You Win or You Die


Robert Baratheon

Recommended Posts

The main subtext running throughout a preacher's pitch (any preacher) is that he knows and you do not. He is there to enlighten you and the others, not to check his own premises. Not on matters of his faith or his sacred mission of being the light for the darkness.

And he will argue it and drone on and on and on until you are in a catatonic state. :smile:

"What do you mean?" asked sincerely, or "I don't understand" said with focus on correct identification are not in his DNA. His destiny is to be heard, he must be heard, nay, he will be heard, and never hear.

Man is a being with two ears and one mouth. The wise say we must use them in the same proportion. The preacher agrees, but he is a creature with half-an-ear and many mouths. :smile:

You want to cry, "Physician, heal thyself!"

But he never does. He's too busy healing others, even if they are not sick, which is almost all of the time. :smile:

Michael

What is this if not a sermon complete with biblical proselytizing? What blatant hypocrisy and projection on display.

"A thief believes everyone steals." - E. W. Howe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One preacher and one person who is hurting the preacher's feelings.

No argument there.

When they become bullshit, like claiming (with all due preaching attitude) honesty is bad and dishonesty is good, I prefer to call this bullshit.

Nobody is making that argument. What was that about bullshit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we have two preachers?

--Brant

you can only save yourself, assuming the premises, of course--that is, that you are one and you need to be saved from it

Maybe three,

and not you,

...me. :wink:

That's so true about only being able to save yourself. You can get crushed trying to come between another person and the consequences of their actions...

... and you'd deserve it, too.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You're no preacher in the way I mean.

You merely give your opinion in a live and let live way.

Your opinions drive some people crazy, but I resonate with the way you do it. I even resonate with most of your opinions on an epistemological level (albeit not always on a metaphysical one).

The point is you're secure in yourself, you wish everyone well, and don't mind disagreement. That's my kind of person.

The preacher type I'm talking about has something other than love of the idea as his driving motor. Oh, he's curious at times, but that's secondary. His major impulse comes from elsewhere. Sometimes it's a neurotic itch. Sometimes fossilized oneupmanship. Sometimes a raging insecurity. Sometimes a hidden agenda. His primary fundament is competitive and he can't stand to be wrong or suffer any loss of status (real or imaginary). It eats him up inside.

:smile:

(All right, I shouldn't smile at the misfortune of another's soul... :smile: Oops... did it again... )

:smile:

(Arrg... I just can't stop it... :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If RB isn't a preacher he'll stick around. If he is, maybe. If someone would only call me a preacher we could have some fun; I'd like to up my rhetorical skills.

--Brant

fun, fun, fun, until Daddy took the soap box away!

(embrace your inner preacher)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you had fun, Michael, with... whatever this was.

I think everyone here was really just fine until you threw your little tantrum over my "preaching," which I suppose is your latest pop-psychology kick that we should all be fascinated in. Your solution to my grievous offense was - imagine that - preaching to all of us about it in post after repetitive post.

Would you say the tenor of this thread was improved by your string of catty retorts and analysis? Did it have the effect you hoped it would have?

I'm going to engage in some capitalist morality of my own and vote with my feet - away from your blog, permanently. For a self-described business guru, it's puzzling that the concept of not disrespecting your patrons never sunk in.

I have some premises to check anyway. Thanks for the lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem, Robert, is not Michael, but your lie, steal and cheat if you can get away with it is in your rational self interest dogmatically and emphatically stated. I'm restating this point because you did not reply to it when I previously mentioned it (34).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to engage in some capitalist morality of my own and vote with my feet - away from your blog, permanently.

I wish you'd stay around. I've not been reading all your posts - lack of time in which to read everything posted on OL - but I've been interested in a number of issues you've raised in posts of yours I have read.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I doubt he will.

He can't stand to step in it and say, "Oops."

It's not about the idea at root (that's just a hook). It's about him and his standing before others.

