Smallness of Mind

[Philip Coates]

MSK--> Rand's notion that emotions are automatic value judgments that occur as a result of thinking (or refusal to think). Neuroscience makes short work of that idea. But just common sense should, too. Slap a newborn on his butt and you will get a hell of a lot of emotion that didn't come from thinking or refusing to think.

whyNot--[post 97]--> You have mixed up sensory-feelings with emotions. A baby cannot experience emotions like envy, resentment, bitterness or guilt because her cognition is not far advanced enough. She is geared to a simple pain - pleasure response at the sensory/perceptual level, as far as I know.

Exactly. I'm amazed Michael or anyone else reading Rand at all carefully misses something as basic as this. It's not like Rand is an unclear writer.

She not only distinguishes - repeatedly - that she is not talking about physical feelings, she also gives many concrete examples of what she means when she refers to emotions. Here six 'big' emotions are mentioned in passing; it is just one of many places in her writing. where she lists many of them ==> "Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer." [The Objectivist Ethics]

[Philip Coates]

> This also goes into the cognitive area of epistemology. Primates learn by imitation better than by any other method. ..."Rand wrote it so it must be true" (or at least probably true when there are doubts) is not a premise for me any longer. [MSK]

Once again, you seem to think these facts of cognitive and observational psych somehow contradict the points Rand made about the nature of emotions in "The Objectivist Ethics". They don't.

To indicate how it works (in shortened form-you can perhaps fill in the rest): Imitation and observation of one's parent's are factored in when a child is forming important - valuable - good for me - bad for me evaluations which frequently solidify over time to lifelong responses and emotions.

[Philip Coates]

Today's New York Times has a front page article about Ron Paul support from white supremacists, birchers, rockwell, etc. that they want to tar him with.

Here is what I just posted in the comments. It relates to how mean-spirited smallness of mind is rampant in the press -and, IMHO, is a punchy example of how to respond in the open and public comments of your newspaper and many online media - short and to the point, took less than ten minutes to compose ===>

**THE ART OF SMEARING**

First they ignore you.

Then they Laugh at you.

Then they don't fight your ideas,

but engage in the Politics of Personal Destruction instead.

If they can't find an illegal alien you hired as a gardener,

they look for someone who claims they slept with you.

No proof necessary.

If that isn't working, the New York Times combs through the decades

to publicize any Nut Job who ever supported you or any unsavory

cause you were remotely associated with. Ever.

Then, because of guilt by association

And the stupidity and gullibility of the voter,

You sink in the polls.

Rewind. Repeat . Do it all over again

with the next candidate you Disagree with.

-----------

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm amazed Michael or anyone else reading Rand at all carefully misses something as basic as this. It's not like Rand is an unclear writer.

She not only distinguishes - repeatedly - that she is not talking about physical feelings, she also gives many concrete examples of what she means when she refers to emotions.

Phil,

Amazed?

Bull.

That's rhetorical BS if I ever read it. You're not amazed at all. You just want to disagree and want to emphasize that and give a nudge in the intimidation direction. Your so-called "amazement" is posturing and nothing more.

But on point. In your pontificating wisdom, if you ever did the least bit of research on emotions outside the Objectivist canon, you would discover that there is no such thing as an emotion without "physical feelings."

An emotion without a physical expression is not an emotion.

But don't take my word for it, or even the word of credible experts who know about such things because they spend their lives studying them. Let's stay within the Objectivist canon, shall we? I believe this is where you are most comfortable.

First the bad stuff (and you can think ARI for it.) If you only look at Ayn Rand's writings on emotions, you will only get part of the picture.

Gasp! Oh horror!

But it's true and I can prove it.

Rand treated emotions as results of volition (or refusing to exercise it), not as innate organic mental capabilities that can grow on their own as a person matures. She proposed that you can change your emotions by consciously reprogramming them (just like you did when, as she claims, you originally "programmed" them). In her view, the "emotional faculty" is innate, but the contents of it are programmed. If you doubt me, reread "The Objectivist Ethics." I have quoted Rand so often on these things that I don't feel like repeating myself here.

btw - The more I have learned about this, the more I have no idea what she meant by "emotional faculty." From a distance, that idea seems clear. But once you start examining it (in light of her writing), the more abstract it becomes (i.e., without a "faculty"-like concrete) and the more it starts looking like "whim" in her jargon--but whim you can program.

Now for the good stuff. And, believe me, this is pure Objectivist canon.

There is another part to emotions you will not get from the traditional Objectivist discussions online, nor from places like the Objectivism Research CDROM, because it comes from Nathaniel Branden.

