"What's The Matter With Kids These Days!" A Review of "Killing Cool" by Kurt Keefner


studiodekadent

Recommended Posts

"What's The Matter With Kids These Days!" A Review of "Killing Cool" by Kurt Keefner

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Cool-Fantasy-Reality-American/dp/0692252525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433585603&sr=1-1&keywords=killing+cool&pebp=1433585596100&perid=182V0S1XZSR4H4W57ENC

by Andrew Russell

I will begin by stating I am most reluctant to write this review. The reason for this is that this review will be critical and it will be critical towards a fellow Objectivist. In addition, the author sent me a free copy of his book to review, because he liked an essay of mine which I had posted on Objectivist Living (specifically the essay about Alienation, as understood by Erich Fromm and discussed by Nathaniel Branden).

In other words, he did everything he could (within the bounds of fairness) to give me a positive disposition towards his work; he complimented my work and gave me a free copy of his. And yet, upon reading "Killing Cool," I cannot help but disagree strongly.

Keefner's book seems, frankly, to be an Objectivist's rationalization for the age-old parental (even though Keefner himself is not a parent) complaint of "what's the matter with kids these days?!?" It is filled with disdain towards contemporary pop culture, a neo-puritanical fear of politically-incorrect intoxicants (and even some politically correct ones), a terror towards contemporary (yet not "old world") fiction, hatred of anything which feels "immature" or "adolescent" or "childish" by some undeclared standard, an extreme suspicion of any new forms of media combined with what appears to be an extremely limited experience of these forms, a phobia of artistically-atypical subcultures, a revulsion towards sexual non-monogamy or even sexual explicitness or sexual openness (particularly in women), paranoia about non-Abrahamic religions (but to be fair he isn't particularly friendly towards Abrahamic religions), anxieties about a "fast" and "connected" world one would typically expect from conservatives, a view of 'Once Upon A Time' as an idealized past, and dislike of any music written during and after the Jazz age.

I am not arguing that Keefner's book lacks any value - he makes some very compelling insights from time to time (his discussions about the primalistic mentality (particularly what he calls "animal primalism") are certainly on to something, and how Freud used "id" (Latin for 'it') to refer to our bodies and natural urges, for instance). However, the overall tenor, or "sense of life" (so to speak) of his book, is that of a small-town conservative Midwestern American returning home after being disillusioned by "the city" - like Nick Carraway's own fleeing from New York at the end "The Great Gatsby" - fleeing a cosmopolitan and bustling world of novelty and innovation and the destabilization of social orders in favor of returning to a world of stability and tradition.

I will also point out that Keefner admits that a lot of his work runs the risk of over-generalizing. In my judgment this is a significant understatement but he does seem to realize the vocabulary he uses is easily construed as excessively prejudicial. I do have a problem though - after he makes these clarifications he seems to throttle ahead on extreme generalizations and rarely moderates his tone. At one point he blames Seasame Street for ADHD! Really, I'm almost at the point of speculating where the actor-in-a-costume-playing-Elmo touched him when he was a child.

On a personal note, I am a Goth. This is shown on my profile here at OL. My freakiness is, perhaps, one of the reasons Keefner wanted me to review his book. With this book, he is challenging my gothicness and claiming my subcultural preference is inconsistent with Objectivism. This review is therefore, in part, a rebuttal.

Part 1: The Theoretical Framework

Keefner is courteous to the reader by outlining his theoretical framework in the first full essay of the book; he says it is derived from Randian ideals and lays out a full schema with various concepts. I will congratulate him on his theoretical rigor, however Keefner's theory itself seems to be in many ways a product of the same rationalism he condemns. He seems determined to reduce every cultural difference from his own preferences down to a philosophical difference. In effect, he is trying to claim that people with a different taste in music/fashion/art/whatever must somehow subscribe to an anti-realist metaphysics or be a cryopto-communist.

This same tendency towards rationalistic judgmentalism and the philosophical interrogation of cultural preferences is (unfortunately) inherited from Rand, and the Objectivist movement has a regrettable history of engaging in such "philosophical detection." Keefner seems determined to bring back the Bad Old Days.

Keefner's core argument is based on Rand's idea of the "Sense of Life." Someone's "Sense of Life" is basically the emotional climate generated by their subconsciously-held beliefs about the human condition, humanity's role within existence more broadly, and the general nature of the world around us. Someone who believes that life is about service to a higher power and this existence is a punishment we deserve for transgressing this higher power's will, for example, has a very different outlook upon life compared to someone who believes that life is about achieving happiness and fulfilment in a world which is open to our actions; it follows that these persons will have very different overall emotional reactions to life in general.

Keefner correctly points out that this Sense of Life develops not primarily through consciously-held ideas but rather through lived experiences; through our experiences we develop a (usually tacit) assessment of the human condition as we have experienced it. In essence, a Sense of Life is an emotional response to our "life narrative."

But Keefner argues that many people suffer a syndrome he describes as "being a Pretender." A Pretender, according to Keefner, is a person who's Sense of Life is fabricated; instead of going through certain experiences in reality and then deriving a viewpoint from those experiences which in turn generates a Sense of Life, a Pretender decides to adopt a specific "Sense of Life" and emulate it.

The "life narratives" of a Pretender are discarded and replaced by a fiction which serves the pretense; as such a Pretender begins to mentally blur the distinction between reality and fantasy. As Keefner describes it, a Pretender begins to see the world itself as a work of fiction and other people as characters within it. This results in a diminished empathy since one doesn't see other people as fully real. The facts of reality are twisted to fit into the Pretender's desired narrative. The Pretender thus lives in a "Bubble Universe" where reality is mentally censored, stylized and sometimes even falsified so as to keep up the pretense.

My only problem with this theory is that I am not sure anyone actually does this in the first place.

Keefner seems to inconsistently portray the adoption of a false Sense of Life as being either an arbitrary choice where a false Sense of Life is picked up "off the rack," or as something adopted for personal psychological needs, but he never seems to confront the question of why someone would adopt a false Sense of Life in the first place. Except for situations where people adopt a false Sense of Life in order to "fit in" with their friends, it seems to me that people would only adopt any Sense of Life because that Sense of Life appeals to their values and resonates with their life experience, which in turn would mean that adopted Sense of Life is not truly falsified nor is it an arbitrary choice.

Of course, as people's experiences continue to unfold over time, their Sense of Life may be modified as they readjust their overall view of the world in response to those experiences, but this does not somehow imply that a Sense of Life based on a small set of experiences is an invalid one; a Sense of Life, like an abstract concept, must remain open-ended and thus open to future revision, but this does not imply the invalidity of this Sense of Life.

In a later chapter, Keefner even says that "teenagers just aren't ready to create their own culture" (p167). Presumably, he believes someone needs to have reached a certain threshold of experience before they can have a legitimate Sense of Life, which is an ageist and frankly silly statement due to the open-ended nature of a Sense of Life in the first place. However, another problem with this statement is that a "culture" is really just a shared set of values and life-narratives drawn from common experiences (and all the resultant products thereof, such as a culture's art/stories/mythology). It seems pretty clear that being a teenager within our society is in fact a common experience with its own shared narratives like the challenges of maturity and the struggle for finding one's place in the world (narratives which have been a part of countless works of fiction); one of these shared narratives (a narrative Keefner seems absolutely determined to reinforce) is the consistent refrain of disapproval and/or bewilderment from the "elders" who gripe about "kids these days" and have a completely closed mind about anything new.

Part 2: On Killing Cool

The quote about teenagers not being old enough to have their own culture is presented in the titular essay of the book. Despite my criticism of Keefner so far, this essay makes a few good points that I wish to highlight.

Keefner begins by looking at "Cool" and acknowledges the phrase has a myriad of uses; casually it can be just used as a term of personal approval, but Keefner targets the two more formal uses of "Cool" and defines them as "Vanguard Cool" and "Outsider Cool." Vanguard Cool is about being at the bleeding edge of fashion and effectively defining what is cool, whereas Outsider Cool is based upon an appearance of cultivated aloofness and "transgressiveness." This is an interesting split but in today's world, it is probably fair to argue that both of these concepts have effectively united with each other in a subculture known as "hipsterism" (where they see themselves as defining what will be cool in a few months, by which time they will be doing something new and transgressive). Something which is truly transgressive is neither Vanguard Cool nor Outsider Cool, but rather uncool.

Uncoolness (including failed coolness) is correctly noted by Keefner as a critical component of Cool, because (as Keefner correctly notices) Cool is a matter of social positioning. To be cool is to be held in high esteem whereas to be uncool is to be a social outcast (this, however, seems to make "Outsider Cool" rather paradoxical since true outsiders are uncool by definition - "Outsider Cool" must therefore be little more than a pose). One of the biggest problems with Coolness, therefore, is how it creates a hierarchy where some people are bound to be victimized and cast out.

Keefner thus manages to define Coolness as "an attempt to achieve superiority in the realm of popular culture by means of an alleged esoteric wisdom about style." This captures the elitist nature of Cool perfectly, however Keefner's argument goes off the rails.

