Smallness of Mind


Recommended Posts

Tony, At a newborn level, infants have a primitive form of emotions called affects and these cover a broad range of expressions. [...] This includes emotional reactions. But imitation doesn't stop here. This also goes into the cognitive area of epistemology. Primates learn by imitation better than by any other method. If you start looking into the psychological literature on learning, this will always be present (at least in the stuff I have looked at). I believe this has major implications for how we approach human nature, and even epistemology. That is, if we want to use the "identify correctly before judging" system of reasoning. "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. It used to be, but I gave it up. Now I still get much value from her works, but I put them in a wider perspective of verifiable knowledge. She derived a lot of her conclusions from introspection and I believe that, when this was the case, the respective conclusion should be treated as such. (btw - Congratulations!) Michael

Thanks, Michael (Bob and Adam),

(Discount my remark on newfound baby expertise. I am not always to be taken literally, and anyway

I haven't seen her yet!)

I half-seriously believe Ayn Rand was an Arthur C. Clarke adherent :

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible,

is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

So she pushed boundaries. Good, and why not?

One has to keep coming back to this - without her pronouncements on many things, including

a baby's emotional state, preferences in art, etc, - does the philosophy hold up?

Silly question, but it must be asked, as it is critical to distinguish between her canon, and her applications of it.

Not that she was always totally wrong with the latter, (imo). I mean, let's keep perspective here; AR knew nothing about babies, or parenting, and we will seek other literature to find out about those.

Among all this - seeing as there's a recent movement on OL to 'scientism' - I've been asking myself what O'ism is. I have described it as a body of knowledge and methodology, but I was never happy with that. The definition opens itself to the need to constantly expand in knowledge, information, and facts.

So, more accurately, I'm viewing it now as a body of knowledge ABOUT knowledge - and a methodology to that end.

It is a structure, one that should easily integrate fresh knowledge in its perimeter. If its "immutable core" can at all be threatened, it is close to useless. Put another way, philosophy is 'meta-science', grounded in the mind and all its discoveries, but always beyond and above science.

Nothing, and no new facts of the thousands of fresh ones, has convinced me otherwise. Retrospectively and presently, I constantly go on checking and rechecking the basic principles, and they only get stronger.

"She derived a lot of her conclusions from introspection".[MSK] Yes! As a bit of an 'introspector' myself - which involves plenty of playing devil's advocate to myself - I've always recognized that. Sometimes you can push too far, and sometimes if you are not careful your 'whims' can take over - but there is a wealth to be found if you're honest to yourself, and you keep coming back to reality. Michael, I know you know it, too.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've just been mulling over psychotherapy and sense of life and here is what I came up with.

Rand was essentially a moralist when she thought about psychology. Her perspective and standard was good and evil, not healthy and sick. This is the way she treated sense of life, even if she defined it as a subconscious emotional sum. The stuff being summed up was a bunch of value judgments. And value judgments to Rand were framed in good and evil.

As an example, I don't think she considered James Taggart to be mentally ill, but evil instead. She was very clear that his sense of life was not the same as his sister's (although she didn't use the term "sense of life" to express this concept in Atlas Shrugged--she did use the term a couple of times, but the connotation was slightly different).

In this conception, an evil person (one with a bad sense of life) is not necessarily a person with mental health issues. Her term "psychological retraining" for a person wishing to change his sense of life does not refer to moving him from illness to well-being, but instead from evil to good. He only needs therapy if that is what he wishes to achieve.

The point of psychotherapy, though, is mental health, as it should be.

So the purpose of psychotherapy--even in in O-Land--is not--and was not ever--to change a person's sense of life, unless a person specifically wanted "psychological retraining" (or brainwashing) to abandon the evil emotional sum (sense of life) underlying his evil soul. Such a person's sense of life might be evil, but his mind still could be healthy.

Self-esteem is not sense-of-life, albeit the concepts overlap in parts. Self-esteem is mainly focused on mental health with morality being present, but secondary, and sense of life is framed in terms of morality while mental health is not an issue.

After a doubt or two, I think I'm on a good train of thought in my critique of sense of life.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Michael

A few random thoughts about “sense of life”:

Michael—I agree with your apparent reservations about Rand’s statement that sense of life changes “only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.”

To begin with, I have no idea what she means by “psychological retraining.” Since she differentiates this process from rethinking your premises, it seems to suggest some sort of Pavlovian conditioning, like stroking a patient when his pupils begin to dilate at the sight of a skyscraper or a diesel engine. Or does she mean negative conditioning similar to the way in which she browbeat Barbara because of her fondness for Thomas Wolfe and Wagner? Either way, the whole idea is obviously ridiculous. I honestly have no idea what she might have meant.

She clearly implies that rational philosophical premises are the precondition of a truly benevolent sense of life, yet she acknowledges that Victor Hugo—the writer whose universe of “joy and grandeur” is a mirror of her own—was “a professed mystic in his conscious convictions.” (The Romantic Manifesto, p. 159). I didn't find her explanation for that obvious contradiction terribly illuminating.

As I see it, the whole notion of sense of life is far too nebulous to serve as a goal in psychotherapy. To be successful, therapy requires a clear definition of goals and how the team of therapist and client are going to achieve them. Sometimes this will mean very specific goals like resolving a particular phobia or overcoming social anxiety. In other cases, the goal may be broader, like improving the client’s overall level of satisfaction in life—i.e., achieving happiness or fulfillment. Happiness is certainly not identical to 'sense of life.'

The wish to alter their sense of life is unlikely to bring a client into therapy in the first place, and if it did, the treatment would likely consist of behavioral conditioning comparable to what I jokingly mentioned above, as in smoking cessation programs. But even that would be a total waste of time. Electric shocks might train a client to prefer the “sunlit universe” of Vermeer to the “grim, unfocused malevolence” of Rembrandt—but it would not alter his sense of life.