(Well, maybe--that's a big maybe--he will now because he's good and goaded all of a sudden, but if so, it will probably be more gobbledygook rationalizations with the subtext that he ain't wrong.)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

People on OL are free to come and go as they please. (I'm sure you know that, but I'm stating it more for the reader.)

From an administrative perspective, this person is not moderated or anything.

What he determines is good for him is also good for OL. In other words, OL wins either way. If he goes, OL wins. If he stays, OL wins. His actions make no negative impact on OL and never will.

That's my attitude with everyone.

That's probably one of the reasons we have a lot of very, very smart cookies around here.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish.

If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal.

That's how lawyers (and government looters) think, Robert. :wink:

I still hope you reconsider and decide to hang out here,

because it's our differences that make this place interesting,

and your contrarian counterpoint would be missed.

Regards,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB, I hope you take the time to reconsider leaving. Michael's take on your 'preachiness' if untrue can be overlooked. In most times and situations, Michael acts just like another commenter (except for paying the bills), so you do not have to head to the departure gates thinking the Emperor has your name edged in black and will be ready to assail you, or beat you about the head upon your next presumed blunder.

I have over the years riled him to the nth, and he has riled me to the mth. I have been to the edge of insult and beyond, and so has he almost (at times).

I think it will serve your own interests better to persevere, go beyond. Sometimes being 'called' on an excess that seems entirely unjust is just what is necessary (mutual high dudgeon and all notwithstanding). We all usually let our boar-bristles settle down, given time.

My personal (and perhaps wrong) take on the 'check your premises' retort from Michael was that Rand has written (and other Objectivists at great great length) about the very situation you remarked upon -- that thieving can seem to be a thing of rational self-interest, if the thief will not get caught. It's can be a discussion-starter, or a thought-stopper. It has been wielded before, and for some of us (I am by no means an Objectivist) it is a bit skimpy, when put up as a 'killer' of Rand's moral calculus and her careful thought on just this subject of thievery.

For how many thieves can be trusted to only steal during a perceived 'perfect' situation (no knock-ons)? I have seen a couple of good comebacks to this bit, each predicated on the effects upon the thief, his own, and his moral/ethical ground. [of course, I find the 'rationally selfish' thief to be emboldened by a lack of foresight of the knock-ons, and sometimes by a kind of irrational loss of humanity (in frontal lobe syndromes)]

Those without a conscience, in other words, those with scant empathy and less ability to dam their own impulses. Sociopaths have no compunction, of course, because they do not feel anything but contempt for others as feeling, hurting humans.

As others have found value and interest in your contributions, on balance life is too short for too many slammed doors and departures (or as Lindsay Perigo styles it, 'Flouncing').

Don't flounce just yet, please ... give an honest effort to see what 'set off the maestro' ... and I am sure you will keep your key to the board(room).

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

People on OL are free to come and go as they please. (I'm sure you know that, but I'm stating it more for the reader.)

From an administrative perspective, this person is not moderated or anything.

What he determines is good for him is also good for OL. In other words, OL wins either way. If he goes, OL wins. If he stays, OL wins. His actions make no negative impact on OL and never will.

That's my attitude with everyone.

That's probably one of the reasons we have a lot of very, very smart cookies around here.

:smile:

Michael

You don't want me to flick on my "nasty" switch to see what I can get away with! Imagine a torrent of words coming at you like a flame-thrower as I burn down OL leaving nothing but charred remnants in my wake!!

I've spent too much energy with-holding these destructive impulses! If I can get away with it it's going to be in my wrastional self interest!

--Brant--first I warn then I do it!

burn, baby, burn!

(head for the shelters!)

preaching is for sissies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

My two favorite fictional series, Game of Thrones and The Sopranos, both explore the topics of power dynamics and codes of conduct. In each series, characters roughly fall into three categories: the powerful, agents of the powerful, and the powerless. A theme that runs through both series is that a code of conduct places one at risk of being dominated by powerful individuals or their agents who aren’t similarly constrained.

