Eric Hoffer's _The_True_Believer_ is a wonderful book by an insightful man
> who understood what it means to think in principles. Hoffer shows what
> all mass movements from Christianity to Marxism have in common:
> disparagement of the mind, emphasis on the collective, calls for
> self-sacrifice, etc.
> Does that sound like Objectivism?
Since you have read the book, and found that its arguments contradict the
views given by Sandra Mendoza, perhaps you could write an online review at
Amazon Books putting in a good word for Objectivism? Using your usually clear
and upbeat style, of course!
These strange people who claim to have been Objectivists seem not to have
ever grasped the actual philosophy!
Mike Rael
John,
While I agree that a philosophy of reason is scarcely the stuff
of cults, if you look at the way that philosophy was used by its
adherents...well...
What would you say of the person I met at Nathaniel Branden
Institute who felt guilty about loving the art they loved...until Rand
came along and said that it was OK to love that particular artist's work?
How about the loaded language used, the way "reason" "selfish",
"rational" are defined so as to give the adherent a feeling of being
*special*?
Why, since Rand made all kinds of statements about different
philosophers, didn't she or one of her friends print a reader of all
those different philosophies so as to, at least, illustrate what they are
actually saying?
How about the notion that the Truth is to be found in Objectivism
and nowhere else?
How about the way Rand actively sanctioned Branden's
"programming" folks to believe the "right" way, as opposed to *listening*
to them, as a good therapist is supposed to do?
What about the way folks were excommunicated regularly, depending
on Rand's whims of the moment? Peikoff, by the way, was also
excommunicated at one time, but a day or so later was admitted back into
the Fold.
I haven't checked it out, but I'd make a bet that on *none* of
the links of the Objectivist Ring are there links to Kant!! If I'm wrong,
please demonstrate--and I'd be happy to wrong on this one!
John, I love the Objectivist philosophy and use it in my daily
work--but a fact is still a fact. Many folks, Rand included, treated
Objectivism as a cult, pure and simple. About the only thing they did
*not* do is to demand sex from their followers--but, hmm, Rand *did* get
sex from her follower, Branden, and Branden *did* use psychotherapy to
"treat" a couple when he wanted the man's wife! And Branden gave Rand
sex while still being married to Barbara, and while Rand was married to
Frank.
Objectivism as a *philosophy* is not a good text for a cult, but
Objectivism per se has been treated as a cult. Think of the philosophy as
"good intentions." And we all know what good intentions lead to,
do we not?
best always,
Mike
jal...@icsi.net wrote:
: At its essence Objectivism can't be cultish.
: ...John
: -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Alway
>
> John,
> While I agree that a philosophy of reason is scarcely the stuff
> of cults, if you look at the way that philosophy was used by its
> adherents...well...
> What would you say of the person I met at Nathaniel Branden
> Institute who felt guilty about loving the art they loved...until Rand
> came along and said that it was OK to love that particular artist's work?
That is a mistake, however here are some counter points:
1> Did it happen as you said? Iows, did Ayn Rand just say
"that's okay", and it was fine with him. Or, did she *explain* why it
was okay? If the later then there could be good reason to be relieved.
2> Ayn Rand had tremendous ability to judge things, as has been proven
time and time again. So, even if Ayn Rand got the judgement *wrong*, it
may have been a relief to him that she would make the same judgement as
he made. This would give him a sense of relief, even though he
shouldn't consider that the final evaluation of his views on that art
work. This is akin to Newton telling you that your equations look
right. You haven't done the math yourself yet, but you do get a
stronger felling of certainty that you are right.
Have you considered any of this? I'm not sure how well you
know the chap in question, either. Was he generally a second hander?
> How about the loaded language used, the way "reason" "selfish",
> "rational" are defined so as to give the adherent a feeling of being
> *special*?
I don't know what you mean by this.
> Why, since Rand made all kinds of statements about different
> philosophers, didn't she or one of her friends print a reader of all
> those different philosophies so as to, at least, illustrate what they are
> actually saying?
I don't follow. They sell courses on the history of philosophy,
and sell anthologies at Second Renaissance books. They continually
encourage people to get a college education. In fact, most
Objectivists I've come across are highly intelligent, and well read.