Again, the whole idea is absurd.

Incidentally, Branden does not even touch on the topic of sense of life outside the context of romantic love. There are references to it in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, The Psychology of Romantic Love and What Love Asks of Us, but nowhere else in any of his works. This is one issue where Branden does not appear to have any significant disagreement with Ayn Rand aside from that of emphasis.** She mainly discussed 'sense of life' in regard to esthetic response, although she did certainly acknowledge its relevance to romantic response. Branden discusses sense of life primarily as a factor in romantic attraction, although he also mentions esthetic responses as a way in which couples might gauge whether their partner has a compatible sense of life. I could not find any passages where Branden ever suggests that there might be a way to alter one’s sense of life.

**Addendum: In one of his Seminar recordings, Branden mentions that he once told Miss Rand that he was uncomfortable with the term "metaphysical value-judgments," and explained that he does not use that term in his own writings on sense of life. He evidently felt it inappropriate to talk about 'value-judgments' where metaphysical issues are concerned, since value judgments imply a choice between options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> As I see it, the whole notion of sense of life is far too nebulous to serve as a goal in psychotherapy. To be successful, therapy requires a clear definition of goals and how the team of therapist and client are going to achieve them. Sometimes this will mean very specific goals like resolving a particular phobia or overcoming social anxiety. In other cases, the goal may be broader, like improving the client’s overall level of satisfaction in life—i.e., achieving happiness or fulfillment. [Dennis, post 128]

Very wise approach! Examples I've seen of bad therapy have sometimes attempted to be too 'cosmic'. Too broad or too diffuse or scatter-shot. I like your word 'nebulous'.

One question I have, however: May the process not evolve very radically? For example, may it not take some time for the patient to be able to define clear goals or, even prior to that, to get down to what is the underlying problem? What about someone, for example, who thinks the problems he walked in the door for are (a)other people and (b) coping with the rottenness out there and © his fatalism or resignedness over it, and is unwilling to realize the problem - or part of it - is in himself or caused by his own responses or destructive interactions?

[An example of a psychological problem whose heart was understanding what was the real problem is in the enormously powerful and realistic movie "Ordinary People". Conrad, who had attempted suicide, walked in the door thinking his problem is he wanted "to be in more control so people would stop worrying about me". Therapy was 90 percent done when he was led to realize his problem was guilt. And that it was unearned.]

> Branden mentions esthetic responses as a way in which couples might gauge whether their partner has a compatible sense of life.

If he put it that starkly, I'd find this to be a rather narrow-minded way to judge someone. It's like billiard-ball causality again: There are other factors and many aspects, many reasons why someone might find value in complex esthetic phenomena. In many, many cases someone having very incompatible tastes in music, in opera, in literature, may still be just the romantic partner you need. Why? Because other things make those differences pale into insignificance.

I'm just worried about someone constantly holding a black spot, a reservation about the 'soul' of a perfectly wonderful man or woman because of this kind of objectivish too reductionistic thinking. (Seen it happen in young Oists I've taked to in clubs, conferences, summer beach houses: We love each other deeply but I can't marry her, alas, because...)

> she browbeat Barbara because of her fondness for Thomas Wolfe and Wagner.

What happened exactly in that situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Michael—I agree with your apparent reservations about Rand’s statement that sense of life changes “only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.”

end quote

I have been gone for a day but I see this topic has advanced. I want to speak to this issue of psychological changing and specifically to Msk’s touting of Scientology’s methods.

Before the relative safety of civilization, when evolving humans were in a state of ever-present peril they frequently experienced “combat like situations.” How did that affect their sense of life and ability to transcend their meager existence? Did they create works of art, philosophy, commerce or engineering? No, not when every second is spent fighting for survival. Peril saps your spirit. It shortens a human’s vision and loosens his intellectual grasp, while heightening his senses and sharpening his need for an immediate purpose: which is to kill or be killed. Aspirations are measured in seconds. Intellect extends to the tip of a spear, the sound of a footfall and the edge of sight. As all human parents do they attempted to shield their little children and keep them fed and safe but when you yourself are always afraid of being hungry, always afraid of animal and human dangers, then it affected the development of the brains of Paleolithic humans.

A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION from evoyage.com:

Quote

At the core of evolutionary psychology is the belief that all humans on the planet have innate areas in their brains which have specific knowledge that help them adapt to local environments. These areas are highly specialized, and only activate when the information is needed. These areas give the brain specific algorithmic (step by step) instructions that have evolved from our ancestral pasts to adapt to all situations, including the situations that we face today. But since our brains were conditioned to live in deep history, as E.O. Wilson has named our ancestral past, and not to modern conditions, the result is a gray area between genes and culture that drives some humans into depressive states. The best essay that I have read concerning the dilemma concerning why we humans sometimes feel disconnected in our modern world was Robert Wright’s Time magazine cover story of August 28, 1995, p. 50. The title of the essay: "The Evolution of Despair: a new field of science [evolutionary psychology] examines the mismatch between our genetic makeup and the modern world, looking for the source of our pervasive sense of discontent." To quote one particular gripping sentence: "Whether burdened by an overwhelming flurry of daily commitments or stifled by a sense of social isolation (or, oddly, both); whether mired for hours in a sense of life’s pointlessness or beset for days by unresolved anxiety; whether deprived by long workweeks from quality time with offspring or drowning in quantity time with them – whatever the source of stress, we at times get the feeling that modern life isn’t what we were designed for."

end quote

I am not sure there are “innate areas in their brains which have specific knowledge” but of course, anatomically, I do think areas of our brains have a purpose. Certain conditions like depression, and melancholia, or the taking of drugs or alcohol to excess, or even a search for “a big guy in the sky,” as comedian George Carlin termed religiousness could all be linked to our inherited brain structure. Soldiers and risk takers love that rush of danger. I love the situations in that show “Terra Nova.” “Here kitty, kitty. Come on, you saber toothed bastard. Just one more step closer . . .”