He talks about how "Cool" needs to have an "Establishment" to position itself against, but this is an inconsistent argument given that "Cool" is in fact the "Establishment." The false rebellion in "Cool" is typically a product of the fact that "Cool" originated in youth culture which typically has to deal with extreme levels of dismissal and disapproval from the more established elders - clearly, Keefner's desire to kill cool cannot be achieved whilst "what's the matter with kids these days?" remains a common refrain. In addition, as Keefner accepts, there's a "grown up" version of cool (although he doesn't discuss the relationship between coolness and the adult/child divide).

His argument also descends into philosophical speculation; he argues that "Cool" inherently reduces into a belief in an Hegelian Zeitgeist. However the simple fact is a lot of the people who are "Cool" probably cannot understand what an Hegelian Zeitgeist actually is; to most people, "Cool" is a purely intersubjective phenomenon defined by what the "Cool" people are doing. "Cool" has never been thought of objectively.

When the discussion of dealing with the problem of "Cool" comes around, Keefner improves by looking at the brutish, dog-eat-dog pack-mentality-warzone of high school and argues that the solution is to "show young people that the herd isn't that important by herding them less" (p167). On this, I have to agree; if you act as if dominance hierarchies are the natural methods of human interaction, one should not be surprised if schoolchildren set up the same hierarchies amongst themselves. Bullying is far less intense in less controlling education systems, such as Montessori. Yet after this, he immediately falls back into arguing that leaving children on their own (which is what a less-regimented school does precisely more of) leads to a "Lord of the Flies" situation (he doesn't note that perhaps the common denominator between the Lord of the Flies situation and the ruthlessly controlling school is the age = authority factor) and argues that adults should intervene more in youth culture (even though attempting to control and regulate this culture would quite plainly lead to a backlash). By the end of the essay, his concept of cool has degenerated to little more than things Those Kids are doing which he doesn't like. Adult "coolness" (the fashion industry, for one) receives no further mention, let alone analysis.

Part 3: Vampires - As 'Red' As Blood?

Keefner seems bizarrely preoccupied with vampires, even though they have lost popularity in the post-Twilight era (arguably due to Twilight) in the first place. Keefner tries to exhibit some knowledge about the genre, but unfortunately for him his analysis is patently superficial and burdened with some ludicrous allegations.

Let us begin with where his analysis is faulty. First, he argues that vampire stories are "patently unhealthy" owing to the fact that vampires are "creatures that feel entitled to murder innocent people for dinner" (p137). Yet in the early part of the essay, he acknowledges the existence of reluctant vampires (like Louis from Anne Rice's novels), who clearly lack such feelings of entitlement and experience incredible levels of guilt over killing people. He notes that it is this kind of vampire whom the audience tends to feel sympathy for, and that Edward Cullen from Twilight (which helped bring vampire fiction into mainstream pop culture) is generally one of these combined with being a vampire who subsists on animal blood. There are vampire stories and vampire mythologies where vampires do not need to kill their victims, such as Anne Rice's work, and even one of the most popular vampire Role-Playing Games contains game mechanics which actively penalize players if they kill humans whom they feed upon.

Keefner's statement about vampires feeling entitled to commit murder is flatly false; some vampires fit this description but a substantially popular and influential contingent frankly do not. Indeed, probably the core theme of Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles is the ethics of vampirism, with different characters having different perspectives on the issue. Some even safeguard their human descendents across generations. And Edward Cullen, probably the most mainstream vampire of all, is a self-loathing Christian-by-allegory who considers his vampirism to be the equivalent of Original Sin.

One of Keefner's most bizarre statements is that fans of vampire fiction are "trying to escape, in fantasy, the bourgeois way of life. Not just ordinary life or the mundane life, but specifically life under capitalism" (p131). In other words, vampire fiction is driven by anti-capitalism according to Keefner. His justification for this is that the antithesis to what he believes to be the core traits of fictional vampires and vampire fiction (specifically Atmosphere, Superiority, Coolness and Passion) are the Mundane, Vulnerability, Squareness and Prudence, which to him are the key aspects of the middle-class lifestyle.

The logical leaps and package-deals are truly stupefying. Disliking a certain lifestyle somehow implies anti-capitalism, even though the society we live in is not capitalist in the free-market sense of the term, and the "middle class lifestyle" (two-opposite-sex-parents-with-a-male-sole-breadwinner-a-white-picket-fence-and-two-and-a-half-kids-nuclear-family-fifties-etcetera) was a product of government social engineering post-World-War-2 (and not only that, but is a mostly Anglosphere phenomenon since many non-Anglosphere countries still embrace the extended rather than nuclear family).

Of course, many people long to escape the mundane and have a life more dramatic and more meaningful than simply working as a sales assistant in the middle of Nondescript, America; this is hardly indicative of a desire to escape capitalism! It is a desire to escape drudgery, a desire to escape boredom, a desire for thrills and stimulation and variation; this is completely normal for human beings and has no political import other than a simple acknowledgement of the fact that most people do not have careers they love, but rather have jobs they grit their teeth and bear.

Keefner may do well to remember that there was an author who took capitalism and made it exciting and thrilling, who gloried in technological achievement and treated human genius as "cool" and "superior," who wrote of heroes and heroines who struck out against social norms without a second thought and lived lives of great passion; her name was Ayn Rand.

Keefner seems to realize these two things; he openly admits that "you don't have to be a Marxist to believe that selling your labor to an organization whose goals you don't personally care about can be alienating" (p139), and that the cure for those who are bored with the repetitive drudgery of most people's day-to-day existence is to have more open markets and less red tape so as to help people escape work in confined corporate cubicles and to start new businesses and experiment with other forms of workplace culture ("a purer form of capitalism" (p141)). Yet in his zeal to condemn vampire fiction, he simply cannot seem to make the connection; he assumes that any distaste for the conventional-suburban-American-normalcy must be built from a desire to flee in the opposite direction from more-free-markets.

I don't remember either Dagny Taggart or Howard Roark embodying conventional normalcy, nor Ayn Rand (who practiced consensual polyamory and never had children). Yet Keefner's suspicion of the culturally unorthodox is so hilariously mired in conservatism (rather than classical liberalism) I barely know where to begin; invoking icons of counterculture rebellion like James Dean and Brando-esque "Bad Boys," he argues that these kinds of image undermine free markets.

This is the Weber-esque argument that free markets depend on Calvinistic, socially-conservative values. This argument was shot to pieces not just by Rand (an atheist polyamorous illegal-immigrant who, if I remember correctly, had an abortion), but by the economists Joseph Schumpeter (who pointed out, in Randian fashion, that it is novelty and innovation led by scientists and inventors and maverick entrepreneurs that drive the economy) and Friederich von Hayek (who once wrote that "it is always from a minority acting in ways different from what the majority would prescribe that the majority in the end learns to do better"). Howard Roark did not accept the conventions of his profession, but let us look at real life; "freaky" countercultures have in fact generated entire niche industries and businesses, have created entirely new genres of art, and have even spawned revolutionary new technologies (the "nerds" of Silicon Valley ended up revolutionizing our economy).

Novelty and experiments in living are the driving force behind free markets; indeed, a great virtue of individual rights is that individual rights enable such creativity and variation. Is a craving for exciting, new experiences symptomatic of wanting to escape from free markets? Or is it really an indication of someone who may perhaps be the kind of person that would flourish more fully in a more free world?

Keefner goes even further than arguing that vampires are products of anti-capitalism; he argues that the vampire character boils down to a Nietzschean Overman bordering on a Master Race figure (an Objectivist should especially be wary of deploying such a comparison given how it is frequently lobbed at Rand's works), with vampires being at least superpowered and frequently aristocratic. If all stories with superpowered individuals count as a "Master Race" fantasy, I wonder how Keefner would analyze the X-Men franchise (where the superpowered individuals are rejected and spat upon by many within mainstream society, and the idea that superpowered individuals are a "Master Race" is an opinion held by villainous factions).

Another criticism Keefner makes of vampire novels is that they reflect an alleged reversion to traditional gender norms; he argues that "many women are uncomfortable fitting themselves into capitalistic life and long for a return to a time when women were ladies, courted by knights" (p136). The problem with this argument is that plenty of famous vampire works with all of the aristocratic tropes (Bram Stoker's Dracula for instance) were written long before women, spurred on by Second Wave Feminism, began to enter the workforce. Second, the fantasy of having Prince Charming (or Prince Darkly-Sexy in this case) come in and whisk a woman away from normalcy goes back to our childhood fairy tales, which have been around for much longer than the modern career-woman. Third, the exact same fantasy is virtually omnipresent in romance novels in general and not confined to vampire fiction ("Paranormal Romance" a la Twilight is in fact a new genre). Finally, Keefner equates vampirism to a sort of hypermasculinity embodied in predatory male sexuality, forgetting the existence of female vampires (including lesbian vampires), and also basically ignoring the entire corpus of Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton, who's works explore very gender-atypical themes; Rice's male vampires are typically all somewhat androgynous and (the undead equivalent of) bisexual, and Laurell K. Hamilton is rather similar in this regard (with the addition of shapeshifting lycanthrope sex and BDSM). Is vampire fiction a hotbed of gender-traditionalism? I don't think that's a fair charge.

