Drooling Beast

[Elliot Temple]

FH by AR

> “Not in the same city. Not on the same earth,” said Mallory. “But you made it happen. It’s possible.... I’ll never be afraid again.”
> “Of what?”
> Mallory put the sketch down on the table, cautiously. He answered:
> “You said something yesterday about a first law. A law demanding that man seek the best.... It was funny.... The unrecognized genius—that’s an old story. Have you ever thought of a much worse one—the genius recognized too well? ... That a great many men are poor fools who can’t see the best—that’s nothing. One can’t get angry at that. But do you understand about the men who see it and don’t want it?”
> “No.”
> “No. You wouldn’t. I spent all night thinking about you. I didn’t sleep at all. Do you know what your secret is? It’s your terrible innocence.”
> Roark laughed aloud, looking at the boyish face.
> “No,” said Mallory, “it’s not funny. I know what I’m talking about—and you don’t. You can’t know. It’s because of that absolute health of yours. You’re so healthy that you can’t conceive of disease. You know of it. But you don’t really believe it. I do. I’m wiser than you are about some things, because I’m weaker. I understand—the other side. That’s what did it to me ... what you saw yesterday.”
> “That’s over.”
> “Probably. But not quite. I’m not afraid any more. But I know that the terror exists. I know the kind of terror it is. You can’t conceive of that kind. Listen, what’s the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me—it’s being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who’s had some disease that’s eaten his brain out. You’d have nothing then but your voice—your voice and your thought. You’d scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you’d have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you’d become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you’d see living eyes watching you and you’d know that the thing can’t hear you, that it can’t be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it’s breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That’s horror. Well, that’s what’s hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own. I don’t think I’m a coward, but I’m afraid of it. And that’s all I know—only that it exists. I don’t know its purpose, I don’t know its nature.”

I still have trouble conceiving of irrationality and evil. I don't quite get it. It always seems a little unreal. How can people really want to ruin their minds, lie to themselves, live badly ineffectively immorally, refuse to improve, be cruel, and so on? What for? Why? It makes no sense. I always sort of expect, at any moment, people to realize their mistake and live like decent human beings. Time after time they don't, but I don't understand it.

I know things about it. I know psycho-epistemological explanations. I know about the anti-capitalistic mentality, the strain of individual responsibility, Szasz's writings, etc

AR says a lot comes down to one choice: to think or not to think. Why wouldn't you think? It makes no sense.

A drooling beast cannot be reached, but a man can. Can't he? Why not? What's to stop progress, learning, improvement? Don't I just need to explain better ideas than his bad ones, and that should be that? It's in his self-interest, and mine. There's mutual benefit available, and people reject that for mutual loss. It's so hard to understand it.

-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/

[Elliot Temple]

Later in FH by AR regarding the Monadnock scam, Mallory talking about the beast again:

> Roark threw his head back and laughed.
> “God damn you, Howard! It’s not funny!”
> “Sit down, Steve. Stop shaking. You look as if you’d just seen a whole field of butchered bodies.”

> “I have. I’ve seen worse. I’ve seen the root. I’ve seen what makes such fields possible. What do the damn fools think of as horror? Wars, murders, fires, earthquakes? To hell with that! This is horror—that story in the paper. That’s what men should dread and fight and scream about and call the worst shame on their record. Howard, I’m thinking of all the explanations of evil and all the remedies offered for it through the centuries. None of them worked. None of them explained or cured anything. But the root of evil—my drooling beast—it’s there, Howard, in that story. In that—and in the souls of the smug bastards who’ll read it and say: ‘Oh well, genius must always struggle, it’s good for ’em’—and then go and look for some village idiot to help, to teach him how to weave baskets. That’s the drooling beast in action. Howard, think of Monadnock. Close your eyes and see it. And then think that the men who ordered it, believed it was the worst thing they could build! Howard, there’s something wrong, something very terribly wrong in the world if you were given your greatest job—as a filthy joke!”
> “When will you stop thinking about that? About the world and me? When will you learn to forget it? When will Dominique ...”

This line in particular is wonderful:

> Oh well, genius must always struggle, it’s good for ’em’—and then go and look for some village idiot to help, to teach him how to weave baskets.

Why don't they help the genius, who merits it more? Why should genius struggle but not idiots?

Another question: should we understand evil, or should we forget it, as Roark suggests? Why?

AR explains evil is impotent. So for that reason, one might conclude to forget it. But then there's so few men on Earth to interact with for mutual benefit. If you could just understand evil and help some people improve, then there could be cooperation for mutual benefit with more people. Cooperation can be so productive and beneficial, it's really tempting to want more good people, isn't it? Or am I wrong? I don't know.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

[Rami Rustom]

On Feb 24, 2013 6:38 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> > FH by AR
>

> This line in particular is wonderful:
>
> > Oh well, genius must always struggle, it’s good for ’em’—and then go and look for some village idiot to help, to teach him how to weave baskets.
>
> Why don't they help the genius, who merits it more? Why should genius struggle but not idiots?
>
> Another question: should we understand evil, or should we forget it, as Roark suggests? Why?

It must be understood. One cannot solve a problem that he doesn't
understand (with respect to a good person trying to persuade a bad
person).


A security person is no good unless he knows the ways of the thief. To
protect from evil, one must understand evil.

As a business owner, in order to protect from theft (internal and
external), one must understand how theft can be done.

Both of these examples are about learning the methods of evil, rather
than the reasons for evil. So...

As a business owner, in order to encourage employees (and customers)
away from evil, he must understand why people choose evil.

> AR explains evil is impotent. So for that reason, one might conclude to forget it. But then there's so few men on Earth to interact with for mutual benefit. If you could just understand evil and help some people improve, then there could be cooperation for mutual benefit with more people. Cooperation can be so productive and beneficial, it's really tempting to want more good people, isn't it? Or am I wrong? I don't know.

