Authors needed


Recommended Posts

Ok so now that we have gotten completely off topic.

If Anyone is interested in what this post is originally about I will help developing your skills as a writer IF YOU WANT. Private message me if you are interested.

My friend and I are still attempting to work out the details of the business plan, however I would like to get an idea of how many people are interested in the idea of a Romantic Objectivist Publishing house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But my psychology finds criticism of great artists pointless...

Michael,

I generally agree with this, but once more, there are many people seeking creative writing instruction from Rand as part of the whole blinding flash of brilliance experience that the first contact with her writing causes, especially in young people. So my argument is that Rand is a great writer, but a poor writing teacher as a warning to them to a possible trap.

Newbies who want to learn how to write like Rand did will learn far more from studying her fiction works than from her writing instruction material, or even The Romantic Manifesto. And from learning some of the normal ropes of the writing craft from some of the normal writing teachers out there.

I don't consider that pointless.

I have seen many artists trying to elevate their egos by pointing out faults of great artists...

Boy do we agree on that. If you have been a reader of OL for any length of time, you will notice that I habitually roast people when I detect that this is their primary motivation, and they don't even have to be artists.

(To be precise, I also put a premium on accuracy of understanding. So I also don't like someone getting Rand's work all wrong in order to praise her--or bash her for that matter.)

A good example is one poster we have who uses any and all pretext to say Rand was wrong and denigrate her. But she is very good with civility (and she is restricted in number of posts per day), so she is not a troll. She likes posting here and others seem to like interacting with her (albeit with some contention), so I have no problem with her being here. Anyway, I believe challenge is good.

I recently made a comment about ITOE. It's a bit technical, but I'll give an overview. When Rand gets into abstracting from abstractions, she replaces the measurement to be omitted in concepts with distinguishing characteristics, and simply says you do the replacement. When I read that, I had to read it again.

Say what? Poof. That's it? Measurement one minute, distinguishing characteristic another? And Rand simply changed the rule by proclamation. There is no real explanation.

I called that an epistemological sleight-of-hand.

Another poster, Merlin, agreed with me. In his case, I know he is not into Rand bashing. He is simply doing his thing because he has written several articles over several years where he has proposed his own theory which is in conflict with Rand's rather loose meaning of measurement. In short, I believe his criticism (and mine) are justified because they come from both of us studying and correctly understanding Rand's view and disagreeing (i.e., I believe there is a consistency problem in terminology that needs an adjustment, and Merlin goes a bit further).

Whether right or wrong, this comes from very serious thinking and a sincere attempt to understand Rand's meaning correctly before criticizing. I don't believe either of us started out trying to find something to criticize. This thing just jumped out at us. I can't really speak for Merlin, although that is my impression. I know that's how it worked with me.

In the case of this other poster, she jumped for joy with glee as she quoted me and continued getting other ideas of Rand wrong as she bashed Rand. So I roasted her for it. (You can see it here.)

This is my normal policy.

Back to business. What does that have to do with Rand's teaching ability and lack of creative writing students? Do you honestly think I try to elevate myself by trying to bring Rand down? (I chuckle even as I write that because that way is sooooooooo not me.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a book I am going to suggest that you get if you can find it, the book is called "7+/-2". The book is about memory in Humans.

Alan,

The work you are referring to is not a book. It is a paper from 1956 by George A. Miller published in The Psychological Review. It is online here: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information

This paper is usually present in the bibliography of the works I am currently studying on human behavior for my Internet marketing work. It is one of the cornerstones of sales copywriting, believe it or not. And, yes, I have printed it out and read it (several times, in fact, despite that kind of literature being really boring to me).