Even though you will find identical passages to the ones below in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, I prefer to quote from passages in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist because Rand specifically declared that these works constitute official Objectivism. She never recanted that statement, so we have to conclude that she was in full agreement with the content of Branden's essays in those publications.

The first point is NB's definition of emotions, which I believe you will like because it supports your results view of emotions. This is in answer to a question in the very first copy of The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1962. The question was the following:

"Objectivism advocates the moral principle that man should be guided exclusively by reason. But what about the emotional side of human nature?"

In the response, NB defined emotions as follows:

An emotion is the psychosomatic form in which man experiences his estimate of the relationship of things to himself. An emotion is a value-response. It is the automatic psychological result of a man's value-judgments.

I don't know if NB would agree with that now. I'm not sure until I look it up, but I believe he would agree with me that some emotions are like that, but not all. And I think this view will be found in his later writings (which I have not read as much as I should have). Until I look it up, that is merely my opinion.

At any rate, he started in a different direction in an essay he published in The Objectivist in June 1966, called "Emotions and Actions." Note what he says here:

The motivational power and function of emotions is evident in the fact that every emotion contains an inherent action tendency, i.e., an impetus to perform some action related to the particular emotion.

Now, unless you think that Branden and Rand thought of "action" as anything but physical, the inherent prompt to action has to be physical, also.

So what is an emotion? Inherent or programmed? Is it a cause or a result? Or, is it as Branden implies here, partially inherent and partially a result?

The prompt to action part is borne out by neuroscience. Emotions trigger the limbic system (basically the hypothalamus, hippocampus, amygdala and a few other parts) to send out hormone-squirting commands. These directly affect different muscle regions and give us our physical manifestation. In other words, our feelings--which are physical.

Whether we act in a major way or not is a different topic. But even if we do not, blood still flows to different parts of our body, certain muscles still tense up or relax, our breathing gets faster or slower, our face contracts and relaxes different muscles to give facial expressions, etc. The physical manifestation is there by default brain function and is part of what emotions are.

People who research such things have discovered that when they make happy and/or sad faces for long periods of time, they actually do get happy and/or sad--and this is corroborated with brain scans. In other words, the physical expression of an emotion without any value-judgment whatsoever causes it to appear in the mind. So an emotion can be a result, but it can also be a cause. (Oops--I just stepped outside the Objectivist canon...)

Once again, you seem to think these facts of cognitive and observational psych somehow contradict the points Rand made about the nature of emotions in "The Objectivist Ethics". They don't.

And once again, you do not read correctly.

I will repeat it until you get it.

In questions like what we are discussing, I hold that Rand suffered from a scope problem, not from an either-or right-or-wrong problem.

I believe you constantly make this mistake because you see any criticism of Rand's views as an attack on her. I believe it's time to move on from this view so her true value can become added to mankind's body of knowledge in an objective, instead of worshipful, manner.

So, once again I will state the following. The way Rand describes emotions works for some emotions but not all.

And I say "once again" because I have said things to this effect so many times that I am tired of repeating myself. Disagree if you like. But knock of the constant pretense that I am making an "all-or-nothing" error.

Is it good that Rand noticed how emotions worked for the subset where her insights are valid? Yes. And her insights are quite useful.

But do those insights apply to all emotions? No. Not even close.

In fact, you can do a lot of damage to yourself and to others if you act on the premise that her insights actually do apply to all emotions (starting with trying to "cure" people of homosexuality and things like that--and believe me, it can get a lot worse).

Do you want to keep Rand's insights among mankind's body of knowledge? I mean other than her defense of capitalism?

I do.

There is great value in them. But people will throw out the baby with the bath-water if the defend-Rand-at-all-costs attitude keeps up every time we discuss something important where her scope was off.

So let's use Rand's insights where they actually apply--where we can verify them--and get rid of her bluster and show-woman hype and nastiness to those who disagreed with her. Those were great for getting her message heard when she wrote, but they are not valid substitutes for facts.

This also means acknowledging her errors where she made them, including overreach.

And this means actually reading things from credible experts who study the same things she discussed as part of our education so we can have good elements to question premises that need questioning.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To indicate how it works (in shortened form-you can perhaps fill in the rest): Imitation and observation of one's parent's are factored in when a child is forming important - valuable - good for me - bad for me evaluations which frequently solidify over time to lifelong responses and emotions.

Phil,

This is flat-out wrong if you are talking about all imitation and shows your lack of familiarity with the topic.

You are speculating and presenting you speculations as fact.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I didn't say that was true of -all- imitation, did I?

This shows your inability to read a simple English sentence. And that you are 'speculating' about my meaning and presenting your speculations as fact.