Now in civilized countries we are relatively safe and ready for self programming. Is the tone scale or e-meter monitoring preparation for intellectual advancement from this primordial state? Does it provide an even meager leap past evolution or is that giving way too much credit to Scientology? Is a minor psychic “adjustment” the answer, when levels are reached as you shell out more and more cash? I will leave that to researchers like you Michael. I think it is a cultish scam, designed to succeed with intelligent, productive humans. I do think their primitive lie detectors which they call “emeters” could be helpful but not in their hands.

No, Volition requires time. It needs to internally halt the march of *causation* within the brain. It needs to decide where the brain will go. An individual’s brain needs to tell itself to stop that constant, internal chatter that is its reality check and go where I tell it! I will begin “changing my thinking” or psychological state with the words of Edward H. Hagen, from The Institute for Theoretical Biology, in Berlin, Germany who said, “Evolutionary psychologists are betting that cognitive structure, like physiological structure, has been designed by natural selection to serve survival and reproduction.”

end quote

What do you think?

Peter

Notes:

Of course a quick news search of news from “evolutionary psychology” comes up with some disturbing stories. Janet D. Stemwedel is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University said, “As well, they ought to be reminded that what we know about where X came from is a completely separate issue from whether I ought to let my behavior be directed by X. Scientific facts can inform our ethical decisions, but they don’t make the ethical questions go away.”

end quote

There are bad eggs everywhere 8-) Some people use it as an excuse to have sex with young, teenage girls. “But Judge, it’s not my fault. Haven’t you ever read, “Clan of the Cave Bear?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I will prepare a longer reply for you, but I will repeat once again, I am not promoting Scientology or "touting" Scientology's methods.

Tout according to the Free Dictionary means "to solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way" or "to promote or praise energetically; publicize," neither of which is my intention when referencing Scientology. (There are also some meanings regarding racehorses, but those don't fit here.)

My intention was to call attention to a way of thinking and organizing a systematic method for achieving a desired result (using a series like the tone scale with The Overton window idea). My intention was not to justify the abuses of Scientology.

There's a wide gap--with a fundamental line that needs to be crossed--between looking at the tone scale idea and suggesting people adapt it for their own use if they find it works for their ends (I know I've had fairly predictable results with my attempts--not perfect, but pretty good so far), and "touting" Scientology and its methods. If I mention the word Scientology without bashing it in the harshest terms, I am not implicitly ignoring the weird stuff like e-meters and thetans, the cult stuff or the economic abuses, or even trying to sneak approval of all this stuff into into people's minds under the radar.

We're supposed to think with minds, not with jerking knees. I trust the reader to have discernment. I don't need to control his mind with spin.

You brought up evolutionary psychology. If you wanted to find a part of what I presented to be alarmed about, you should have been more concerned about Csikszentmihalyi than Hubbard on that score. Hubbard made up a goofball mythology based on science fiction, so we know that's not to be taken seriously. Csikszentmihalyi based his conclusions on actual science.

Here's a teaser. I love Csikszentmihalyi's work on flow--it's some of the best stuff out there, but I have real serious reservations regarding his characterization of DNA and memes (and some other "information packages") and their evolution. His thoughts on this (in the book, The Evolving Self) is solidly grounded in Richard Dawkins and the work of other scientists. And his ideas are quite influential in our culture. More later on that.

But note that all this is secondary to my point, which is that Rand's sense of life concept does not come with a method for improving it, but instead can actually result in Phil's "smallness of mind" notion. That's a critical premise to examine if you want to spread Objectivism, which I presume Phil wants to do since he harps on it.

I also presumed that Phil was doing more than just griping about "small mindedness" (but maybe not). I presumed that he was interested in doing something about it. So I mentioned that there actually are systematic methods out there that I have uncovered that work (some better than others, of course). I believe we should look into them--and sever the ideas from history and prejudice--if we want to help change the world for the better with practical methods.

The tone scale idea is merely one among many different sequences I have been looking at. Here are a few other human nature sequence tendencies I have been discussing offline. This list is by no means complete. If you want to know the truth, my underlying interest is in making believable fictional characters and plot lines, not in changing the world.

  • The five stages of accepting a terminal illness (denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance).
  • Five stages of moving tribes to the positive (life sucks, my life sucks, I'm great and you're not, we're great, life is great).
  • Four stages of achieving fame or social change (being ignored, being ridiculed, being fought, winning or losing).
  • Five emotional stages of the creative process (possibility, doubt, agony, epiphany, finesse).
  • The sequences of the hero's journey (there are several to choose from, but they all basically involve starting out normal, being called to leave to get something important, encountering a mentor, crossing over to the unknown, battling contrary forces and being helped by friendly ones, final confrontation with main contrary force, transformation of some sort, return trip, arrival home).

Each of these ideas has a specific source, but since this is part of a larger work, I'll get to attributing them later (unless a discussion moves further in depth here).

Note that the Overton window idea can be used with all these, not just with the tone scale.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

We're supposed to think with minds, not with jerking knees.

end quote

It is pissy when someone dismisses me out of hand, so I did try to write something respectful. It’s just that the Scientologists remind me of my recent, brief time on another Objectivist site. Kooks, says I – Never again. I support your efforts, despite my jerking knee to Scientology. Another interesting thing I don’t think Scientology or writers like Ayn Rand can touch is the private self vs the public self. First person narration gives you the thoughts characters are having but how realistic are they? I try not to have a Janus personality, which does make me abrasive at times. I wonder how our heroes and mentors behave in private?

Da plane, Boss, da plane.