Part 4: What Can Vampires Tell You About Reality? Keefner and Allegory

Of course, Keefner doesn't think all fiction is bad; the fiction he likes is perfectly wholesome and reality-focused (gee, what a coincidence!). As he says, "If I watch Mad Men, for example, I am immersed in the fantasy of a world that no longer exists, but that story sheds light on the present, sheds light on big questions about identity, men and women, and the function of advertising and commerce in American life. It puts me more into the real world, even though it is a fantasy" (p138).

Presumably, Keefner would thus consider fantasies with a relationship to the real world to be acceptable fantasies; if a story illuminates reality, it is healthy.

Keefner, of course, presumes that vampire stories cannot do this; "Vampire stories, and genre fiction generally, don't connect me to the real world, but take me deeper into my own head, into the self-contained Bubble Universe of the Pretender" (p138).

Keefner is either irrationally prejudiced against specific source material and/or he is completely incapable of grasping a very important component of fiction known as allegory.

Indeed, most fiction is allegorical and most people relate to fiction not on a literal but rather on an allegorical level; the fantastical elements within stories are representative of aspects of the human condition. Sentient aliens in science-fiction shows usually embody specific aspects of human beings (there's the rational race, the proud-tribal-warrior race, the evil-totalitarian race, etc.). Mutants in X-Men are meant to be stand-ins for people who are cast out from mainstream society for whatever reason. Vampires themselves are also symbols and meant to be understood in an allegorical manner; it isn't that the readers desperately wish to go around and kill people and drink blood, but rather that the readers are attracted to what vampires represent.

Vampire fiction has a long history and different authors address the concept in radically different ways; in addition, individual readers will probably identify with different takes on vampires so there is no "one true meaning" as to what vampires represent. However, I can compare two incredibly different takes.

In Anne Rice, vampirism was a moral challenge to the prevailing asceticist, Christian order (which she rebelled against after her daughter died of cancer). Vampires were written as Nietzschean, but not in the sense Keefner describes; rather, they were symbols of rejecting God and embracing one's inner sinner! They forged their own moral paths in dealing with their new condition, they embraced this-worldly pleasures with unrestrained abandon, they relished in beautiful art and the company of beautiful humans and wearing sensuous fabrics and explored forbidden sexuality (even if they didn't have actual sex).

Stephenie Meyer, on the other hand, completely inverted this; vampirism became a symbol of Original Sin, with Edward knowing he was deep-down a killer and craving redemption alongside Bella's blood, which he continuously denies to himself because the book is one giant piece of pro-abstinence propaganda written by a Mormon who wants to encourage people to save their virginity for marriage.

The same fictional idea can be used as allegories for completely different things. This destabilizes Keefner's case for stigmatizing certain subject material or assigning it some sort of intrinsic meaning. But even more important than this is that allegories are by definition ways in which a story relates to something in the real world (in the case of both Rice and Meyer's vampire stories, they're principally about the morality of Christianity and, in Rice's case, the flaws of it). People do not like stories which they cannot relate to; this is even true of purely escapist fantasies (escapism allows people to fulfil their dreams and live up to their values on an epic scale far beyond what real circumstances practically permit - dreams are based on values which can be derived from reality (if someone's values are irrational, then persuading them to change their values should be the priority, not taking away their stories)).

Humans have always used stories to spread and discuss moral ideas, to communicate alleged truths or facts about the human condition, and the like. Human beings relate to stories which embody their values and experiences in real life (at least allegorically). There is no such thing as a story which has zero connection to reality (or at the very least, someone's understanding of it). Allegory bridges the gap between the fantasy of the story and the real life of the reader.

Anyone who thinks fantasies have no relation to reality, or form no more than an attempt to "escape" from it, is severely lacking in the ability to perform abstraction (the process from which allegory is derived).

Part 5: Some Less Detailed Criticisms

I was going to criticize several other aspects of Keefner's book at length but this review is getting too long already so I'll be brief. His idea that our culture is going "too fast" (with quick-cut-editing in films, video games being extremely quick for him, and cartoons) is ridiculous and greatly misrepresents many video games (plenty of games, even violent ones, often have a slower and more thoughtful pace). Frankly, this point of his only reinforces his image as a "cranky old man." In addition, he argues in his theoretical chapter that dark humour or any sort of violent entertainment or comical reaction to death is proof of a chronic lack of empathy that arises from not viewing others as fully real; he fails to understand that dark humour is premised precisely upon the horror of violence, and the humour derives from treating such a subject with levity. As for violent entertainment there is not a single reliable study which shows a link between violent video games (or movies or television) and real-life violent conduct, so Keefner's concerns about diminished empathy have never borne out.

Part 6: In Defense of Goth

Keefner explicitly attacks Goth as a form of "Dreamy Pretenderism" - a form of Pretenderism which Keefner diagnoses as as being based in feeling "helpless in the face of an oppressive social environment" (p49) and as being "reaction to mistreatment at the hands of brutish family members or bullying classmates" (p48).

Goth is certainly in part based upon a sense of alienation from "mainstream" society, but Keefner effectively contradicts himself by saying that Dreamy Pretenderism has a cause. Keefner's theoretical framework says the primary problem with Pretenderism is that it isn't an authentic response to life experiences; isn't the experience of being within an hostile social environment a genuine life experience? Why shouldn't it be incorporated within someone's sense of life?

Keefner also argues that Goth is a passive response to the hostile social environment; this is also false. The aesthetic of Goth, much of its music and mindset are in many ways a counterattack rather than wallowing in a sense of defeat. Indeed, the Goth mindset is actually quite a proud one; we are proud to NOT fit into "normalcy" and we are glad that we aren't one of the "sheep," and our culture places incredible value on individuality and independence of mind (values which are shared by Objectivism). If Keefner listened to some of the more harder-edge Goth music he'd find it hard to characterize the subculture as "defensive" or "passive," but the only Goth bands he names explicitly are Delerium and The Cure so it seems like his research wasn't extensive. I am not surprised; he talks about "those pairs of Goth friends you see in high schools sometimes, the kind that make you cringe as they walk by because you're afraid they're working on a suicide pact" (p48). This is a frankly ridiculous stereotype with no basis in reality and Keefner's invocation of it proves he has absolutely no personal acquaintance with any persons who are in fact Gothic.

Keefner says what he'd tell a Dreamy Pretender, including a Goth, is "Don't carry your family or your high school around on your back. They don't define you." But a Sense of Life is a cumulative phenomenon, and so Keefner is effectively telling people to jettison their own pasts; rewriting reality is not a very Objectivist thing to do. Now, I'm sure Keefner would argue he's only talking about people who ignore the present and "close off" the development of their Sense of Life at the stage of those miserable experiences, but Keefner implicitly underestimates just how much of those terrible formative experiences can persist after high school and well into the adult world.

The bully-driven pack-dynamics do not end after high school is over; old habits die hard and many people who were bullies in high school persist in being bullies afterward. The social cliques of "Queen Bee" females and the brutish jock-mentality of thug-like sportsmen persist well into adulthood and always have (particularly in countries like mine where sport is treated as the embodiment of true heroism). Even with an open-to-present-experience Sense of Life, one can still experience an hostile, enemy world and have one's Sense of Life affected by it (a good example is Ayn Rand's own depression after the publication of Atlas Shrugged).

But, unlike Keefner's description of Goth as being reactive and self-pitying, I'm not merely going to counter his rebuttal; I'm going to provide an outline of what I believe Goth is and why it is compatible with Objectivism.

First, Goth has little ideological or philosophical content beyond a sense of proud alienation from the mainstream (i.e. being glad to not be "normal") and a belief (shared by Rand) and independent though and individuality are to be cherished. Goth is thus "uncool" (rather than "outsider cool") and it looks down on "coolness" precisely because coolness indicates a person who cares more about what other people think about them than a person who thinks for themselves. People who adopt aspects of Goth culture for "outsider cool" reasons are castigated as "poseurs" (because if they're being "outsider cool" they aren't really being outsiders and they're operating on opposing premises to that of Goth, therefore they aren't members of the subculture properly understood). Goth is thus (properly understood) against any form of second-hander mentality.

Second, Goth is principally defined by a set of historically and artistically interrelated music genres and the visual styles associated with these genres.

But, Keefner might ask, how could anyone like music which has such a "bad sense of life" as Goth music? In advance, I would ask Keefner to actually research Goth music as a whole and listen to a wide variety of it; it actually is quite diverse. But for my primary argument, I'll flat-out state that Rand's condemnation of certain music as having an innately bad Sense of Life (and therefore proving philosophical and moral corruption on the part of the music lover even if they've been an Objectivist for many years and even defended Objectivism as part of their master's thesis) is simply wrong.

Yeah, I went there.

Of course a person's Sense of Life will determine how they relate to a piece of music, but this process is extremely complicated and individualized. As each set of experiences is particular, each Sense of Life is particular. In addition, not everyone may see each piece of music in terms of being a general statement about the entirety of life and the human condition but rather as commentary on certain aspects of the human condition.