Look at Betsy, she has a degree in philosophy.
> How about the notion that the Truth is to be found in Objectivism
> and nowhere else?
That is *not* said. Where did you get that notion? The Greek
Philosophers (especially Aristotle) are continuously presented as great
men with a great deal to say. Plato is praised for having presented the
first integrated philosophy, and for asking all of the big important
question of philosophy. Thales is praised for being the first ever
philosopher. John Locke and Thomas Aquinas are revered and respected.
*Modern* philosophy is derided by Objectivists, but good reason are
given for this. The bottom line, Mike, is that your statements don't
in the least square with my experience.
> How about the way Rand actively sanctioned Branden's
> "programming" folks to believe the "right" way, as opposed to *listening*
> to them, as a good therapist is supposed to do?
I don't know anything about this.
> What about the way folks were excommunicated regularly, depending
> on Rand's whims of the moment? Peikoff, by the way, was also
> excommunicated at one time, but a day or so later was admitted back into
> the Fold.
I need *content* to make these judgements. But, I'll be honest
with you, these sort of things don't interest me, as *all* groups have
these sort of problems (this is a general problem of people). I'm more
interested in the philosophy and its application. I see nothing in the
philosophy that promotes the idea of a cult. A cult, Mike, conjures up
images of people going of the edge of a cliff following their leader,
like lemmings, to their deaths. This is *not* how Objectivism operates.
> I haven't checked it out, but I'd make a bet that on *none* of
> the links of the Objectivist Ring are there links to Kant!! If I'm wrong,
> please demonstrate--and I'd be happy to wrong on this one!
I have a link in my web browser to Kant's Critique of Pure reason,
and it's been there for some time. I used to go to MIT's archive of the
Greek Classics regularly, and I've certainly read lots of philosophy
from disparate philosophers across the ages. In fact, I'd venture to
say that as a group, Objectivists have read a great deal more general
philosophy than most educated people have. Discussions of philosophy
from every angle are a staple of Objectivists from my experience. We
aren't out getting drunk and watching sports on TV, at least not as a
rule!
> John, I love the Objectivist philosophy and use it in my daily
> work--but a fact is still a fact. Many folks, Rand included, treated
> Objectivism as a cult, pure and simple.
Peikoff doesn't strike me as a cultish person. Greenspan doesn't
strike me as cultish. Branden doesn't strike me as cultish. All of
these people are very independent minded. All of these people are
driven by reason, and all of them (I'm not 100% sure about Greenspan)
are interested in pursuing their *selfish* goals.
Unless these people have changed over the years, they don't appear
to be cultish to me.
Furthermore, Ayn Rand appears to have been straight forward,
interested in the *truth* and in being *moral* and *just*. She was a
very *righteous* person, and I'm naive enough to believe that she was
damned sincere about this. Leading people astray, and trying to
control their minds (something she believed impossible at any rate), is
something that goes against the very philosophy she espoused. In
essence, you have to be saying that Ayn Rand was a low life, and that
she surrounded herself with lemmings. But I see no evidence of any of
this. Rather, she seemed to be an inspired and moral person, who was
surrounded by eager, intelligent, ambitious, this worldly, and
independent minds. Cultists like to take in *followers*, who lack
self-esteem, and independence of thought.
> About the only thing they did
> *not* do is to demand sex from their followers--but, hmm, Rand *did* get
> sex from her follower, Branden,
You are stretching this beyond all reason. Ayn Rand got sex from
*one* person with whom she was in love. This doesn't have anything to
do with the concept of cult, btw.
> ...and Branden *did* use psychotherapy to
> "treat" a couple when he wanted the man's wife!
You lost me here. Be more specific, since wanting a women
(married or not) is natural for men.
> And Branden gave Rand
> sex while still being married to Barbara, and while Rand was married to
> Frank.
This was definitely *unusual*, but was it *immoral*? Rand made
it clear to her husband what was going on, after all, and the parties
agreed.
> Objectivism as a *philosophy* is not a good text for a cult, but
> Objectivism per se has been treated as a cult. Think of the philosophy as
> "good intentions." And we all know what good intentions lead to,
> do we not?