From Wikipedia:

Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity. Proposed by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, the positive psychology concept has been widely referenced across a variety of fields.[1]

According to Csíkszentmihályi, flow is completely focused motivation. It is a single-minded immersion and represents perhaps the ultimate in harnessing the emotions in the service of performing and learning. In flow, the emotions are not just contained and channeled, but positive, energized, and aligned with the task at hand. To be caught in the ennui of depression or the agitation of anxiety is to be barred from flow. The hallmark of flow is a feeling of spontaneous joy, even rapture, while performing a task[2] although flow is also described (below) as a deep focus on nothing but the activity – not even oneself or one's emotions.

Colloquial terms for this or similar mental states include: to be on the ball, in the moment, present, in the zone, wired in, in the groove, or owning.

end quote

Michael wrote:

I love Csikszentmihalyi's work on flow--it's some of the best stuff out there, but I have real serious reservations regarding his characterization of DNA and memes (and some other "information packages") and their evolution.

end quote

That is interesting: a single-minded emersion. I remember the meme idea coming and going, in science fiction as did L. Ron Hubbard’s thetans, (it was very readable scifi) and getting no scientific support. I think starting with evolution and brain physiology is the correct path to personally advance mentally.

Gurus? No thanks. Anecdotal psychological evidence? No thanks. Without science and physiology as a beginning any research will lead to a modern version of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego, which is an interesting theory but not real. If you start in the middle and say it “works,” whatever it is, OK. I see no dark motives in your actions. “Man is a rational being,” as someone said. I will be glad to hear what you have to say . . . and not hoot. Just kidding.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I didn't mean to be pissy. I just wanted to be clear that the idea is the thing with me, not the preaching.

But I might as well say something.

The Hate Thing

It's very, very hard to teach me to hate.

Others have tried and they always end up getting mad at me. I have always looked at their objects of hatred, whether blacks while I was growing up in the deep South, Muslims and Christians (within the "KASS" culture), Jews (when among Muslims), hell, even Obama when among conservatives, with totally innocent eyes. I have always tried to be as objective as possible, filter out the normative noise (often the yelling), and then come to my own conclusions.

(As an aside, I actually ended up blasting Obama, but not because of the shoves I received toward hatred from several quarters. Back then I came across a video series Hannity did on Obama's intellectual roots. I looked up some of his facts and saw that they were true, saw how the media in general was ignoring these things, and then came to a conclusion that Obama was not good for the country. But it was my conclusion, not anyone else's. Several people got really mad at me for doing this and talking so long. Ditto for when I started to take Glenn Beck's information seriously. Some people really hate Beck and are royally pissed at me--or think I'm a damn fool--for taking a lot of his stuff seriously.)

My refusal to adopt hatred as I look at objects of hatred has caused many people to be frustrated with me over the years. I don't know how many times I have been asked with exasperation, "Don't you see?" When of course the true message was, "Don't you see how despicable XXXXX is?" But I blink and say, "Well, here's what I see..." and it never comes with the hatred they want to teach me, even when I have major criticisms. I, also, don't know how many times I have been told I just don't get it when I have been in examination mode.

But I have kept plodding along, trying to separate the good from the bad and trying to understand how it all fits together and if there is anything worth thinking about in greater depth. And saying clearly what I see with my own eyes.

Some people even think I'm stupid. They've told me so in no uncertain terms. But if I am, it is an active first-hand mind that is stupid, not the brain of a parrot.

I'm not saying you are any part of this. I'm merely explaining myself. But I do detect your hatred of Scientology, so I want to let you know that I am very poor student material to learn that hatred. I just don't hate it and probably never will.

More About Scientology

On the other side, I have read enough about Scientology over the years to know that it is a cult, so I have no interest in getting involved with the organization or the people in it. However, I am interested in studying some of their processes to see why they attract people (including if there is any value that can be extracted from them), and, especially, how Hubbard pulled off his whole movement. After all, he made a gigantic splash in the world and I do study cults as part of the persuasion training I have set for myself.

Now that we have the Internet, it is easy to learn about all this stuff without going through real live people. Hell, I even learned what "clearing" a person means and how it's done on a video I got somewhere (a video I believe the general public is not supposed to see)--I think I got it on a torrent.

For the record, "clearing" is based on the principle that people can suffer from posthypnotic suggestions from accidental messages when they are in a vulnerable state. Somebody passing by might be talking when a person has an accident, but that by-passer's comment gets recorded in the person's memory and anchored to his traumatic event. And whenever he later encounters something similar to the event, he also gets the posthypnotic suggestion with it and behaves in manners that he finds perplexing.

So a person getting "cleared" sits in front of a guide (I forgot what they call it) and tries to remember every little detail of a traumatic event. After he does that, he has to repeat it all over and remember some more. Then he has to do it all over again and try to remember even more details. And so on until he remembers something someone said that relates to a problem he is currently having. The theory goes that once this is in conscious awareness, the posthypnotic suggestion gets neutralized and the person is "cleared."

There might be some limited merit to this, but in the things I have read, this process is not a good idea. It is often recorded and the sessions go on for hours and hours at a time. Since the person being "cleared" is normally going over stuff that is highly embarrassing, the organization gets a backlog of material with which to blackmail him if he ever wants to leave or no longer wants to toe the party line. That's one of the nasty little secrets in S-Land.

The Weird Science of Memes

Now on to memes. I've got some things for you I will bring out later. Memes may come and go, but the concept never went anywhere after Dawkins introduced it back in the 1970's. Now it is entrenched in our culture like a bug in a rug.

Unfortunately, from what I have been reading, it is one of the intellectual pre-foundations of the anti-man-made global warming movement.

It's funny. I detected the error right off the bat while I was reading Csikszentmihalyi's book. (But I've read other stuff, too. The meme concept is pretty popular in marketing literature.) The scientific meme folks treat information as if it is a living thing as they blandly push aside the fact that a human brain is needed to process information. (The argument is that this is not relevant to evolution.)