This paper also has a counterpart in Objectivism called "crow epistemology." This refers to a passage in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand (Chapter 7, "The Cognitive Role of Concepts") where she discussed the limits of how many different existents of the same kind we can keep in mind on the perception level before conceptual integration kicks in. In her case, she used crows to illustrate. Here's the quote:

The story of the following experiment was told in a university classroom by a professor of psychology. I cannot vouch for the validity of the specific numerical conclusions drawn from it, since I could not check it first-hand. But I shall cite it here, because it is the most illuminating way to illustrate a certain fundamental aspect of consciousness—of any consciousness, animal or human.

The experiment was conducted to ascertain the extent of the ability of birds to deal with numbers. A hidden observer watched the behavior of a flock of crows gathered in a clearing of the woods. When a man came into the clearing and went on into the woods, the crows hid in the tree tops and would not come out until he returned and left the way he had come. When three men went into the woods and only two returned, the crows would not come out: they waited until the third one had left. But when five men went into the woods and only four returned, the crows came out of hiding. Apparently, their power of discrimination did not extend beyond three units—and their perceptual-mathematical ability consisted of a sequence such as: one-two-three-many.

Whether this particular experiment is accurate or not, the truth of the principle it illustrates can be ascertained introspectively: if we omit all conceptual knowledge, including the ability to count in terms of numbers, and attempt to see how many units (or existents of a given kind) we can discriminate, remember and deal with by purely perceptual means (e.g., visually or auditorially, but without counting), we will discover that the range of man's perceptual ability may be greater, but not much greater, than that of the crow: we may grasp and hold five or six units at most.

Rand stopped at six for the limit and Miller does seven. That's close enough for me. It's in the same ball park.

And you are right. This information is really useful once you start learning how and where to use it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a book I am going to suggest that you get if you can find it, the book is called "7+/-2". The book is about memory in Humans.

Alan,

The work you are referring to is not a book. It is a paper from 1956 by George A. Miller published in The Psychological Review. It is online here: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information

This paper is usually present in the bibliography of the works I am currently studying on human behavior for my Internet marketing work. It is one of the cornerstones of sales copywriting, believe it or not. And, yes, I have printed it out and read it (several times, in fact, despite that kind of literature being really boring to me).

This paper also has a counterpart in Objectivism called "crow epistemology." This refers to a passage in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand (Chapter 7, "The Cognitive Role of Concepts") where she discussed the limits of how many different existents of the same kind we can keep in mind on the perception level before conceptual integration kicks in. In her case, she used crows to illustrate. Here's the quote:

The story of the following experiment was told in a university classroom by a professor of psychology. I cannot vouch for the validity of the specific numerical conclusions drawn from it, since I could not check it first-hand. But I shall cite it here, because it is the most illuminating way to illustrate a certain fundamental aspect of consciousness—of any consciousness, animal or human.

The experiment was conducted to ascertain the extent of the ability of birds to deal with numbers. A hidden observer watched the behavior of a flock of crows gathered in a clearing of the woods. When a man came into the clearing and went on into the woods, the crows hid in the tree tops and would not come out until he returned and left the way he had come. When three men went into the woods and only two returned, the crows would not come out: they waited until the third one had left. But when five men went into the woods and only four returned, the crows came out of hiding. Apparently, their power of discrimination did not extend beyond three units—and their perceptual-mathematical ability consisted of a sequence such as: one-two-three-many.

Whether this particular experiment is accurate or not, the truth of the principle it illustrates can be ascertained introspectively: if we omit all conceptual knowledge, including the ability to count in terms of numbers, and attempt to see how many units (or existents of a given kind) we can discriminate, remember and deal with by purely perceptual means (e.g., visually or auditorially, but without counting), we will discover that the range of man's perceptual ability may be greater, but not much greater, than that of the crow: we may grasp and hold five or six units at most.

Rand stopped at six for the limit and Miller does seven. That's close enough for me. It's in the same ball park.

And you are right. This information is really useful once you start learning how and where to use it.

Michael

Quite right Michael I could not remember the name exactly, its been a long time. If it is the same work it was a research project paid for by the bell telephone company.