,,,,,,,,,,

By the way, re your long-winded, disconnected, rambling posting style (see your post before your last), could you try to ***edit your self-indulgent writing*** - at least once in a while - so that it is possible to follow your central point:

Your posts often read as if you sat down at the front end of the elephant, traveled through three zebras and ended up in the butt end of a kangaroo. (Almost no one finishes reading stuff that is -that- poorly organized.)

(Outside of Brant, you may be the worst writer of clear, easy to follow posts on OL. )

Just a tip for ya, dude!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Unfortunately for your advice, I have been getting offline compliments (from the oddest places in O-land, too--not OL regulars)--precisely for those well-organized long posts.

(I'll mention one, but I'm not totally comfortable doing that since I don't think he would want his name mentioned here. Michael Newberry. Apologies to him if he objects. I only did that in order to show that I was not making stuff up.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a short one for you, Phil.

You claimed earlier that Rand "expressed many times in her writing" that a person could change his or her sense of life, but that it "is slow and takes time."

I asked for a quote, since "many times" should make this task easy.

Do you have a quote?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[To Phil]

Do you have a quote?

Does anybody want to give odds on the likelihood that Phil will not produce a quote?

To me, this looks like a sure winner.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

A sense of life, once acquired, is not a closed issue. It can be changed and corrected—easily, in youth, while it is still fluid, or by a longer, harder effort in later years. Since it is an emotional sum, it cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.

Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto (“Philosophy and Sense of Life”), pp. 38-39

Just trying to be helpful, Michael. It appears that Rand’s stated views are important to this discussion. I don't really have a horse in this race.

[9thdoctor]

By the way, re your long-winded, disconnected, rambling posting style (see your post before your last), could you try to ***edit your self-indulgent writing*** - at least once in a while - so that it is possible to follow your central point:

Your posts often read as if you sat down at the front end of the elephant, traveled through three zebras and ended up in the butt end of a kangaroo. (Almost no one finishes reading stuff that is -that- poorly organized.)

(Outside of Brant, you may be the worst writer of clear, easy to follow posts on OL. )

Just a tip for ya, dude!

Phil criticizing MSK’s writing, now that’s rich. I’ve been very impressed, numerous times, by MSK’s long posts, particularly how quickly he seems to come up with them as replies. Something that would surely take me two hours to write is up within an hour of the post he’s replying to. It’s like he must have prewritten boilerplate to cut and paste but no, it’s clearly original stuff, tailored to the point at hand.

Does anybody want to give odds on the likelihood that Phil will not produce a quote?

To me, this looks like a sure winner.

I can’t think of a quote offhand, but Phil might just succeed here. Rand is said to have tied her evaluations of people to their taste in music, and in some cases, Peikoff and Ridpath being the main ones I’ve heard of, they abandoned favorites (Brahms and Beethoven, respectively) as part of a project of self-improvement, in other words, as they tried to change their “sense of life”.

I suspect that quotes on the subject of how to change one’s “sense of life” would come from Nathaniel Branden, not Rand. I just pulled out The Vision of Ayn Rand, and the first paragraph of Chapter 20 (The Benevolent Sense of Life) seems to be heading in the right direction, so I advise Phil to include this piece in his quote mining efforts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A sense of life, once acquired, is not a closed issue. It can be changed and corrected—easily, in youth, while it is still fluid, or by a longer, harder effort in later years. Since it is an emotional sum, it cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.

Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto (“Philosophy and Sense of Life”), pp. 38-39

Just trying to be helpful, Michael. It appears that Rand’s stated views are important to this discussion. I don't really have a horse in this race.

Dennis,

Thank you.

I don't mind not remembering this, especially since I was asking for quotes (and I am glad one was supplied by someone like you who is more interested in citing sources than Phil has shown to be), but it does not dispel my gut feeling that she wanted to use sense of life more as a tool for judging others and their works (when art is involved) instead of anything else, like, say, improving ones quality of life.

Note that Rand claims a sense of life can only be changed by "psychological retraining" and even then, only after a person "changes his philosophical premises."

In fact, on looking at that paragraph, there are some parts that bother me. I probably should reread that essay before continuing, but this is a discussion forum, not a finished work, so what the hell.

Rand said, "once acquired." So how do you know when you have acquired a sense of life from when you haven't? What are the indications?

How does Rand know that a sense of life is fluid in youth? Is she just supposing? If so, based on what?

And how does she know you can change it by "psychological retraining" (which sounds an awful lot like brainwashing if you look at that awkward phrase from a cockeyed angle) and changing your philosophy?