So instead of looking at DNA as a physical form, they look at it as an information package, and contend that the code is what replicates and evolves. They miss the fact that the thing, the DNA itself, not the code (which is an abstraction, i.e. something used by the human brain), is the separate physical existent. This allows them to make a bait and switch and end up treating memes as critters that replicate and evolve on their own steam like viruses, merely using the human mind as "background."

Instead of memes reflecting an aspect of how human minds work, or how humans behave in group, they treat memes as living entities separate from humans.

it gets really weird, but one of the final intellectual destinations is the noble busybody urge to control the allegedly parasitic human race through equally parasitic memes so we don't destroy our host (the planet).

If that sounds like a dangerous idea, but one just as kooky as anything in Scientology (i.e., a parasitic idea critter making zombies out of humans, with mad scientists and ideologues running the central infection machine), that's because it is. Virus as incomplete life form or no virus, and scientific jargon or no scientific jargon.

More later on this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Objectivist psychotherapy" is what Nathaniel Branden did pre-break and stopped doing post-break. Post-break had absolutely nothing to do with what Alan Blumenthal or Lonnie Leonard et. al did; they didn't "break." He applied sentence completion inventing his sentence completion technique and maturing its applications and other techniques were adapted centered around the use of an altered state of consciousness primarily.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I didn't mean to be pissy. I just wanted to be clear that the idea is the thing with me, not the preaching.

But I might as well say something.

The Hate Thing

It's very, very hard to teach me to hate.

Others have tried and they always end up getting mad at me. I have always looked at their objects of hatred, whether blacks while I was growing up in the deep South, Muslims and Christians (within the "KASS" culture), Jews (when among Muslims), hell, even Obama when among conservatives, with totally innocent eyes. I have always tried to be as objective as possible, filter out the normative noise (often the yelling), and then come to my own conclusions.

(As an aside, I actually ended up blasting Obama, but not because of the shoves I received toward hatred from several quarters. Back then I came across a video series Hannity did on Obama's intellectual roots. I looked up some of his facts and saw that they were true, saw how the media in general was ignoring these things, and then came to a conclusion that Obama was not good for the country. But it was my conclusion, not anyone else's. Several people got really mad at me for doing this and talking so long. Ditto for when I started to take Glenn Beck's information seriously. Some people really hate Beck and are royally pissed at me--or think I'm a damn fool--for taking a lot of his stuff seriously.)

My refusal to adopt hatred as I look at objects of hatred has caused many people to be frustrated with me over the years. I don't know how many times I have been asked with exasperation, "Don't you see?" When of course the true message was, "Don't you see how despicable XXXXX is?" But I blink and say, "Well, here's what I see..." and it never comes with the hatred they want to teach me, even when I have major criticisms. I, also, don't know how many times I have been told I just don't get it when I have been in examination mode.

But I have kept plodding along, trying to separate the good from the bad and trying to understand how it all fits together and if there is anything worth thinking about in greater depth. And saying clearly what I see with my own eyes.

Some people even think I'm stupid. They've told me so in no uncertain terms. But if I am, it is an active first-hand mind that is stupid, not the brain of a parrot.

I'm not saying you are any part of this. I'm merely explaining myself. But I do detect your hatred of Scientology, so I want to let you know that I am very poor student material to learn that hatred. I just don't hate it and probably never will.

More About Scientology

On the other side, I have read enough about Scientology over the years to know that it is a cult, so I have no interest in getting involved with the organization or the people in it. However, I am interested in studying some of their processes to see why they attract people (including if there is any value that can be extracted from them), and, especially, how Hubbard pulled off his whole movement. After all, he made a gigantic splash in the world and I do study cults as part of the persuasion training I have set for myself.

Now that we have the Internet, it is easy to learn about all this stuff without going through real live people. Hell, I even learned what "clearing" a person means and how it's done on a video I got somewhere (a video I believe the general public is not supposed to see)--I think I got it on a torrent.

For the record, "clearing" is based on the principle that people can suffer from posthypnotic suggestions from accidental messages when they are in a vulnerable state. Somebody passing by might be talking when a person has an accident, but that by-passer's comment gets recorded in the person's memory and anchored to his traumatic event. And whenever he later encounters something similar to the event, he also gets the posthypnotic suggestion with it and behaves in manners that he finds perplexing.

So a person getting "cleared" sits in front of a guide (I forgot what they call it) and tries to remember every little detail of a traumatic event. After he does that, he has to repeat it all over and remember some more. Then he has to do it all over again and try to remember even more details. And so on until he remembers something someone said that relates to a problem he is currently having. The theory goes that once this is in conscious awareness, the posthypnotic suggestion gets neutralized and the person is "cleared."

There might be some limited merit to this, but in the things I have read, this process is not a good idea. It is often recorded and the sessions go on for hours and hours at a time. Since the person being "cleared" is normally going over stuff that is highly embarrassing, the organization gets a backlog of material with which to blackmail him if he ever wants to leave or no longer wants to toe the party line. That's one of the nasty little secrets in S-Land.

The Weird Science of Memes

Now on to memes. I've got some things for you I will bring out later. Memes may come and go, but the concept never went anywhere after Dawkins introduced it back in the 1970's. Now it is entrenched in our culture like a bug in a rug.

Unfortunately, from what I have been reading, it is one of the intellectual pre-foundations of the anti-man-made global warming movement.

It's funny. I detected the error right off the bat while I was reading Csikszentmihalyi's book. (But I've read other stuff, too. The meme concept is pretty popular in marketing literature.) The scientific meme folks treat information as if it is a living thing as they blandly push aside the fact that a human brain is needed to process information. (The argument is that this is not relevant to evolution.)