I have gathered what appears to most people to be a lot of useless data. A lot of that comes from a wonderful teacher I had in fifth grade. If you have not noticed my grammar and spelling are not the greatest in the world, I am a dyslexic and was about 4 years behind the new dyslexia programs that are being used. For this reason I had a teacher whom i am truly grateful for in the fifth grade who told me that I would never be as smart as everyone else. When I was much younger there was one sure fire way to make sure that I would do a think and that was to tell me I couldn't do it. My teachers to that point and even after (with the exception of 1 teacher in High School) never taught me anything. I managed even with dyslexia to read Freud (who i hated with a passion and still do) and shakespear by the age of 14. The greatest thing the public school system did for me was not teaching me anything. Its true that my spelling and grammar suffer worse than they already would have due to my dyslexia ( i couldn't spell does until 9th grade) but that is a small price to pay for my mind remaining intact and uncorrupted. This single event in fifth grade spurred me on to be smarter than all my classmates, all my teachers, and most of the people I know. I have found few exceptions when it comes to people who are my intellectual equal or greater. But when I do find these individuals especially those who are my betters I want to bow down kneeling before them and say a prayer to Promethius, that God who brought fire(reason) to man.

O'ye bringer of the flame,

you lighter of fires,

spark now the mind of man,

pray you, pray you,

pray you come.

You above all other gods came,

you above all other gods loved,

you above all other gods gave,

fire, fire, fire, to man.

O' that I do beseech thee,

you god of the fire hear me.

Darkness now consumes the world,

bring fire to man once more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

Dyslexia?

Now I understand the way you introduced your wish to make a publisher.

I will say it, but you certainly don't need me to tell you that, with your disability, you are going to have to work about 100 times harder than people who have no problem reading in order to make a success of it.

But I say go for it.

I have a real soft spot for people who challenge their disabilities and overcome their limitations. I admire this enormously.

When someone does that, they often go to heights that people without their problems never reach.

Here is some inspiration for you. It is a presentation at TED by a world-famous DEAF musician, Evelyn Glennie. She is one of the best percussionists ever. If you watch the video, you will see that she plays her butt off.

<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param'>http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/EvelynGlennie_2003-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/EvelynGlennie-2003.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=103&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen;year=2003;theme=the_creative_spark;theme=live_music;theme=spectacular_performance;event=TED2003;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/EvelynGlennie_2003-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/EvelynGlennie-2003.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=103&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen;year=2003;theme=the_creative_spark;theme=live_music;theme=spectacular_performance;event=TED2003;"></embed></object>

Yup, she plays her butt off, but she also worked her butt off. The lesson is that if she can do that while deaf (essentially teaching the rest of her body to hear what her ears do not), there is no reason a person cannot make a successful publishing house while dyslexic.

I'm a big fan, anyway, of reading between the lines...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Laughs hard. This is the second post today that has caused me to have a good laugh. Alright, so funny story time. I was the editor-n-chief of my HS newspaper(remember couldn't spell does until 9th grade). I do have experience with editing however I am no fool. I do not edit my own work for grammar or spelling it would take me years to edit even a short story satisfactorily. Seriously I know spelling errors get through but you have no Idea how many i make in even a short post. You all are lucky i don't spell oil O3L (a cookie for anyone who can tell me who did that without looking it up. I leave grammar and spelling to someone else for the most part (my friend and I would most likely hire someone to help him with that part). What I edit is structure and style and phrasing. (to the story) I once spelled wonder as wounder in an article once that got published.

Because I am an Autodidact I have taught myself many neat little tricks over the years that have helped me greatly. For example I am writing this on an iPad. when I read posts or responses to post I lock the screen and flip it so the words appear to be upside down. My speed of reading triples when i do this. Also if i am reading a book I can use a piece of pink cellophane over the page this also helps. If you notice I did not make my first post by asking people to forgive my spelling and grammar mistakes in my first post. I mentioned it not in a way that was whining and begging but in a way that is proud. I was attempting to give context to my knowledge base. I don't even usually mention it then, only when people attempt to discredit a post of mine by pointing out spelling and grammar errors (something i loath) do i mention it usually. I do this to show the person for the fool they are.