I'm going to use my favorite song of all time - "Joy" by VNV Nation - as an example here. This song deals with a certain aspect of the human condition; the struggle to live one's own life on one's own terms. We all live within societies that are at least significantly prone (socially if not politically) towards a pack-animalistic tribalistic mentality where individuality is scorned and compliance with social norms is commanded. What about those who wish to go against the grain (like Howard Roark, for example, or like myself in real life)? Well, the song sings from this perspective; the individual must fight a metaphorical war in order to assert his own right to his own life.

"Have I no control? Is my soul not mine?" are the first two lines of this song; a question which many people have asked themselves, and a question which forms the basis of Classical Liberal political theory. The song's lyrics involve explicit rejections of Christian beliefs and assertions of individual self-sovereignty; "never to be ruled nor held to heel, no heaven nor hell just the land between."

I find it ridiculous that someone could listen to this song and argue that the instrumentation alone voids all the lyrics, that an enjoyment of the instrumentation proves any sympathies one must have for the lyrics are false and that secretly one desires to institute a totalitarian dictatorship, but Keefner's desired return to the days of "Philosophical Detection" will inevitably elevate different stylistic preferences in music to the level of denunciation-worthy heresies.

I'm going to place a link to the relevant song below; if anyone wishes to listen to the song and afterwards claim that I am somehow faking my Objectivism or my Sense of Life, they are welcome to make that allegation. They'd be quite stupid. This song's lyrics reflected my own experiences and the instrumentation suited my taste and reflect the emotional climate within myself over the experiences the lyrics discuss.

Sense of Life does affect how one responds to music. But it does not follow that everyone with the same set of convictions will have the same Sense of Life (since Sense of Life is a product of life experiences), which in turn means that not everyone with the same set of convictions will have the same taste in music. Rand's speculations about music slipped into a near-fanatical Rationalism, and until we start treating the Sense of Life with the same level of particularism that we treat individual human beings we're going to keep falling into this trap.

Part 7: Some Surprising Omissions, Including The Obvious

Often, Keefner doesn't discuss things which one would think make perfect examples of his idea of being a "Pretender." He comes close in "Killing Cool" to doing so, where he looks at the "Cool Kids." But what he seems to forget is that "Cool" in many cases means culturally normative and fitting in.

So why doesn't he go after the culturally normative? Why does he end up defending the bland and banal "middle class lifestyle" exactly? Why doesn't he go after the conformity of 50's suburbia or "wholesome small-town America" which suffers under religious orthodoxies to hilarious degrees? I mean, sure, he mentions it and spends one chapter attacking religion but he never rips into it with the same venom he deploys against Goths or vampire literature or anything like that. Why do his discussions on sexuality seem paranoid about female promiscuity (to be fair he attacks the "pickup artist" scene which means he's not holding to double standards though)? Why does he look down upon "rebellious" traits rather than conformist ones? Why does he think "table manners" are an issue of philosophical importance? Why does he complain about coarseness and rudeness in contemporary pop music?

Why doesn't he go after country music for Pretenderism? I mean sure, he mentions the "folksy Pretender" (yet never subjects this type of pretender to any substantial analysis), but he doesn't go after Country and Western, even though he could easily argue that style of music is based on fantasies of being a cowboy and/or romantic nationalism and/or drowns in its own misery. Nope, apparently Goth (a niche genre at best) is a far greater threat than the Nashville machine (which makes, to put it gently, a hell of a lot more).

I could go on with various different examples of this, but I really want to point at the biggest elephant in the room.

Keefner argues that a central aspect of being a Pretender is to see life through a narrative filter; life follows a specific plot formula and other people are thus characters in a work of fiction rather than complex human beings. A Pretender fashions themselves around a preconceived archetype and lives inside a mental universe where everything is interpreted to fit this narrative.

This, frankly, sounds an awful lot like the NBI-era Objectivist movement and it sounds a lot like something many young Objectivists do after discovering Objectivism for the first time (and something which some elder Objectivists still fall into from time to time); they try to become just like Howard Roark and not feel any pain or fear or guilt. People are no longer individuals with particular experiences, they are walking allegories for specific principles. Geopolitical events with complex causes and motivations become simplistic morality plays between the forces of good and the forces of evil (anyone remember the general Objectivist foreign policy shift towards neoconservatism after 9/11?). Because one must become an avatar of one's principles, one's taste in art must become Rand-approved. And of course, when you want to show contempt for someone, you must inform them that you do not think about them, and rationalize your thinking-about-not-thinking-about-them as a rational response to their obvious immense philosophical depravity. Small personal differences become intellectual wars between the rational and the irrational. Liking the wrong kind of fiction means you're secretly pining for an end to Capitalism.

In Part 1 of this review I argued that Pretenderism may not (except in the case of social conformity) be a real pattern, since no one would adopt a style or image or worldview which didn't actually resonate with their actual Sense of Life. However, on second thought, it is amongst Objectivists where Pretenderistic-like behaviour seems to be disturbingly prevalent, although this isn't as common as it used to be.

But why would Objectivists become Pretenders? In order to be perfect Objectivists! Rand's theories about art and aesthetics and psychology in general make some reasonable points, yet they are applied in such a simplistic, rationalistic fashion to such a degree that Objectivists will often see having divergent tastes as proof of treachery. Ergo, a Pretender Objectivist will try and purge their Sense of Life of its complexities and subtleties and nuances and try to make it exactly like how an Objectivist "should" be. Whereas an authentic Sense of Life will bear the imprint of a person's real life experiences and viewpoints, including but not exclusively limited to their Objectivism, a Pretender Objectivist will remove anything which doesn't match up to the plot of The Fountainhead. No, they didn't feel any pain or misery over being socially exiled, even before they had the philosophical strength to know of the virtue of independence. Why? Because Howard Roark felt absolute pure indifference to those who didn't-really-hurt him, so therefore they must feel the same way!

Is Keefner's entire argument projection? Is the "Pretender" syndrome something he hasn't fully removed from himself? Because except for people who "pretend" in order to fit in, I cannot really see any comprehensible motive to embrace "Pretenderism." People would only "adopt" a Sense of Life if that sense of life resonated with at least the general tenor of their experiences (or substantial aspects thereof).

But a Sense of Life is complex, and the general tenor of one's sense of life doesn't capture all the nuances, nor does it capture how one's sense of life responds to particular facets of the human condition, nor does it reflect only one's conscious convictions. The process by which someone became an Objectivist would matter; surely someone raised in a secular moderate-liberal household would probably find becoming an Objectivist a lot less fraught with trauma than someone who was raised a fundamentalist Calvinist.

However, Rand's simplistic theorizing on the subject leaves room for only one legitimately Objectivist Sense of Life, one legitimately Objectivist taste in art, etcetera. Which drives individual Pretender Objectivists to attempt to strip out (in fact suppress) the nuances and variations and complexities which genuine Senses of Life possess, and instead to try and become a character in an Ayn Rand novel by any means necessary.

The history of the Objectivist movement is well-known by Objectivists like Keefner. His complete lack of mentioning this phenomenon within the entire book (he spends a whole essay morally praising himself for being a teetotaller yet cannot write even a paragraph about the Pretender Objectivist), even though it seems a facially obvious instance of the "syndrome" he devotes his entire book to criticizing, is a nearly unforgivable blind spot.

Conclusion

Keefner gave me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I've done my best at being honest.

"Killing Cool" begins with a theoretical argument of debatable contribution - is the Pretender a common phenomenon or a floating abstraction? I find it hard to imagine much beyond conformism that would encourage someone to just arbitrarily falsify a Sense of Life in the first place.

From there he basically just goes through almost every aspect of modern popular culture and complains about it. He assigns a bizarrely pathological assessment to practically everything and even recites arguments which have been demonstrated as false (i.e. that violent video games are psychologically damaging). He goes so far as to argue that the vampire craze is latent anti-capitalism and that teenagers shouldn't have a culture. Coffee and energy drinks and quick-cut-edited films are going to drag us away from objective reality, and dark humor shows we're not seeing other people as truly real. Sesame Street is causing ADD and people having casual sex is just more proof we are slouching towards Gomorrah.

Keefner's discussion of "Cool" has some genuine value, but the overall book just amplifies one of Ayn Rand's most unfortunate habits; philosophically rationalizing one's cultural preferences as the only acceptable ones. The pervasive neophobia of this book manages to reach a degree one would typically expect from Christian Conservatives. The "What's The Matter With Kids These Days?" mentality - a complaint which goes back to Plato - practically drips from every page.

Finally, he ignores what would appear to be an obvious example of Pretenderism which exists in his own ideological backyard. This omission is a glaring oversight at best, and evidence of psychological projection at worst.

"Killing Cool" would take the Objectivist movement back to the Bad Old Days, where liking the wrong piece of art could get you psychologically cross-examined for incorrect premises. "Killing Cool" provides a disturbing amount of ammunition for anyone who wants to package-deal our philosophy with that of those who thought that comics, movies, video games, rock music, roleplaying games or anything else of that ilk were going to destroy society and corrupt the youth.

There is much room for Objectivist cultural criticism, but Kurt Keefner's "Killing Cool" is more complaint than insight, more condemnation than analysis, more contempt than contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In "The Comprachicos," Ayn Rand wrote:

At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness - the mechanism of a human consciousness - but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank. He knows nothing of the external world . . . .

end quote

Of course, 45 years after Ayn Rand wrote that, we know human babies are not entirely BLANK.