So instead of looking at DNA as a physical form, they look at it as an information package, and contend that the code is what replicates and evolves. They miss the fact that the thing, the DNA itself, not the code (which is an abstraction, i.e. something used by the human brain), is the separate physical existent. This allows them to make a bait and switch and end up treating memes as critters that replicate and evolve on their own steam like viruses, merely using the human mind as "background."

Instead of memes reflecting an aspect of how human minds work, or how humans behave in group, they treat memes as living entities separate from humans.

it gets really weird, but one of the final intellectual destinations is the noble busybody urge to control the allegedly parasitic human race through equally parasitic memes so we don't destroy our host (the planet).

If that sounds like a dangerous idea, but one just as kooky as anything in Scientology (i.e., a parasitic idea critter making zombies out of humans, with mad scientists and ideologues running the central infection machine), that's because it is. Virus as incomplete life form or no virus, and scientific jargon or no scientific jargon.

More later on this.

Michael

Michael,

I have seen before that hatred is a theme you have thought on deeply, I get the sense that you have had cause to feel it, and have analysed it and fought it, and for that I honour you deeply. I hate Hitler, etc., but offhand I cannot think of a living person or group I feel personal enmity towards, because I have not been harmed or threatened by them in a personal way. I know I have been lucky. Hatred is always personal however the hysterical haters try to rationalise it or co-opt legitimate ideas for their purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have seen before that hatred is a theme you have thought on deeply, I get the sense that you have had cause to feel it, and have analysed it and fought it, and for that I honour you deeply. I hate Hitler, etc., but offhand I cannot think of a living person or group I feel personal enmity towards, because I have not been harmed or threatened by them in a personal way. I know I have been lucky. Hatred is always personal however the hysterical haters try to rationalise it or co-opt legitimate ideas for their purposes.

Either you are saying you wouldn't hate Hitler if he were alive or that you've done no research on modern monsters.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I also presumed that Phil was doing more than just griping about "small mindedness" (but maybe not). I presumed that he was interested in doing something about it. [MSK]

I specifically said that was a reason for writing positively about -not- having smallness of mind in my thread on "large-mindedness"!

But it is exactly when I attempt to do that, to create a positive thread instead of just complaining that no one replies. It's just ignored!! Here are three questions I laid out over in Post 7 there about largeness of mind:

Question 1: Which of those five areas (focus, knowledge, skills, intelligence, will) do you think is least important for most people to develop?

Question 2: Which of them are *you* strongest in?

Question 3: If you could wave a magic wand and strengthen one of them in the culture, which would it be. Why?

Want to guess how many people thought those questions 'constructive' enough to engage with and answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

I detest quiz-show-like multiple choice questions for broad issues, so I do not answer them when at all possible.

In fact, I believe the multiple-choice format in education here in the USA is one of the main reasons young American students are doing so poorly on elementary cognitive skills like reading and writing.

They don't have to think. All they have to do is choose among answers others provide. And if they can't remember enough to make an informed choice, or don't know what a word means, or don't even understand the question, then they can guess.

That's a hell of a way to teach and test.

Maybe others feel the way I do and that is one of the reasons no one engaged. Maybe they didn't find your proposed options, or the way you presented them, relevant to the issue. I know I didn't.

To me, it's like asking what is the most important fruit for taste, apple, orange, cherry, blueberry or pear?

I'm not being snarky--just letting you know what I think.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I also presumed that Phil was doing more than just griping about "small mindedness" (but maybe not). I presumed that he was interested in doing something about it. [MSK]

I specifically said that was a reason for writing positively about -not- having smallness of mind in my thread on "large-mindedness"!

But it is exactly when I attempt to do that, to create a positive thread instead of just complaining that no one replies. It's just ignored!! Here are three questions I laid out over in Post 7 there about largeness of mind:

Question 1: Which of those five areas (focus, knowledge, skills, intelligence, will) do you think is least important for most people to develop?

Question 2: Which of them are *you* strongest in?

Question 3: If you could wave a magic wand and strengthen one of them in the culture, which would it be. Why?

Want to guess how many people thought those questions 'constructive' enough to engage with and answer?

Phil, you know how fond I am of you, but you are exhausting my patience.

It is unrealitistic and not reasonable to expect responses from your best, most agonized over posts. I have sweated blood and tears over my finest creations, only to be ignored except by Rangers fans who only wanted to jeer and kick me when I was down.

Such is life, such is living, especially Objectivist living, and living is worth all. Answering questions when you are asked is basic good manners, and not answering when you are asked a question is counter-instinctual, but people do these things. Don't worry about why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This doesn't accurately reflect Branden's post-break writings on the topic, Brant.

Branden addressed the topic of social metaphysics once again in Taking Responsibility, published in 1996. His approach is very different from the one he took in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, but it is clear that he still found the concept of value from a diagnostic perspective, as a way of analyzing conventionality and conformity. In My Years With Ayn Rand, he states that his original approach was terribly oversimplified, and that he very much regretted the “lack of compassion” and “inappropriate moralism” of his earlier presentation. But it is clear from what he says there and what he wrote in 1996 that he continued to find this terminology very useful psychologically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have seen before that hatred is a theme you have thought on deeply, I get the sense that you have had cause to feel it, and have analysed it and fought it, and for that I honour you deeply. I hate Hitler, etc., but offhand I cannot think of a living person or group I feel personal enmity towards, because I have not been harmed or threatened by them in a personal way. I know I have been lucky. Hatred is always personal however the hysterical haters try to rationalise it or co-opt legitimate ideas for their purposes.

Either you are saying you wouldn't hate Hitler if he were alive or that you've done no research on modern monsters.