I have never been one to care what people think of me, however i care greatly for peoples ability to prove or disprove something i put forward. Because of my lust for knowledge of any kind I have little tolerance for fools, who's best argument is "You spelled a word wrong". I try (and with great difficulty sometimes) not to comment on how stupid some people are, instead i prefer to rip them in half with their own argument, exposing their own stupidity to themselves and everyone else. This tends to cause people to think I am "ruthless" and that I am arrogant, never willing to admit I am wrong. However what most people don't realize (because it happens so rarely) is that I am only too eager to admit when I am wrong. However in order for me to say "I am wrong" i want proof. When I was a young pup someone gave me a pin that said "Everything I know I learned from reading band books." I want proof, always proof, and knowledge, more knowledge.

Sophia my love my sweet temptress,

O' goddess of my desires come to me,

for you I wait in the night,

My love, my sweet love,

for but one kiss I would die for thee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I don't understand why you want to be a publisher and not write professionally. I would think that would be a red flag to any potential client. On the other hand, if your posts were well written, and we knew of your handicap, that would be very impressive.

Michael Newberry

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I don't understand why you want to be a publisher and not write professionally. I would think that would be a red flag to any potential client. On the other hand, if your posts were well written, and we knew of your handicap, that would be very impressive.

Michael Newberry

if my friend and i open a publishing house i will publish my own stuff. nothing before what i have written now but i am working on 2 things right now that i would not mind publishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I didn't really want to say this because I don't want to keep on being contentious, but red flag?

Publishers who don't want to write professionally?

You mean Archibald Ogden should have raised a red flag and Rand should have published The Fountainhead elsewhere?

I could go on with countless top-notch publishers who do not want to publish as authors. I don't understand your standard.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I didn't really want to say this because I don't want to keep on being contentious, but red flag?

Publishers who don't want to write professionally?

You mean Archibald Ogden should have raised a red flag and Rand should have published The Fountainhead elsewhere?

I could go on with countless top-notch publishers who do not want to publish as authors. I don't understand your standard.

Michael

Michael,

I have no idea what your talking about. Proposals for artists, writers, etc should have a degree of professionalism, no?

But online threads don't need to be professional, my bad.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

It's just a quibble.

There are too many highly competent and artist-fostering publishers throughout history who have not wanted to publish their own work. When you say you need a person to want to be an author before you will consider him as a publisher (at least without raising a red flag), I don't understand that standard. Those are interrelated fields (writing and publishing), but they come from very different goals in life.

Anyway, you might be seeing something I was unable to get from your words.

I don't want to spend too much time on this quibble because this discussion prompted me to go off in a highly productive area of my own thinking. I will lay it out in more detail later. It basically involves my harping on getting the cognitive right before the normative. I usually put it like this: How can you judge something well if you don't know what it is? You have to identify correctly before judging.

However, it just occurred to me that a creator has to judge before identifying as an epistemological habit. He comes up with a vision of something that does not exist, judges it to be good enough to exist (at the very least), and then goes about identifying the parts of reality he can use to make it happen. He judges the parts even before identifying them.

So, at this initial point (i.e., right now, since this stuff hit me yesterday), I am thinking about ways that can be devised to become skilled in both manners as a conscious choice. We all do both all the time, anyway, constantly bouncing back and forth on autopilot. In addition to trances and other things I am studying. More later on this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MN:

Alan, I don't understand why you want to be a publisher and not write professionally

Ah, I understand the confusion now. A publisher should be word perfect in all their correspondence, including online posts...if they are not it's a red flag, or should be, to prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

LOL...

I just got it, too.

Talk about two different perspectives! We even got to the point of using different meanings for the same term. You obviously used "writing professionally" to mean writing correctly and with polish. I took it to mean professionally publishing your own works as an author.