From "The Feeling of What Happens," Antonio Damasio says of consciousness:

Consciousness is the right of passage, which allows an organism armed with the ability to regulate its metabolism, with innate reflexes and with the form of learning known as conditioning, to become a minded organism in which responses are shaped by a *mental* concern over the organism's own life. Spinoza said that the effort to preserve oneself is the first and unique foundation of virtue. Consciousness enables that effort. [P. 25].

On the "birth of consciousness," Damasio says, we become conscious when our organisms internally construct and internally exhibit a specific kind of wordless knowledge - that our organism has been changed by an object - and when such knowledge occurs along with the salient internal exhibit of an object. The simplest form in which this knowledge emerges is the feeling of knowing, and the enigma before us is summed up in the following question. By what sleight of hand is such knowledge gathered and why does the knowledge first arise in the form of a feeling?

Damasios answer was:

Core consciousness occurs when the brain's representation devices generate an imaged non-verbal account of how the organism's own state is affected by the organism's processing of an object, and when this process enhances the image of the causative object, thus placing it saliently in a spacial and temporal context. [p. 168].

end quotes

Interesting. So what sense of life, has made Andrew Russell espouse the Goth Culture? I guess he is trying to explain it. Along the way his rational thinking, choices, social awareness, and free will have made him want to disguise the human form he was born with. That is not who he is. I think his change is not just plumage or make-up so as to enhance his form in the mirror . . . Being Goth also shapes others' responses to him. And without being too Old School Objectivist, while trying not to psychologize Andrew, I think he should not be so concerned with image.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Russell wrote:

"Killing Cool" would take the Objectivist movement back to the Bad Old Days, where liking the wrong piece of art could get you psychologically cross-examined for incorrect premises. "Killing Cool" provides a disturbing amount of ammunition for anyone who wants to package-deal our philosophy with that of those who thought that comics, movies, video games, rock music, roleplaying games or anything else of that ilk were going to destroy society and corrupt the youth.

end quote

Seriously, Andrew? That awful music reminded me of the buffoons from the alternative rock group, Insane Clown Posse, who just influenced some locals to beat and cut the ICP tattoo off a mans arm who they deemed as unfit to scar his body with their beloved logo.

No one has a right to tell a Goth to dress appropriately, but whats with the black paint on your face, Kid? Someone who is overly concerned with societys response is saying, "Look at me. PLEASE look at me!" Overly done make-up is irrelevant (but annoying) in a free society. However, do we have a right (and not just the *might*) to tell someone to remove their ten gallon hat in a movie theatre? Of course we do. So I am politely asking Goths to put their make-up on after they get to their social gatherings so as not to scare the kids or make the dogs bark.

Yeah. I am trying to be like Jonathon Swift satiric and funny. I do appreciate Andrew's efforts to critique an Objectivist's essay so thoroughly.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, original and clear thoughts by Andrew. The allegory of fiction, taken over-literally among Objectivists, for one.

Though, I am in general agreement on the author's The Pretender meme existing among the young (and not so young). While there isn't a fashion-social-cultural model of an Objectivist, objectivist, or rational realist - and shouldn't be one, as independence of mind-body is top ranked - the obverse is the very common model of "rebel, for the sake of rebellion", no matter against whom or what, which so turns into an orthodoxy by the rebels themselves! (I was most familiar with this in rebellious years). The most striking aspect for me, is what I notice as a show-offness, intent above all on impressing others one deems 'cool' with one's coolness. It ends up like parallel mirrors, reflections of reflections of oneself in others' eyes. What is the concept of "cool" anyway, but a judgment made on you by others, not by oneself?

I'm not quite easy with Sense of Life as put by Andrew or the author. First, I always feel too much is made of it. "Subconscious and pre-conceptual", influenced by early-life experiences we had no control over, it's probably mostly formed well before our teens, to later reduce its growth to a stop as consciousness comes to the fore. As Rand conjectured, it is extremely difficult to change in later life, if not impossible. Despite her cautionary word, it would appear that Objectivists sometimes misunderstood her, and jumped through rings to 'correct' it. Most individuals are not going to self-create an ebullient sense of life out of a basically sober one, by thought or re-programming one's tastes in music (etc.). As I see it, there's actually no "Objectivist sense of life".

Though it is the psycho-epistemological source of art, she said, and while it appeals according to that of the viewer, Rand rated sense of life as so far lesser in influence to one's consciously -found and -held convictions - and those contained in art - as to be far less important.

Simplistically, I think sense of life is to conscious conviction as is one's personality to one's character.

Quibbles perhaps. The critique is well worth the read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I am trying to be like Jonathon Swift satiric and funny

Peter,

I actually took you seriously at first and wrote out an entire point-by-point refutation. Only then did I see the "satire" disclaimer.

I'm glad you enjoyed the review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, original and clear thoughts by Andrew. The allegory of fiction, taken over-literally among Objectivists, for one.

Thank you!

While there isn't a fashion-social-cultural model of an Objectivist, objectivist, or rational realist - and shouldn't be one, as independence of mind-body is top ranked - the obverse is the very common model of "rebel, for the sake of rebellion", no matter against whom or what, which so turns into an orthodoxy by the rebels themselves!

Ahh yes, the "reverse-conformist" as I call them. Doing X because other people do Y, irrespective of one's own genuine preferences. It certainly is not rebellion, since it is allowing yourself to be controlled by what other people do (note the line: if you will go against your own preferences just to go against the group, that's a problem).

Non-conformism means that you'll always follow your preferences irrespective of the group. Your principal point of reference is your own desires, not those of others.

The most striking aspect for me, is what I notice as a show-offness, intent above all on impressing others one deems 'cool' with one's coolness. It ends up like parallel mirrors, reflections of reflections of oneself in others' eyes. What is the concept of "cool" anyway, but a judgment made on you by others, not by oneself?

Agreed. "Cool" is social esteem and second-handing.

I'm not quite easy with Sense of Life as put by Andrew or the author. First, I always feel too much is made of it. "Subconscious and pre-conceptual", influenced by early-life experiences we had no control over, it's probably mostly formed well before our teens, to later reduce its growth to a stop as consciousness comes to the fore.

That's a very good point. I do think Sense of Life can change, but clearly it is a LOT more complex than many Objectivists tend to think. Life experience matters a lot, at least as much as one's premises, and tons of these experiences are ones people have little control over.

As Rand conjectured, it is extremely difficult to change in later life, if not impossible. Despite her cautionary word, it would appear that Objectivists sometimes misunderstood her, and jumped through rings to 'correct' it.

Rand herself, unfortunately, often tried "correcting" other people's senses of life. Her words weren't heeded by herself.

Most individuals are not going to self-create an ebullient sense of life out of a basically sober one, by thought or re-programming one's tastes in music (etc.). As I see it, there's actually no "Objectivist sense of life".

I'd be more likely to understand it in terms of there being multiple Objectivism-compatible Senses of Life. Or perhaps there's a more general kind of sense of life that's broadly associated with the entire Enlightenment-Individualist tradition overall rather than Objectivism per se. Surely, the idea that there can be only one acceptable set of music tastes for Objectivists is insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

Very good review of Killing Cool: Fantasy vs. Reality in American Life by Kurt Keefner. I actually bought a copy and read a good bit of it. I really, really wanted to like it and write up a good review myself (Kurt and I communicated a bit on Facebook and I have an enormous respect and affection for those who write serious books and bring them to market), but, like you, I banged up against some ideas I just don't agree with.

On first blush, I liked the idea of Pretenderism, but on second, I kept getting the feeling that it was goosed up Peter Keating--a kind of damnation of most modern pop culture as social metaphysics. And I don't like the concept of social metaphysics as I don't believe it accurately identifies the human mind, not even a corrupted human mind.

The Human Mind

I agree with Rand that the conscious part of the mind is tabula rasa at birth, but not the underlying part (her "extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed"). I could talk about the findings of neuroscience and modern psychology, but since I am reading a fascinating book right now that can illustrate my point, I will mention it:

Deadly Powers: Animal Predators and the Mythic Imagination by Paul A. Trout

I claim that an infant does not need experience to understand that a creature with an big open mouth with lots of long pointy teeth, licking its chops, eyes staring, growling, making menacing movements (stalking, sudden lunges, etc.) while shadows grow larger as darkness falls are to be feared. This knowledge is already there in the lower part of the brain in some form and grows as the infant grows, irrespective of his or her experience.

There are several innate categories of prewired value judgments like that. And successful lasting pop culture taps into them. (This is a long discussion for another time.)

In short, I find it inconceivable that the expression of a denial of life is the primary motivation for people to buy stuff on a massive scale (like pop culture). Nobody forces people to buy music or stories or fashions, etc. They do that because they choose to. They like it.

That's a positive, not a negative.

A Comment about Pretendersism

As I have studied how to induce people to make such choices without critical thinking (i.e., marketing, propaganda and covert persuasion), and I know techniques that work, I don't know where to put a concept like Pretenderism.

At first I thought it was a bit like core story, which I frequently talk about. But Keefner uses this concept in ways I just don't see in light of what I have learned over the years. You discussed several of them, so I won't.