--Brant

Yes, you are right in your second supposition. I have done no research. I know what I can bear to know, I know the bright lovely kids in Syrian schools who I got to know from TV for two years, I know some are probably tortured and murdered now and I know who did it.I know the lovely Syrian-Iraqi tradition of torturing and murdering children in front of their parents, then hanging the parents. I know the Somali way of just killing all the men and raping all the women, though I don't know the names of the creatures who were in charge of this. I know many more such things, from eyewitnesses and survivors and dear friends. As I have said, I know what I can bear to know, I have a limited capacity to hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, the whole notion of sense of life is far too nebulous to serve as a goal in psychotherapy. To be successful, therapy requires a clear definition of goals and how the team of therapist and client are going to achieve them. Sometimes this will mean very specific goals like resolving a particular phobia or overcoming social anxiety. In other cases, the goal may be broader, like improving the client’s overall level of satisfaction in life—i.e., achieving happiness or fulfillment. [Dennis, post 128]

Very wise approach! Examples I've seen of bad therapy have sometimes attempted to be too 'cosmic'. Too broad or too diffuse or scatter-shot. I like your word 'nebulous'.

One question I have, however: May the process not evolve very radically? For example, may it not take some time for the patient to be able to define clear goals or, even prior to that, to get down to what is the underlying problem? What about someone, for example, who thinks the problems he walked in the door for are (a)other people and (b) coping with the rottenness out there and © his fatalism or resignedness over it, and is unwilling to realize the problem - or part of it - is in himself or caused by his own responses or destructive interactions?

Yes, definitely. It is often true that the issues which bring a client into therapy do not turn out to be the primary goals. It often takes a few sessions to get a clear picture of what the actual goals should be. In the situation you describe, the initial target would probably be that of ending the destructive behavior, and this would gradually be refined into the goal of enhanced self-awareness--i.e., how the client can stop screwing up his own life. Needless to say, the client has to begin to understand this before we can agree on this as a goal.

Branden mentions esthetic responses as a way in which couples might gauge whether their partner has a compatible sense of life.

If he put it that starkly, I'd find this to be a rather narrow-minded way to judge someone. It's like billiard-ball causality again: There are other factors and many aspects, many reasons why someone might find value in complex esthetic phenomena. In many, many cases someone having very incompatible tastes in music, in opera, in literature, may still be just the romantic partner you need. Why? Because other things make those differences pale into insignificance.

I'm just worried about someone constantly holding a black spot, a reservation about the 'soul' of a perfectly wonderful man or woman because of this kind of objectivish too reductionistic thinking. (Seen it happen in young Oists I've taked to in clubs, conferences, summer beach houses: We love each other deeply but I can't marry her, alas, because...)

C'mon, Phil. Give NB a little credit. He wrote a whole book about the complexities involved in choosing a romantic partner, and I just mentioned one little detail. None of Branden's books are at all "objectivish" or "reductionist." It's a pity you haven't taken the time to read much of this man who has been so important to the Objectivist movement for so long. I honestly don't understand that, especially given your apparent interest in psychology and psychological health.

. . .she browbeat Barbara because of her fondness for Thomas Wolfe and Wagner.

What happened exactly in that situation?

I was referring to the autobiographical portions of Barbara's biography of Ayn Rand. I'm sure you probably read it and have just forgotten.

(Please tell me you already read it and have just forgotten. . .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But note that all this is secondary to my point, which is that Rand's sense of life concept does not come with a method for improving it, but instead can actually result in Phil's "smallness of mind" notion. That's a critical premise to examine if you want to spread Objectivism, which I presume Phil wants to do since he harps on it.

I also presumed that Phil was doing more than just griping about "small mindedness" (but maybe not). I presumed that he was interested in doing something about it. So I mentioned that there actually are systematic methods out there that I have uncovered that work (some better than others, of course). I believe we should look into them--and sever the ideas from history and prejudice--if we want to help change the world for the better with practical methods.

Michael—This sounds a lot like what Branden had to say in his essay on The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The great, glaring gap in most ethical systems of which I have knowledge [including Objectivism, of course] . . .is the absence of a technology to assist people in getting there, an effective means for acquiring these values and virtues, a realistic path people can follow. This is where psychology comes in. . .

As I have said before—I think I even said it on this thread—Branden’s own books (especially The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem) go a long way toward filling that gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: New thread on Branden's virtues and major contributions

Dennis, I am very interested in psychology and psychological health. Starting when I was in therapy and since, I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her (when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.)

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues: It doesn't.

What motivates me to read someone is if I've read a topnotch review that covers all the bases: This is his best book; avoid this; in book A, here is what his high points are; here is what he explains that you can't find elsewhere.

No one has done or wants to do that kind of work in a "professional" review that a published writer would do? I understand that time is limited, but then they can't be too upset that sometimes their author gets read less than they would hope: there are lots of -great- readers out there.

I am actually going to make it easy. I'll start a thread right now, called "Branden's High Points". (I actually would like to see some hard-edged quotes and page references** and would follow up if they are fleshed out.)

We'll see how close OL'ers - as a labor of many hands - get to professional, thorough, or with examples.

My very strong guess is that -- unless you or Campbell or even some non-lazy but well-read and thoughtful non-psychologists decide to roll up sleeves -- it ain't gonna happen on this website. And that thread will just be another "black hole".

**if this material, including actual quotes and references and not just "hand-waving" appears elsewhere in the catacombs of OL or on the Internet, the author could simply cut and paste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It is often true that the issues which bring a client into therapy do not turn out to be the primary goals. It often takes a few sessions to get a clear picture of what the actual goals should be. In the situation you describe, the initial target would probably be that of ending the destructive behavior, and this would gradually be refined into the goal of enhanced self-awareness--i.e., how the client can stop screwing up his own life. Needless to say, the client has to begin to understand this before we can agree on this as a goal. [Dennis, post 142]

Makes a lot of sense.