Perhaps you should revisit the facts. They don't add up to me
the way they do to you. Why are so many of those people who were in
that alleged "cult" such successful, confident people? Not the stuff
of a cult, Mike.
...John
Mike Rael
Hi, John:)
We have a difference of opinion about this, John. You have your
experiences and interpretations, and I have mine.
What's important to me, as a self-esteem coach, is
the polite way you express disagreement. Your post is a model
of the right way to say, "I disagree with you--and these are my reasons."
A number of folks on hpo believe that when someone disagrees with
you, the way to respond is with name-calling, intimidation, or focusing
on one aspect of the post that is questionable and blowing it out of
proportion while ignoring everything else (I call that the method of
"logical infatuation":))
I'm glad you're around to show us all what being courteous means, in
this arena.
best wishes,
Mike
PS If you wish, John, I'll make a detailed response to this
post. For now, I wanted to focus exclusively on the process, rather than
the product.
John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote: : Mike Rael wrote: : > : > John, : >
: ...John
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com
Mike Rael <la...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
(lots of stuff I really agree with snipped)
>
> Objectivism as a *philosophy* is not a good text for a cult, but
> Objectivism per se has been treated as a cult. Think of the philosophy as
> "good intentions." And we all know what good intentions lead to,
> do we not?
>
>
>
I've been off the Randwagon for quite some time. The first book of Rand's
that I read was _Anthem_, which I read in junior high. I was listening to
Rush's 2112 at the same time, so there was some degree of resonance. I
remember reading _Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal_ and finding a great deal of
inspiration from Rand's thoughts on many topics. I read other books like _The
Virtue of Selfishness_ and Peikoff's _Ominous Parallels_. There was a point
when the objectivist philosophy became a major part of my reference frame.
It's funny how you reinterpret things when you think you've found a groove.
After reading Barbara Branden's _The Passion of Ayn Rand (?)_, I cooled down
a little. Plus, learning more about how the real world operates helped pull
me away from the hyper-idealistic Randian tractor beam.
Luckily, I'm too much of an eclectic to be a good objectivist. I end up
excising bits and pieces that I find reasonable, and trashing the rest. I
usually do this when reading just about any author, including Jung.
Coincidently, Richard Noll has considered the cultishness of the Jungian
movement in books like _The Jung Cult_. One might consider Rand and Jung to
be 180 degrees apart, which is probably the case, but they were both
charismatic leaders who were deep thinkers with some roots planted in
Nietzsche. And both authors have strongly devoted followers. Jung was kookier
though, which makes him more entertaining.
I'm not sure cult is a proper label for objectivism (small o'). It's just
another philosophical system out there for someone to learn more about and
come to their own (not necessarily Rand's) conclusions. As far as the big
O'ism goes... There are other movements out there that are considerably more
deserving of the "cult" label, but someone should still approach O'ism with a
healthy dose of skepticism, just like anything else. At least it's better
than solipsism or any of the wacky New Age stuff out there. Rand never
claimed that she would eventually have an all-seeing third eye sprout from
her forehead :-) Or did she...?
I still consider myself an individualist. I still believe in capitalism. I
still try to exercise my faculty of reason. I still like to watch my copy of
_The Fountainhead_ movie once in a great while. I just do not feel the need
to deify Rand.
Scott Chase
Jim Klein
writes:
>I still consider myself an individualist. I still believe in
>capitalism. I still try to exercise my faculty of reason. I still like
>to watch my copy of _The Fountainhead_ movie once in a great while. I
>just do not feel the need to deify Rand.
>
>Scott Chase
For all the discussion all these years on the subject, I don't know
that I've seen a better definition of "Objectivist" than this. While
not in classic definitional form, I think it gets the idea across quite
well. It's hardly complete, but I do think it's to the point.
But then I'm of the opinion that lots of folks are Objectivists, even
though they don't think of themselves as such. And the reason I think
they don't think so is because of the perversion of the term, not a
lack of consistency with the philosophy.
jk
Mike Rael
Hemida...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : In article
<lakidF6...@netcom.com>, : Mike Rael <la...@netcom.com> wrote: : > :
(lots of stuff I really agree with snipped) : > : > Objectivism as a
*philosophy* is not a good text for a cult, but : > Objectivism per se has
been treated as a cult. Think of the philosophy as : > "good intentions."