Also, before any great achievement can be built or executed, a person has to live in an unreal reality for a while. This is called a vision--a projection of the future treated as if it were the present so the person can train and create and make that vision become real. If living according to an artificial reality in ones mind is innately bad, nothing great will ever come about among humans.

I don't totally diss the concept of Pretenderism, though, because there are a lot of phonies floating around, some of whom actually act the way Keefner portrayed. But, by far, from my own experience, most do not operate that way.

And this leads me to wondering why people write books using a conclusion by Rand as their starting point rather than their own naked observation. Keefner did start by saying he observed this phenomenon for years without being able to articulate it, but I get the feeling he was trying to square it with Rand, not simply look, see, and describe.

A New Certainty

I believe part of the guilt for this lies with Rand herself, but not because she sought this. It's because of how she taught people to feel certainty about their thinking in Atlas Shrugged.

I am currently working on a study of how to write fiction in the manner of Rand. I have read her own descriptions of her writing techniques and lots of studies by others. There are several books and they are all pretty good as far as they go. But I have some beefs, too. I will write about all this stuff at a later time.

For now, I want to mention my outlandish claim above.

There is a law of good storytelling that says, show, don't tell. Rand was good at that for major metaphors in The Fountainhead. For example, she has Roark pounding a hole in solid granite with a jackhammer the first time he and Dominique exchange their First Meaningful Stare at each other. She lets the reader figure out what that jackhammer working the granite means. :smile:

However, in Atlas Shrugged, she does a lot of showing and telling, especially regarding her major metaphors. For example, when Dagny thinks about the legend of Atlantis, she also wonders if it was like the industrialists who were disappearing in her current world. Rand doesn't let the reader make this connection. She spells it out. And she does this over and over in Atlas Shrugged.

Now why would she do that? I believe she wanted to give readers a sense of certainty--the emotion of certainty. Especially when an evaluation was called for. This definitely ties in with her theme of the role of man's mind in existence. Readers did not need to doubt what they knew as they read Atlas Shrugged--Rand made sure they understood all the main points over and over in minute detail, in metaphor and in plain old description.

However, this had an unintended consequence. A reader gets high on that certainty when the bad guys get slapped. It's like a brain-bath in serotonin (the neurotransmitter that makes you feel great after achievement and, also, better than others).

Unfortunately, certainty while reading a book as opposed to actual living have a fundamental difference: reading is all in the imagination whereas living deals with reality and the imagination. So for people to get that serotonin blast from interacting with reality, they find out that reality is not very cooperative--that they need to expend hard effort, to figure things out and make them work. Only then do they get the high. Why? Because to do this right, they must identify something correctly, use critical thinking if necessary to further examine it, then evaluate it. And then work with it. If the subject is complicated, that can make ones brain hurt. :smile:

However, there is a short cut. Some readers of Atlas Shrugged have felt Rand's explanations as part of the source of their high during their fiction reading. And as she kept hammering on the word reality, it's very easy for some of them to blend the two and accept what Rand says in the place of their critical thinking and evaluation of reality. So they use the epistemological process of observe, peg what they see to something Rand said, then evaluate. If they do that, and they group with like-minded folks who agree with them, they can get their serotonin bump as often as they want (and some oxytocin for good measure :smile: ).

The Result

This expands out and people have done major works from this basis. I, personally, don't believe many of them are aware of it. They just got into the habit of thinking that way because they kept getting their brain chemical reward. They developed a bad habit, so to speak.

Often, these folks try to out-Rand Rand by extending something she said or implied into areas where they have to force-fit things to make their argument coherent. I believe Kurt's book arises from this process and he does just that. But he's not alone.

Look at the work of Kamhi and Torres in art. Look at how many O-Land educational undertakings have Montessori in them. How many O-Land people divide the word into Aristotle and Plato as their premise for a study or work of some sort without ever reading either other than a quote or two? How many go on the warpath against Kant without reading much of anything by him?

Hell, I, myself, listened to far more Rachmaninoff when I was young than I ever would have had I not read Rand. I even started composing like him at first. (Thankfully, nothing from that phase survived and it will stay a dwindling memory. :smile: But, for the record, I did fall in love for real with his music.)

I could go on (and believe me, there's a lot more), but my point is that the starting place for these people is not what they observed, chewed on and concluded. They started with something Rand said, or something they observed then looked at what Rand said about it. Then they went about trying to prove how her observation explained the thing. The more creative ones played a lot of variations on that theme.

Well Wishing

I wish Kurt well--I hope his book sells and that he prompts a lot of great discussions. I mean that from the heart.

He is, to my mind, an extremely intelligent person and he does not hide how he struggles to think things through. However, I wish he would give the following a shot: try to look at something in the culture by first taking his Objectivist glasses off. Just identify it.

Does he see Pretenderism underneath an activity like vampire stories? OK. Let me run with that since it's his own goosed up Keating concept and it plays such an important role in his book. Is Pretenderism all--or primarily--what people are doing? Then try to use the benefit of the doubt thinking to their motives just to see what can arise. Do they really like vampires because they are denying reality or are they just playing around and having fun like little kids? Do the vampires speak to something in the primal part of their brain or do they settle on vampires by evasion? By trying to attain status in an unreal reality? By damning this earth? What sounds like common sense and what sounds forced? And so on. Only then put the Objectivist glasses back on. And write.

I would be interested to see what he would come up with if he ever agreed to do something like that. I suspect it would be quite good. Like I said, he's intelligent, so I believe he would come up with epiphanies that would surprise even himself--more so (at least for me) than his attempted catapult into the annals of Randian glory by trying to murder an entire culture with a concept he got secondhand.

Nobody murders a culture with a nonfiction book, anyway. Nonfiction ain't cool enough to to that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos, I just got the following book, which interested me because of the neuroscience and modern psychology discussed in it:

Cool: How the Brain's Hidden Quest for Cool Drives Our Economy and Shapes Our World by Steven Quartz and Anette Asp

I can't write anything about it yet, though, because it arrived yesterday and I haven't started it.

From flipping through it, I do believe it is germane to this discussion and to the issues Kurt raised in his book.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, original and clear thoughts by Andrew. The allegory of fiction, taken over-literally among Objectivists, for one.

Thank you!

While there isn't a fashion-social-cultural model of an Objectivist, objectivist, or rational realist - and shouldn't be one, as independence of mind-body is top ranked - the obverse is the very common model of "rebel, for the sake of rebellion", no matter against whom or what, which so turns into an orthodoxy by the rebels themselves!

Ahh yes, the "reverse-conformist" as I call them. Doing X because other people do Y, irrespective of one's own genuine preferences. It certainly is not rebellion, since it is allowing yourself to be controlled by what other people do (note the line: if you will go against your own preferences just to go against the group, that's a problem).

Non-conformism means that you'll always follow your preferences irrespective of the group. Your principal point of reference is your own desires, not those of others.

The most striking aspect for me, is what I notice as a show-offness, intent above all on impressing others one deems 'cool' with one's coolness. It ends up like parallel mirrors, reflections of reflections of oneself in others' eyes. What is the concept of "cool" anyway, but a judgment made on you by others, not by oneself?

Agreed. "Cool" is social esteem and second-handing.

I'm not quite easy with Sense of Life as put by Andrew or the author. First, I always feel too much is made of it. "Subconscious and pre-conceptual", influenced by early-life experiences we had no control over, it's probably mostly formed well before our teens, to later reduce its growth to a stop as consciousness comes to the fore.

That's a very good point. I do think Sense of Life can change, but clearly it is a LOT more complex than many Objectivists tend to think. Life experience matters a lot, at least as much as one's premises, and tons of these experiences are ones people have little control over.

As Rand conjectured, it is extremely difficult to change in later life, if not impossible. Despite her cautionary word, it would appear that Objectivists sometimes misunderstood her, and jumped through rings to 'correct' it.

Rand herself, unfortunately, often tried "correcting" other people's senses of life. Her words weren't heeded by herself.

Most individuals are not going to self-create an ebullient sense of life out of a basically sober one, by thought or re-programming one's tastes in music (etc.). As I see it, there's actually no "Objectivist sense of life".

I'd be more likely to understand it in terms of there being multiple Objectivism-compatible Senses of Life. Or perhaps there's a more general kind of sense of life that's broadly associated with the entire Enlightenment-Individualist tradition overall rather than Objectivism per se. Surely, the idea that there can be only one acceptable set of music tastes for Objectivists is insane.

Looking it up in TRM, one insightful comment in a most insightful chapter:

"A sense of life is formed by a process of emotional generalization which may be described as a subconscious counterpart of a process of abstraction, since it *IS* a method of classifying and integrating.

But it is a process of ~emotional~ abstraction: it consists of classifying things ~according to the emotions they invoke--i.e. of tying together by association or connotation all those things[...]"

(my bold)

{Philosophy and Sense of Life}

My question is, can in fact one's pre-existing, pre-conceptual and subconscious "counterpart" partially be overcome, conceptually and consciously?

I'll take a conjectural leap, that in the years since Rand early advised (in The Romantic Manifesto) that a sense of life is almost impossible to change, she observed her own sense of life HAD changed -- by virtue of her ongoing and sustained mental effort.