> Rand’s statement that sense of life changes “only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.” To begin with, I have no idea what she means by “psychological retraining.” [Dennis, post 128]

When she didn't specify or have a special meaning, I would normally read her charitably as using the everyday or 'common sense' meaning of a phrase. In the case of retraining, no operant conditioning involved. An everyday case is trying to break any habit. Joe has to retrain himself not to reach for another serving of pie or a potato chip. Mary has to retrain herself to ask questions in conversation, pause to let others speak, not conduct a one-sided monologue. Phil was hit by a motorcycle and after getting out of a cast had to retrain weakened muscles.

> She clearly implies that rational philosophical premises are the precondition of a truly benevolent sense of life, yet she acknowledges that Victor Hugo—the writer whose universe of “joy and grandeur” is a mirror of her own—was “a professed mystic in his conscious convictions.” (The Romantic Manifesto, p. 159).

Other factors enter in. If you have mistaken conclusions in other areas (history, economics), events in your childhood, etc., etc. I don't think Rand would likely deny that or try to make it like "billiard-ball", one factor only causality.

Again, with a powerful and subtle mind like Rand, when she leaves something out I'd be more likely to suspect the more benign (or least silly) interpretation. Especially since she so often supplied exactly what you'd hope for when someone got around to asking in a question period.

> I didn't find her explanation for that obvious contradiction terribly illuminating.

What explanation are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing one's sense of life? This is one of those odd times I feel like saying "Speak for yourself, Ayn!"

I notice she didn't go quite as far as categorically prescribing it, however.

That she introspected the possibility of change, rather than observed it, is most likely, but she may've been giving

too much credit to those of lesser minds (like myself - not that, before learning her statement, I did not give it a

good try - just because I was aware of a rather gloomy sense of life. To a point I slightly succeeded, too.)

Self-esteem, with conscious effort can indeed improve; in tandem, one's chosen philosophy is self-efficacious

beyond one's best predictions; but s.o.l. is more or less for life, I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

So instead of looking at DNA as a physical form, they look at it as an information package, and contend that the code is what replicates and evolves.

end quote

I don’t hate Scientologists, Muslims, or lowlifes in general – I just guardedly regard them as I might a rattlesnake.

A PBS show was on last night. The subject was Botany and they looked at plants as information packages. They examined tulips, pot, potatoes and other plants. The narrator said things like “the pot developed stronger chemicals so it would be spread by humans.” The whole idea and the way they presented it was entertaining but ludicrous.

I remember a sci fi scenario where billions of years from now, virtually weightless information and energy packets are sent through our collapsing universe into the newly expanding universe one dimension away thereby establishing intelligence AND a rational culture there. Life must go on. Of course, future life may have been guaranteed to evolve there because of the vary nature of the new universe as it was in ours, but billions of years are shaved off the time needed to evolve sentient beings.

Michael wrote:

Phil, I detest quiz-show-like multiple choice questions for broad issues, so I do not answer them when at all possible.

end quote

I don’t answer them because it is not the internet's business. Recently, I had to tell a relative to stop posting what I say on Facebook. It is an intrusion and a field day for stalkers of all varieties.

whYNOT Tony wrote:

Self-esteem, with conscious effort can indeed improve.

end quote

I too, am a fan of Walter Mitty. Now if I could just win the Powerball . . . One thing I do is allow myself to feel good about is all my victories no matter how tiny.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Rand’s statement that sense of life changes “only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his philosophical premises.” To begin with, I have no idea what she means by “psychological retraining.” [Dennis, post 128]

When she didn't specify or have a special meaning, I would normally read her charitably as using the everyday or 'common sense' meaning of a phrase. In the case of retraining, no operant conditioning involved. An everyday case is trying to break any habit. Joe has to retrain himself not to reach for another serving of pie or a potato chip. Mary has to retrain herself to ask questions in conversation, pause to let others speak, not conduct a one-sided monologue. Phil was hit by a motorcycle and after getting out of a cast had to retrain weakened muscles.

Phil,

Here is how Ayn Rand characterized ‘sense of life’:

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.”

My joking references to behavioral conditioning were intended to underscore how any “retraining” on such a deep psychological level would be radically different from overcoming a habit. To repeat, I have no idea how one might go about “retraining a personality.” If therapy can succeed in helping a client to rethink how he sees himself and the world around him, the rest is up to the client. I can't see how any additional "retraining" is likely to help.

> She clearly implies that rational philosophical premises are the precondition of a truly benevolent sense of life, yet she acknowledges that Victor Hugo—the writer whose universe of “joy and grandeur” is a mirror of her own—was “a professed mystic in his conscious convictions.” (The Romantic Manifesto, p. 159).

Other factors enter in. If you have mistaken conclusions in other areas (history, economics), events in your childhood, etc., etc. I don't think Rand would likely deny that or try to make it like "billiard-ball", one factor only causality.

Again, with a powerful and subtle mind like Rand, when she leaves something out I'd be more likely to suspect the more benign (or least silly) interpretation. Especially since she so often supplied exactly what you'd hope for when someone got around to asking in a question period.

> I didn't find her explanation for that obvious contradiction terribly illuminating.

What explanation are you referring to?

Please see The Romantic Manifesto, pp. 157-160.

You should be able to read it on Amazon (“Click to Look Inside”) if you don’t have the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that discussion of Hugo's conflict, his psychology was not only illuminating, but brilliant. (At a number of points I felt that Rand was speaking of herself as well.)

Sometimes Rand goes off the rails in discussing psychology, but not here: this is one of her -best- discussions of a psychological/philosophical set of approaches to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philip Coates wrote:

Sometimes Rand goes off the rails in discussing psychology, but not here: this is one of her -best- discussions of a psychological / philosophical set of approaches to life.

end quote

Thought of the Day

Every patient carries her or his own doctor inside. - Albert Schweitzer

Now, if Tony Romo could just heal his throwing hand in time for Sunday’s critical game Dallas 8-7 against the New York Giants 8-7. A loss eliminates Dallas or New York.

Peter

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