Something that has always fascinated (and repulsed) me is how powerful individuals tend to corrupt organizations by installing their agents (often friends or relatives) in the place of merit-based hires, arbitrarily subverting organizational rules to reinforce their power, and self-servingly appropriating organization funds rather than investing in the organization or its members. I’d go so far as to say that I've never witnessed first-hand an organization that did not fall prey to these unpalatable human tendencies.

How does Objectivism relate to these themes, and what does it have to say about the powerful using organizations for their own ends? What is the prescription for it? Is Objectivism, or Libertarianism, a code of conduct that can be exploited by those who aren’t constrained by its tenets?

Robert in absentia:

Rand's romantic novels were written in giant crayon, can't be mistaken except via excessive gymnastics. It is clear as a bell what Rand's romantic art says about your question; those were the can't miss them villains of her art. To pretend to confuse the intent of her romantic vision is revealing. Not of Rand's Objectivism, but of those who would pretend not to understand her romantic art, or with even more moral bankruptcy, to deliberately misrepresent it.

But that is obvious in this very first post. All I see in what remains of this thread is, MSK showing remarkable constraint.

Michael, forgive me. I got sucked into viewing this by Robert.

Robert, if you are asking me, I don't know why MSK allowed you to spin and prevaricate with this nonsense for as long as you did; it is patently clear from your first post on this thread. If you can read any of Rand's romantic art and not immediately see the answer to your own question, then you are either uniformed on an easily self-informable topic(just read her books, the point is made in huge crayon a mile high)or you are deliberately confused.

Rand's romantic art is an example of an attempt to project glamour with an agenda; the reception or non-reception of the glamour is a kind of litmus that illuminates those exposed to it-- as is, the deliberate misrepresentation of that attempt.

So Michael, where do you get your patience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert in absentia:

If the $20 on the countertop example isn't clear to you, then no wonder you are confused. I would not take the $20, even if nobody else knew, because I would know, and my integrity is not worth losing over $20. (Especially, these days, US$20.) Fuck what anyone else thinks or knows or doesn't know, i don't give a shit primarily about what anyone else thinks or knows or doesn't know. I would be way too arrogant to take that $20, too full of my-self, too disregarding of the calculus of others. Too selfish. Unwilling to be modest about how shallow my sense of self was, that I would look left, then look right, then pocket the $20 with some rationalization, like, "If not me, then some other tribal fool, driven by their reptilian brain stem and not much else with their incessesent "Can I eat it? Can it eat me?" defintion of 'self-interest.'

I -have- corrected store clerks when they fuck up in my 'favor.' I -have- returned to gas stations in the 80s, when some poor 16 yr old gas pumping kid rang up my credit card but forgot to take an imprint of my card. Because a lousy free tank of gas is not worth the cost to my integrity. (I've as well scratched my head when, in those same 80s, some other 16 yr old pumped exactly 10 gallons of gas into my tank, read the pump, and said "That will be $96.00" .... "But it was 10.0 gallons of gas?...."Yes, but the pump says $96.00".... "But that cant be right?" ... "All I know is what the pump says..." "OK...get your boss." ... who showed up and smacked the kid up the head. The boss calculated what 10.0 gallons of gas should have registered as, and apologized for the pump malfunction. But who can't multiply $1.45 times 10.0? That 16 yr old kid pumping gas couldn't, and he and his are ready to be led around by the nose by elites for thier own good, but I am not.)

If your interpretation of 'self-interest' is take the $20 and run, then it seems just like talking to that crippled child, now grown up and making his way through the endless Thirteenth Grade of Life. Perhaps you accepted your once instruction, and were once crippled. That $20 in your hands is an IOU, for value offered. By you. Not value stolen. But only in a tribe of moral actors. The world you build is the world you live in.

It is not about the '20'. It is about the value. If you don't have that sense of self-worth, or can't imagine it, then, well, my condolences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now