Dayaamm!

This reminds me of the tongue-twister:

A skunk sat on a stump.

The stump thunk the skunk stunk.

The skunk thunk the stump stunk.

:)

Now if only people in other discussions who use different meanings to words like "definition," "rights" and so forth could just as amicably stop long enough to see what the other means...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQ, did you write this lovely short poem in #54, about Prometheus? -->

O'ye bringer of the flame,

you lighter of fires,

spark now the mind of man,

pray you, pray you,

pray you come.

You above all other gods came,

you above all other gods loved,

you above all other gods gave,

fire, fire, fire, to man.

O' that I do beseech thee,

you god of the fire hear me.

Darkness now consumes the world,

bring fire to man once more.

It's absolutely beautiful!!! Great work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I get the impression that the overriding standard is "thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand as being bad at anything in art." [MSK, #34]

> Heh. My radar never fails when I sense this love it or leave it attitude with Rand. [MSK, #42]

> I think you need to try to understand what someone is really saying when you read a criticism of Rand rather than jump right in imagining that the person is attacking her and that she needs to be defended.

> ...I imagine it makes you feel good to do that, though.

Michael, I really wish you wouldn't make the kind of remarks you did above in regard to your disagreement about Rand as a writing teacher with Michael Newberry. He has said nothing to indicate that he is a true believer or defender of everything in regard to Rand (or even in regard to everything regarding Rand and art).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I want to expand on my thinking just a moment. One thing that has always puzzled me was the disconnect between you and Jonathan.

Both of you are very talented, both love art, both are very serious, yet there is constant friction when you guys discuss stuff. And I don't think it is vanity (or at least not much :) ).

I believe my idea of epistemological habit could explain a part of it, if not a good part.

A Romantic artist sets a vision in his mind and looks at reality through that vision. And that is as it should be when you are creating things--especially unique things of lasing value. I can't imagine doing it differently. It's like imagining form, then seeking the content to fill it.

I'm talking about basic perspective here, not every single moment. Obviously thinking up something new and creating it involves many different kinds of "actions of consciousness" (to use Rand's phrase from ITOE). But to keep morale going and stay focused, a creator has to stay in a highly tuned normative before cognitive mode. At least during projects. This is where I see you often. Even when judging the works of other artists.

Jonathan often takes the approach I do. When looking at something new, I see him use the cognitive before normative approach. I don't know how it works on a deeper level with him, but with me, it is as if I am saying to myself, "I want to make sure I get this right from all angles before I will allow myself to judge it." Once again, I am talking about a broad perspective, not 100% of every waking instance.

If I see something really ugly, say, a grotesque main subject in a painting, I will react to it as ugliness, just as anyone will.

Now here is the difference I see between the two approaches using this ugly main subject in a painting as an example.

If a person (and I mean someone like you, me or Jonathan, not some weirdo loon) is ramped up in normative before cognitive mode when, say, pursuing beauty, he will automatically feel that painting to be celebrating ugliness as the point to life and things like that. He will be repulsed on a very deep level and this will color everything else he will discover about it.

If he is riding on a cognitive before normative wave, he might be turned off immediately, but he will push that off while he examines why he felt that way, if there is some kind of social or personal context for the artist to have done that, if there is something beautiful underlying it that he did not see at first, and things like that.

In the first case (the Romantic view), this does not mean that the person will not look at context and so forth later. A good thinker will. But it does mean that his judgment will inform the information he uncovers unless he uncovers something that drastically invalidates his appraisal.

In the second, understanding fully what it is before judging, this does not mean he will not judge. If he is worth his salt as a thinker he will. But it will take a longer process and he will be more open to multiple interpretations.

On reflection, when I have seen you and Jonathan go at it (and I am leaving out the personal stuff, since that junk passes with time), I see these two epistemological approaches clearly. You have a big picture in your mind and are fitting things into it, and Jonathan is looking at little pictures and trying to come to a big picture with them. You both clash when things don't fit both perspectives at the same time.