I.e., I'm guessing her "emotional abstraction" had been gradually dissolved and replaced by conceptual abstraction, up to a point.

That it wasn't as fixed as she first thought.

It is possible then that she didn't contradict herself or disregard her own advice - as much as learn better by her own example.

But we recognize her powerful intellect, and further, the intervening period it took her - so for her to indicate that any Objectivists could emulate the feat - and should do so - in a short time period, was likely setting them up for failure, self-repression and disenchantment. Aspiring to deliberately change one's subconscious, might be the greatest mistake. It can happen as a secondary and automatic effect however. A SOL can change gradually and to some degree, but organically of its own accord in response to a developing consciousness, I believe.

I agree with your "multiple" senses of life, and as you mention, its nuances and complexity.

(For there to be Objectivists of quite palpably distinct 'senses of life' (...such as Andrew and Peter Taylor..) - is a very positive and heartening sign about the resilience and non-orthodoxy of Objectivism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, can one's pre-existing pre-conceptual and subconscious "counterpart" eventually be overcome, conceptually and consciously?

Tony,

Actually it can, but like I said, I have a problem with sense of life as Rand defined it.

People do have general moods, emotional dispositions, and personality types. The ancients used to call them the four humors, and later the four temperaments: choleric, melancholic, sanguine, and phlegmatic.

Some of this comes from genes, some from environment and some from choice. It's not all choice and it's not all forces beyond the control of the person. It's both.

I don't understand why there is such a hunger to proclaim one or the other victor in some kind of metaphysical standoff. But anti-volition people like determinists do it and pro-volition people like Rand do it.

The mind doesn't care, though. It continues to be what it is and that means it has both.

As conscious awareness is always in a seesaw balance with subconscious drives, and the "sense of life" resides in the subconscious part, the conscious awareness can temporarily overcome a person's general disposition. But only temporarily in the short term. There's a long term process, too.

Here's a practical example of the short term you can try out for yourself. An emotion is not just a mental experience. It also has a physical expression, generally a facial one. Many people think the direction is one-way, i.e., first you feel the mental part of the emotion then the face reflects it. But it can go the other way, too. The next time you are feeling down or depressed, force yourself to smile for about 5 minutes, even and especially if you don't feel like it. The next thing you know, you are feeling great. The feeling doesn't last for long when done this way, but it is real. Like the commercial says, try it, you'll like it. :smile:

You can do this long-term with some basic subconscious emotional premises, too. You can repeat and emotionally laden an assumption over and over so much that it will eventually conflict with, then merge with and overpower what is already there. Snake handlers, for example, do this with their fear of predators. But it can be done with optimism, becoming stoic, etc.

Once again, though, Rand's scope problem kicked in with this. She presumed this underlying disposition was blank at birth and could be entirely programmed by volition. She even referred to the subconscious as "an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed." (See "The Comprachicos" quote in Peter's post above.)

Just because you can program some things doesn't mean you can program them all. Nor does it mean that some programming doesn't already come built in.

Here's an idea I am going to expand on over time: sense of identity. I'm not competing for a jargon term, but I believe this does exist on a deep level and does have emotional resonance that colors everything a person says and does. The sense of identity deals with what groups a person is born into--starting with the acceptance of being a human being and not just a disembodied awareness--all the way up to his or her self-esteem. Essentially a person knows what big story they belong to and what stories they themselves make. They know their roles in those stories, with all the conceptual knowledge and emotions that come with them.

People think in stories, within stories, on top of stories, and so on. They don't just think on top of a vague feeling like a sense of life or temperament.

And they can change many of their stories when they so desire. That desire and effort won't immediately shut down the stories already underway in their minds, but it can overcome them eventually.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew wrote:

I actually took you seriously at first and wrote out an entire point-by-point refutation. Only then did I see the "satire" disclaimer. I'm glad you enjoyed the review.

end quote

Yeah. Sure. I will give you a few point by points in a few minutes that wont piss you off too much. But isnt that what Goths want to do. Piss off and be pissed off? Why else make your self SO vulnerable to disdain? I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are we talking about when we say Goth? From Wikipedia some info shortened by me:

The allure for goths of dark, mysterious, and morbid imagery and mood lies in the same tradition of Romanticism's gothic novel. During the late 18th and 19th century, feelings of horror, and supernatural dread were widespread motifs in popular literature; The process continues in the modern horror film. Balancing this emphasis on mood and aesthetics, another central element of the gothic is a deliberate sense of camp theatricality and self-dramatization; present both in gothic literature as well as in the gothic subculture itself . . . .

Some of the early gothic rock and deathrock artists adopted traditional horror film images and drew on horror film soundtracks for inspiration. Their audiences responded by adopting appropriate dress and props. Use of standard horror film props like swirling smoke, rubber bats, and cobwebs featured as gothic club décor from the beginning in The Batcave. Such references in bands' music and images were originally tongue in cheek, but as time went on, bands and members of the subculture took the connection more seriously. As a result, morbid, supernatural and occult themes became more noticeably serious in the subculture. The interconnection between horror and goth was highlighted in its early days by The Hunger, a 1983 vampire film starring David Bowie, Catherine Deneuve, and Susan Sarandon. The film featured gothic rock group Bauhaus performing Bela Lugosi's Dead in a nightclub. Tim Burton created a storybook atmosphere filled with darkness and shadow in some of his films like Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989), Edward Scissorhands (1990), and the stop motion films Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), which was produced/co-written by Burton, and Corpse Bride (2005), which he co-produced.

As the subculture became well-established, the connection between goth and horror fiction became almost a cliché, with goths quite likely to appear as characters in horror novels and film. For example, The Crow, The Matrix and Underworld film series drew directly on goth music and style. The dark comedy Beetlejuice, The Faculty, American Beauty, Wedding Crashers and a few episodes of South Park portray or parody the goth subculture.

The Guardian reported that a "glue binding the [goth] scene together was drug use"; however, in the goth scene drug use was varied. Goth is one of the few youth movements that is not associated with a single drug.

Some events are Lumous Gothic Festival, Children of the night in Ukraine, Ghoul School, Release the Bats, Bats Day in the Park, and many promote what is called deathrock.

A study published in the British Medical Journal concluded that "identification as belonging to the Goth subculture [at some point in their lives] was the best predictor of self harm and attempted suicide [among young teens]", and that it was most possibly due to a selection mechanism (persons that wanted to harm themselves later identified as goths, thus raising the percentage of those persons who identify as goths). According to The Guardian, some goth teens are at more likely to harm themselves or attempt suicide. A medical journal study of 1,300 Scottish schoolchildren until their teen years found that the 53% of the goth teens had attempted to harm themselves and 47% had attempted suicide. The study found that the "correlation was stronger than any other predictor." The study was based on a sample of 15 teenagers who identified as goths, of which 8 had self-harmed by any method, 7 had self-harmed by cutting, scratching or scoring, and 7 had attempted suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

The most striking aspect for me, is what I notice as a show-offness, intent above all on impressing others one deems 'cool' with one's coolness. It ends up like parallel mirrors, reflections of reflections of oneself in others' eyes. What is the concept of "cool" anyway, but a judgment made on you by others, not by oneself?

end quote

Well said. Supposedly Goth is a shorten way of saying Gothic, and there is a fascination with the macabre, murder, mayhem and sadomasochism, in this sub culture. Some of the make up reminds me of Zombies - The undead, brought back to life, feeding on the living. The dark circles and other make up simulate a human body dead for some time. Why is that representative of the ideal Goth person? Why are they frequently portrayed as angry and homicidal? Goth is not life affirming. Goth glories in death and genocide, or is that glorification, just PRETEND? Andrew says Goths are apolitical or have politics across the spectrum. If they only glorify death on a small, personal scale in their presentation of themselves and in their art, I dont find that reassuring.

Remember Beatniks? Groovy Daddio, Big Daddy, you are a real hipster. What a gas, man. Did you cats have a blast? Did you make the scene? Look at the squares, man. Lets haul ass. Here come the pigs.

And Hippies? What a gas. Grab your old lady, your peace symbol, and take the acid test. Far out! Thats where its at. Psychedelic! Cool people are beautiful people, man, and you prove it by going to a be-in, and blowing your mind. Right on! Bummer - bad acid, Im wasted. Are you just putting me on?

Andrew wrote:

I'd be more likely to understand it in terms of there being multiple Objectivism-compatible Senses of Life. Or perhaps there's a more general kind of sense of life that's broadly associated with the entire Enlightenment-Individualist tradition overall rather than Objectivism per se. Surely, the idea that there can be only one acceptable set of music tastes for Objectivists is insane.

end quote

That was also well said, Andrew. But I think Goth are trying to create an elitist, in crowd.

Am I being a curmudgeon? There is a dominant culture. There are sub cultures. But which cultures advance reason, tolerance, bettering yourself, and evolutionary survival? Maybe it is not always the dominant culture or the dominant trends as Rand pointed out. But I would classify Goth in there with those other awful, self-destructive subcultures - the beatniks and the hippies. Why does a woman put on make-up? Why does a man dress for success? To be the best they can be. Why do Goths mutilate their body's with cuts, piercings, tattoos, and wear makeup and a costume to simulate death, be a freak and be in a freak show, and appear hideous? Why that reason is to . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, It is almost too big, all you say. There are so many levels it's difficult to put them together.