Hell, how does she know you can't change it by an act of will?

I'm going to reread that essay...

But just to be nit-picky, Phil mentioned that Rand said this "many times in her writing." Does anyone have another quote?

Michael

[Selene]

I was waiting until others had a chance to provide some referenced material. These three (3) stick out, but there are others in this list that need either clarification, or discussion.

A given person’s sense of life is hard to identify conceptually, because it is hard to isolate: it is involved in everything about that person, in his every thought, emotion, action, in his every response, in his every choice and value, in his every spontaneous gesture, in his manner of moving, talking, smiling, in the total of his personality. It is that which makes him a “personality.”

Introspectively, one’s own sense of life is experienced as an absolute and an irreducible primary—as that which one never questions, because the thought of questioning it never arises. Extrospectively, the sense of life of another person strikes one as an immediate, yet undefinable, impression—on very short acquaintance—an impression which often feels like certainty, yet is exasperatingly elusive, if one attempts to verify it.

This leads many people to regard a sense of life as the province of some sort of special intuition, as a matter perceivable only by some special, non-rational insight. The exact opposite is true: a sense of life is not an irreducible primary, but a very complex sum; it can be felt, but it cannot be understood, by an automatic reaction; to be understood, it has to be analyzed, identified and verified conceptually. That automatic impression—of oneself or of others—is only a lead; left untranslated, it can be a very deceptive lead. But if and when that intangible impression is supported by and unites with the conscious judgment of one’s mind, the result is the most exultant form of certainty one can ever experience: it is the integration of mind and values.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil criticizing MSK’s writing, now that’s rich.

Dennis,

Heh.

Something like that is so ridiculous I just laughed. I tried to get offended--I actually tried and started to write something to that effect--but I couldn't pull it off. I kept chuckling. And I'm still biting my tongue not to make a quip about the quote function as gravy.

Phil sounded like a bad imitation of Perigo there for a second. Well, poor thing. He tries...

I’ve been very impressed, numerous times, by MSK’s long posts, particularly how quickly he seems to come up with them as replies. Something that would surely take me two hours to write is up within an hour of the post he’s replying to. It’s like he must have prewritten boilerplate to cut and paste but no, it’s clearly original stuff, tailored to the point at hand.

Thank you very much.

I'm working on a product of my own for Internet marketing that I call "Ricochet Writing." The problem with most people interested in IM is that they can't write and they need lots of content. I have uncovered (compiling from others) several ways of getting gobs of unique and interesting content out of your subconscious and I have come up with a few ways of my own to get the juices flowing.

Obviously, when you look at the volume of words after I get on a roll, I practice what I intend to preach.

I do admit that, stylistically, I am nowhere near where I want to be. But practice and study are the only ways to improve. So I blabber on...

When the product is semi-ready, I will probably put it up for a limited time for free here on OL to get feedback from those interested.

Apropos, after that, I intend to go through both of Rand's books on writing and analyze them here on OL. I also intend to compare her advice to works by the successful writing teachers I have studied, including William Zinsser (On Writing Well) for nonfiction and Larry Brooks (Story Engineering) for fiction. I only mention these two right now because they are the absolute best among several fine writing books I have studied so far.

If any aspiring writers are reading this, here's a note: I recommend that you get those two works and study them with all your attention. That means reading them carefully more than once each. Several times if possible. And this includes those of you who are interested in writing Objectivist-like stuff (both fiction and nonfiction). One of the best parts is that neither of these books are boring.

(Back to Dennis.) I realize that Rand's books on writing are altered Rand (possibly butchered), but I believe there is still enough in them to consider those works in the ball park of her intentions and beliefs. And since they are being sold under her name as if they represent her ideas (in order to instruct others), I think this project is well worth the effort.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Laurel: I’ve been very impressed, numerous times, by MSK’s long posts

Hardy: Do you have a quote?...[a quote is presented]...but it does not dispel my gut feeling...Does anyone have another quote?

Hardy: I probably should reread that essay before continuing*, but this is a discussion forum, not a finished work, so what the hell....... I'm working on a product of my own for Internet marketing that I call "Ricochet Writing."

Laurel: ...How quickly he [Ollie] seems to come up with [free-wheeling ricocheting blather]

Hardy: Hell, how does [Rand] know you can't change [sense of life] by an act of will? {{ Howja know the nearest planet outside the solar system is not made out of swiss cheese?}} :D

*ya think?

Hardy: I don't think he would want his name mentioned here. [then he gives the name! --> ] Michael Newberry.

[9thdoctor]

I'm interested in some feedback here. Which of these captures the spirit that is Phil's better?