And we all know what good intentions lead to, : > do we not?
: >
: >
: >
: I've been off the Randwagon for quite some time. The first book of
Rand's : that I read was _Anthem_, which I read in junior high. I was
listening to : Rush's 2112 at the same time, so there was some degree of
resonance. I : remember reading _Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal_ and
finding a great deal of : inspiration from Rand's thoughts on many topics.
I read other books like _The : Virtue of Selfishness_ and Peikoff's
_Ominous Parallels_. There was a point : when the objectivist philosophy
became a major part of my reference frame. : It's funny how you
reinterpret things when you think you've found a groove. : After reading
Barbara Branden's _The Passion of Ayn Rand (?)_, I cooled down : a little.
Plus, learning more about how the real world operates helped pull : me
away from the hyper-idealistic Randian tractor beam.
osh kosh:) One note though: i think Rand's *idealism* was simple and to
the point. I think alot of folks lack a sense of overriding purpose in
their lives, so the idea that someone out there who *gives a
damn*, not to see my sores--like the oh-so-nice therapist who
gives-a-damn to someone in prison--but who cares that the good win
out...that's a real turn-on for me.
Scott, I always cry when I see a good movie where the good wins out. I
think Rand might have done the same with me, had we ever hung out
together.
The problem comes when people don't ask what the precise context is of
her ideals--and then ask, again and yet again, how the reality in front
of us fits that context, and in what ways it does not--and how that
affects our evaluations.
: Luckily, I'm too much of an eclectic to be a good objectivist. I end up
: excising bits and pieces that I find reasonable, and trashing the rest.
i think that's how a person of reason *must* do things. It's why I call
myself a neo-Objectivist, because I have found the need to make my own
definitions of her ideas to make them crystal clear to myself and othes.
It is infinitely better to believe what you struggled to discern for
yourself than to parrot the truth, without really understanding what it
means.
I : usually do this when reading just about any author, including Jung. :
Coincidently, Richard Noll has considered the cultishness of the Jungian :
movement in books like _The Jung Cult_. One might consider Rand and Jung
to : be 180 degrees apart, which is probably the case, but they were both
: charismatic leaders who were deep thinkers with some roots planted in :
Nietzsche. And both authors have strongly devoted followers. Jung was
kookier : though, which makes him more entertaining.
:)
: I'm not sure cult is a proper label for objectivism (small o'). It's
just : another philosophical system out there for someone to learn more
about and : come to their own (not necessarily Rand's) conclusions. As far
as the big : O'ism goes... There are other movements out there that are
considerably more : deserving of the "cult" label, but someone should
still approach O'ism with a : healthy dose of skepticism, just like
anything else. At least it's better : than solipsism or any of the wacky
New Age stuff out there. Rand never : claimed that she would eventually
have an all-seeing third eye sprout from : her forehead :-) Or did she...?
Actually, it is possible to be a mystic and yet a rationalist, if by
"mystic" you mean someone who believes in the power of intuition to gain
knowledge. You don't *know* your intuition is correct without using a
process of reason, but for intuitive folks-as long as the issue in
question does not exceed their available knowledge base- they would be
perfectly correct to accept "mystical" intuitions as "knowledge." Why?
Because reason has taught them that their intuitions are correct so
often, that it makes no sense to waste the time to check up on each
intuition--rather it would be logical to simply accept them as true, if
no other immediate knowledge is available, or if the risks of failure are
not too severe.
The problem comes when they exceed their knowledge base. For example,
put me in front of a house being constructed, and ask me to guesstimate
the size of the wooden beam needed to support that structure. I'd
probably be way off more than 80% of the time:) However, if I studied
architecture, did the problems using left-brained analysis, and *then*
made intuitions about this, I have no doubt that the percentage of
correct intuitions would dramatically increase!
: I still consider myself an individualist. I still believe in capitalism.
I : still try to exercise my faculty of reason. I still like to watch my
copy of : _The Fountainhead_ movie once in a great while. I just do not
feel the need : to deify Rand.
I hear you, Scott! I don't deify her, either--but I admit to loving her!
best always,
Mike
: Scott Chase
: -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own