-- Rami

[Elliot Temple]

On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2013 6:38 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>> FH by AR
>>
>> This line in particular is wonderful:
>>
>>> Oh well, genius must always struggle, it’s good for ’em’—and then go and look for some village idiot to help, to teach him how to weave baskets.
>>
>> Why don't they help the genius, who merits it more? Why should genius struggle but not idiots?
>>
>> Another question: should we understand evil, or should we forget it, as Roark suggests? Why?
>
> It must be understood. One cannot solve a problem that he doesn't
> understand (with respect to a good person trying to persuade a bad
> person).

But why is it my problem?

Yes you have to understand it if you intend to change it. But isn't that a type of helping others? Is it, perhaps, making a sacrifice (dealing with evil) for *their sake*? Is it altruism?

So there is a question of whether or not to do it.

[Rami Rustom]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2013 6:38 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FH by AR
>>>
>>> This line in particular is wonderful:
>>>
>>>> Oh well, genius must always struggle, it’s good for ’em’—and then go and look for some village idiot to help, to teach him how to weave baskets.
>>>
>>> Why don't they help the genius, who merits it more? Why should genius struggle but not idiots?
>>>
>>> Another question: should we understand evil, or should we forget it, as Roark suggests? Why?
>>
>> It must be understood. One cannot solve a problem that he doesn't
>> understand (with respect to a good person trying to persuade a bad
>> person).
>
> But why is it my problem?

I should have qualified that. It must be understood [if and only if
one wants to persuade him that his ideas are harmful to him (and
others) and that there is a better way (a mutually beneficial one)].

And the examples I gave were:

A security person is no good unless he knows the ways of the thief. To

protect from evil he must understand evil (the methods of evil and
sometimes the reasons for evil).

As a business owner, in order to protect from theft (internal and

external), he must understand how theft can be done, and why people
choose evil.

> Yes you have to understand it if you intend to change it. But isn't that a type of helping others?

If one is getting benefit (or is expected to get benefit), then so what?

By "help" do you mean one-sided benefit? Or does mutually-beneficial
count as help?

> Is it, perhaps, making a sacrifice (dealing with evil) for *their sake*? Is it altruism?

Not if its mutually-beneficial.

> So there is a question of whether or not to do it.

If one thinks that there is an opportunity to gain a
mutually-beneficial relationship with someone, then he could try to
persuade him that his ideas are evil and persuade him of rival ideas
that are good.

So the problem is: I want a mutually-beneficial relationship with person X.

And the solution is: Try to persuade person X from evil to good.


Which raises the question: Why would one believe that person X is good
enough to be persuaded?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Elliot Temple]

But is it? Where is the mutual benefit in trying to help those whom are irrationally hard to help?

Sure there's some mutual benefit *when it works*, after you're done. But the doing it, and the failures -- and the high risk of failures -- matters too.

Normally mutual benefit is pure benefit all around. Normally we look for things that are strictly good, not mixed compromises. Isn't learning how evil works, in great detail, at best a sort of compromise? Won't you at best come out ahead overall, but not in each individual way?

>
>> So there is a question of whether or not to do it.
>
> If one thinks that there is an opportunity to gain a
> mutually-beneficial relationship with someone,

There's always such opportunities with any human. But many of these opportunities are not very good, not very promising. And they may be expensive. And the other person may not want it.

> then he could try to
> persuade him that his ideas are evil and persuade him of rival ideas
> that are good.
>
> So the problem is: I want a mutually-beneficial relationship with person X.
>
> And the solution is: Try to persuade person X from evil to good.
>
>
> Which raises the question: Why would one believe that person X is good
> enough to be persuaded?

But now you're totally changing the subject. We were talking about understanding evil and dealing with drooling beasts, not about identifying and cooperating with the best people in the world.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Rami Rustom]

I got my wires crossed. I was thinking of dealing with better people,
and helping them get better. You were talking about the idea of
helping the worst people. I agree that this is not beneficial.

> Sure there's some mutual benefit *when it works*, after you're done. But the doing it, and the failures -- and the high risk of failures -- matters too.
>
> Normally mutual benefit is pure benefit all around. Normally we look for things that are strictly good, not mixed compromises. Isn't learning how evil works, in great detail, at best a sort of compromise? Won't you at best come out ahead overall, but not in each individual way?
>
>>
>>> So there is a question of whether or not to do it.
>>
>> If one thinks that there is an opportunity to gain a
>> mutually-beneficial relationship with someone,
>
> There's always such opportunities with any human. But many of these opportunities are not very good, not very promising. And they may be expensive. And the other person may not want it.

If the person doesn't want it, then its not beneficial.

>> then he could try to
>> persuade him that his ideas are evil and persuade him of rival ideas
>> that are good.
>>
>> So the problem is: I want a mutually-beneficial relationship with person X.
>>
>> And the solution is: Try to persuade person X from evil to good.
>>
>>
>> Which raises the question: Why would one believe that person X is good
>> enough to be persuaded?
>
> But now you're totally changing the subject. We were talking about understanding evil and dealing with drooling beasts, not about identifying and cooperating with the best people in the world.

I was thinking of interacting with good people that have some bad
ideas. You were talking about the other end of the spectrum, very evil
people.


And now this clears up my confusion in the examples I gave in my first
post. I said that a business owner should understand evil in order to
persuade his employees and his customers to good. If we consider the
worst employees and the worst customers, its not beneficial to the
business owner to consider them or their evil ideas. Its better to
think about (and deal with) the best employees and the best customers,
rather than to think about (and deal with) the worst employees and the
worst customers.