Also, I wonder if on the devilish character to the right, if we could fit MSK's face there, and make it so the finger on chin thingy works out, in other words if the left arm could come up high enough or the head be attached low enough.

[Philip Coates]

Trying to change the subject from the Laurel and Hardy comedy team?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil my man,

That's pretty lame.

I want to say you can do better than that, but I just don't believe it in my heart of hearts.

Here, give this a try. It might help, but I doubt it: The Serious Guide to Joke Writing: How To Say Something Funny About Anything by Sally Holloway

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Trying to change the subject from the Laurel and Hardy comedy team?

Dumbass, my post wasn’t comedy, and I pointed out that MSK was probably wrong about the Rand quote. Further, since psychotherapy has been part of the O’ist subculture from the beginning, I thought it an odd lapse on MSK’s part. Isn’t changing “sense of life” one of the typical goals of psychotherapy? Why did you spend whatever amount of time and money on Lonnie Leonard’s couch?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Isn’t changing “sense of life” one of the typical goals of psychotherapy?

Dennis,

That's a good point.

But from the accounts I've read of what went on back then, the main purpose of psychotherapy was first to decide if a person fell on one side or the other of the social metaphysics divide.

In the stuff I've read (at least as I remember it), a person who was judged 100% social metaphysician didn't have much of a chance at redemption. His or her sense of life was considered as corrupted almost beyond repair.

Maybe it was different, so this might merit me looking at the bios again, but that's the image I have gotten over the years.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

MSK--> Rand's notion that emotions are automatic value judgments that occur as a result of thinking (or refusal to think). Neuroscience makes short work of that idea. But just common sense should, too. Slap a newborn on his butt and you will get a hell of a lot of emotion that didn't come from thinking or refusing to think.

whyNot--[post 97]--> You have mixed up sensory-feelings with emotions. A baby cannot experience emotions like envy, resentment, bitterness or guilt because her cognition is not far advanced enough. She is geared to a simple pain - pleasure response at the sensory/perceptual level, as far as I know.

Exactly. I'm amazed Michael or anyone else reading Rand at all carefully misses something as basic as this. It's not like Rand is an unclear writer.

She not only distinguishes - repeatedly - that she is not talking about physical feelings, she also gives many concrete examples of what she means when she refers to emotions. Here six 'big' emotions are mentioned in passing; it is just one of many places in her writing. where she lists many of them ==> "Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer." [The Objectivist Ethics]

She was not qualified to make these statements. They are mere asseverations.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Also, I wonder if on the devilish character to the right, if we could fit MSK's face there, and make it so the finger on chin thingy works out, in other words if the left arm could come up high enough or the head be attached low enough.

Dennis,

Dragonfly once made this artistic effort for what it's worth.

He also came up with this thing of beauty:

Now you want to put my face on a devil?

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Isn’t changing “sense of life” one of the typical goals of psychotherapy?

Dennis,

That's a good point.

But from the accounts I've read of what went on back then, the main purpose of psychotherapy was first to decide if a person fell on one side or the other of the social metaphysics divide.

In the stuff I've read (at least as I remember it), a person who was judged 100% social metaphysician didn't have much of a chance at redemption. His or her sense of life was considered as corrupted almost beyond repair.

Maybe it was different, so this might merit me looking at the bios again, but that's the image I have gotten over the years.

Michael

In 1976 Nathaniel Branden stated he used "social metaphysician"--or "metaphysics"--only as a broad category of no therapeutic or diagnostic value. (Private conversation with a therapy group.) Such terminology belonged to the 1960s pre-break.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The pre-break period is the period I was thinking about (since this is the same period when Nathaniel Branden published most of what was to become The Psychology of Self-Esteem in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist). So I probably should have mentioned it.

I don't know all that much about the post-break therapy practices, although I do have a copy of Plasil's memoir, Therapist, and I did read that. But, from the discussions here on OL of you and others who were around back then, I never had the impression that what she described was typical of people outside of Lonnie Leonard's circle.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Trying to change the subject from the Laurel and Hardy comedy team?

Dumbass, my post wasn’t comedy, and I pointed out that MSK was probably wrong about the Rand quote. Further, since psychotherapy has been part of the O’ist subculture from the beginning, I thought it an odd lapse on MSK’s part. Isn’t changing “sense of life” one of the typical goals of psychotherapy? Why did you spend whatever amount of time and money on Lonnie Leonard’s couch?

It could be somebody's goal with psychotherapy, but psychotherapy itself has no goals whatsoever for it has no self. This semantical point is trite, but I'm bringing it up because of a possible surfeit of goals including domination and control.

--Brant