One thing at a time and very roughly: It seems clear by Rand's standards, the scope of "blank slate" refers to sensory, perceptual, conceptual development - along with subconsciousness. She couldn't know then that the advanced embryo is experiencing some sensory input - already contributing to its subconscious - but looked at as a whole, she is mostly correct.

I really only have a doubt on one thing, where you've quoted AR on consciousness "...as an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed".

I don't believe that she meant "programmed" as only 'self'-programmed. (At an extreme, there are many adults who've been significantly "programmed" by other people and arbitrary philosophies).

I think too, she always included the subconscious within "consciousness" unless otherwise stated. I may be wrong.

You write,

"She presumed this underlying disposition was blank at birth and could be entirely programmed by volition".

Her writing about the subconscious and a sense of life, bears out that she thought the child's subconscious (by definition) is programmed non-volitionally and emotionally - I suppose by random, extraneous things and his early inter-action with parents and others..

There's much more to consider in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

Her writing about the subconsciousness and a sense of life, bears out that the child's subconsciousness (by definition) is programmed non-volitionally, I suppose by random, extraneous things and his early experience of parents and people..

end quote

This is from 1999.

Clinical & Research News

Brain Science Gets in Touch with the Unconscious

Although scientists still aren't sure what human consciousness is, they are coming up with something just as intriguingneurobiological evidence for the human unconscious state.

Scientists have not yet determined the neurobiological basis of human consciousnessthat nebulous place where the hard wiring of the human brain interfaces with thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Yet at the same time, they are coming up with something equally pioneering and titillating: neurobiological evidence for the human unconscious state . . . . In one of the experiments that Wong and Shevrin conducted, for instance, subjects hooked up to an electroencephalograph were consciously aware of being exposed to a face accompanied by a mild finger shock. In other words, they were being conditioned to associate the face with something unpleasant. Before, during, and after this conditioning, their brain-wave patterns were recorded. Some time later, the subjects were once again hooked up to an electroencephalograph, but this time they were quickly exposed to the face without a shockso quickly that they were not consciously aware of seeing the face. Before, during, and after this exposure their brain-wave patterns were recorded. The researchers then compared the subjects brain-wave patterns from the postconditioning phase with the conditioning-phase patterns. They noted something very interesting: During the postconditioning phase, distinct slow wave brain activity occurred precisely before the point where a shock had been delivered in the conditioning phase.

This distinct slow wave brain activity, Wong and Shevrin believe, constituted neurobiological evidence for unconscious anticipation of an unpleasant event, that is, that a shock would probably be delivered along with the face. Or as Wong put it in an interview, "It does seem like, if there is an event that happened in the past, and a similar circumstance occurs in the present, then the brain is anticipating that the same kind of thing will happen that happened in the past."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This distinct slow wave brain activity, Wong and Shevrin believe, constituted neurobiological evidence for unconscious anticipation of an unpleasant event, that is, that a shock would probably be delivered along with the face. Or as Wong put it in an interview, "It does seem like, if there is an event that happened in the past, and a similar circumstance occurs in the present, then the brain is anticipating that the same kind of thing will happen that happened in the past."

No offense, isn't this what we know should and does happen?

Is anyone surprised by this?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

Kurt has been commenting on your review on Facebook. He considers it a hostile review and mentions you are a Goth.

I can't tell if he got pleasure from getting you riled (he said you are "really pissed" because he called Goths Pretenders). It sounded like it, but it could be just normal back-and-forth blurting that comes out cockeyed. (God knows I've had my own sins in that regard.)

I sincerely hope he did not get pleasure from this (i.e., goading or bear-baiting to get an angry reaction he can laugh at) to high-five with his in-crowd and consider you one of his first Cool Kills. In my concept so far, I hold he has a higher intellect than that.

Besides, as an intellectual, I doubt you are going anywhere anytime soon. I have a feeling you are going to make a splash on the culture at large at some time. And it certainly won't be with any Cool inside you killed off by Kurt's book. :)

Re fundamentals, I think you will continue to be who you are now. People change, that's true. But I don't see any signs of it in you so far, nor any need to. I, for one, like you just the way you are. (But I'm not so crazy about the music... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Frankly I don't know whether those points you made are Swiftian satire or sincere criticisms, because if they are sincere criticisms they're based on regurgitated stereotypes. Clearly you lack any first-hand knowledge of what you're criticizing, if those criticisms are actually sincere.

MSK,

Frankly, I don't care what Keefner does on facebook. I don't use facebook anyway, and my review certainly is critical. I stand by what it says. If Keefner somehow thinks of me as some sort of representative of "cool," he's flaunting his ignorance (and his rationalistic insistence that his theoretical framework overrides actual life experience).

Of course he'd say I was "really pissed" - in a way, people have turned that into a substitute for argument. "You getting angry about my argument proves my argument is right and you just can't handle the truth/you're in denial/etc." being the logic. In practice, it reduces things down to "contesting my argument proves my argument."

Kurt Keefner can claim I am a "Pretender" all he wants (considering his only contact with me has been this book review and the emails regarding it, that would be a pretty rationalistic claim to make). I like this forum because it is generally beyond the "More Randian Than Thou" purity contests/pissing contests (contests which, going by their history within the Objectivist movement, follow the exact same social dynamics as "cool" does), so I have no desire to get involved in one with Keefner.

Trust me, I am certainly not going to be abandoning OL or abandoning Objectivism just because of someone else's shallow pop-culture criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

I just checked Facebook and there is no more problem. It looks like Kurt took his old page down or made it private (or hell, maybe blocked me or unfriended me or whatever :smile: ).

And he has another Facebook page where he copied his post about your review here on OL, but there are no comments right now since, according to the time stamp, he only did that yesterday. That means there is no snark for people to read, which, to me, is good. His mention of your review on this new page is quite gracious.

I think he's right to do that. He should be concentrated on selling books right now, not getting into typical ortho-snark games, which are poison for sales outside the Brotherhood and Sisterhood. :smile:

But, if one is going to write something for everyone to see, especially snark, one has to expect they might talk about it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew wrote:

. . . going by their history within the Objectivist movement, follow the exact same social dynamics as "cool" does . . . .

end quote

I am curious Andrew. Why does a woman put on make-up? Why does a man dress for success? To be the best they can be. Why does an actor wear a costume and makeup? To be believable in a role. Why does a kid dress in costume for Halloween? I would guess the candy received is only 25 percent of the reason.

So, even a brief answer would be acceptable. I am sure you appreciate your COOL look and the COOL reactions from your acquaintances. Why do Goths change their body's with cuts, piercings, tattoos, and wear makeup and clothing to simulate a dead human? Why shock people, in a negative way? What are your reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've personally met Andrew, and the most shocking thing about his appearance was that he was wearing a leather coat in the heat of New Orleans. It was a really nice coat, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, she's got your number lol...

stop-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gifsexy-girl-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew wrote:

. . . going by their history within the Objectivist movement, follow the exact same social dynamics as "cool" does . . . .

end quote

I am curious Andrew. Why does a woman put on make-up? Why does a man dress for success? To be the best they can be. Why does an actor wear a costume and makeup? To be believable in a role. Why does a kid dress in costume for Halloween? I would guess the candy received is only 25 percent of the reason.

So, even a brief answer would be acceptable. I am sure you appreciate your COOL look and the COOL reactions from your acquaintances. Why do Goths change their body's with cuts, piercings, tattoos, and wear makeup and clothing to simulate a dead human? Why shock people, in a negative way? What are your reasons?

Peter,

If "change their bodies with cuts, piercings, tattoos, and wear makeup and clothing to simulate a dead human" is your image of what a goth looks like, you are only further confirming your ignorance about the subculture.

Seriously, this is the kind of stereotype which the politicians and the MSM promoted back during the uproar over Marilyn Manson (even though his music isn't technically goth), and the post-Columbine moral panic (even though Klebold and Harris were not goths).

You might consider trying something novel and make some good faith inquiries as to what goth culture is actually like. I'm happy to answer genuine questions (such as "what is goth culture about?" and "what kinds of music are considered gothic?" and "why do you like the goth style?"). Feel free to send them in a private message if you wish.

What I am NOT happy to answer are loaded questions which are burdened with false assumptions (such as "why are you seeking attention?" or "why are you dressing like a corpse?" or "why do you sacrifice kittens to Satan?").

If, Peter, you are willing to "check your premises" (so to speak) I'll be more than happy to discuss this topic with you, but so far you haven't demonstrated much willingness to accept the possibility that your current view of goth culture is extraordinarily inaccurate.

Deanna,

Thank you for the support, and I appreciate the compliment about the jacket. I've actually modified it slightly; there's mink around the cuffs now, so it looks even better (by my standards). It is quite fun to wear it around animal rights/eco-nut types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam mis-poked:

Peter, she's got your number lol...

end quote

Is your "lol" lots of luck or laughing out loud? Jiminy Crickets, I know DiDi is not a bra size. And dont you think that her icon of herself is just a bit too perfect? Its obviously photo-shopped from the Knock, Knock Penny site.

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