Which is right? I think they both are. I know I do both. That's one of the reasons I have rarely intervened.

Is there common ground? There should be. But I think that's tougher than it looks once you get rolling. A person who is barreling along open throttle in one mode does not want to change gears. I know I don't, regardless of which one I am in. In fact, I believe many of the disagreements about Objectivism and Rand include this problem of one person seeing a topic through one epistemological approach and trying to discuss it with another person who is using the other way.

I have no point in mentioning this right now other than to say this is what I have started seeing. I think it is important. And I have a feeling that this is something that is going to grow into something really good...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, you are always complaining that others don't admit to error.

Time to admit that your comments about Newberry that I quoted were in error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Nah...

:)

They weren't. Your interpretation was the part in error.

Anyway, would you please allow my discussion with Michael to proceed? We are getting to some real ideas and this crap is like a fly buzzing around.

Move on, dude. There's a life to live.

You are invited to join in the ideas if you like. That's the good stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got it, too.

Talk about two different perspectives! We even got to the point of using different meanings for the same term. You obviously used "writing professionally" to mean writing correctly and with polish. I took it to mean professionally publishing your own works as an author.

This reminds me of the tongue-twister:

Now if only people in other discussions who use different meanings to words like "definition," "rights" and so forth could just as amicably stop long enough to see what the other means...

Yes, we were reacting to two different meanings of the word.

Yes, I see that often happen on forums--either here or on solo I think there is issue with "selfishness" spawned by the whole foods guy. But he should know better - he didn't allow for Rand's meaning, and insisted on his own, and then argued as if Rand meant his own version instead of the one she argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I get the impression that the overriding standard is "thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand as being bad at anything in art." [MSK, #34]

> Heh. My radar never fails when I sense this love it or leave it attitude with Rand. [MSK, #42]

> I think you need to try to understand what someone is really saying when you read a criticism of Rand rather than jump right in imagining that the person is attacking her and that she needs to be defended.

> ...I imagine it makes you feel good to do that, though.

Michael, I really wish you wouldn't make the kind of remarks you did above in regard to your disagreement about Rand as a writing teacher with Michael Newberry. He has said nothing to indicate that he is a true believer or defender of everything in regard to Rand (or even in regard to everything regarding Rand and art).

Thanks Phil,

I appreciate that observation. I saw it too and thought "huh?"

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Huh?

I said what I said. I stand by it. But I never have considered you as a true believer (as Phil imagined I was doing).

I think it is the perspective issue I mentioned. Agree or disagree with me about Rand's teaching abilities, that is one thing. But I get the impression that you have not understood what I was getting at.

If you're looking at it from the vision and not from the perspective of a newbie struggling to get a handle on a whole new set of ideas, I can see why you would think that Rand was not a bad writing teacher.

Although my manner of stating this was not clear, I believe you will not see what I am getting at unless you step outside the vision and look at it from the ground up. I'm not so sure you would ever want to do that, though. (And, if you are in the middle of a lot of creation, maybe it is not a good idea.)

That is what I was trying to convey in my words about "thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand as being bad at anything in art," etc. Doing so doesn't fit the vision. And I don't mean the Randroid cult-like vision. I mean the vision of looking up to greatness almost as a primary.

Here's a mental exercise I read in one of my IM books that's in the ball park of what I am talking about. Imagine a sales situation where I have something that is just what you want, my delivery is tailored to your needs, etc., but I never look at you during the time we are together. Instead I keep staring at the wall right past your head. There's a good chance you will not buy from me.

It doesn't have to be sales, though. If you talk to anyone who keeps staring right past you and never looks at you, this gets irritating after a while.

I believe the two perspectives I am discussing operate in a similar manner during discussions. A person who is in the throes of one perspective does not feel "seen" by anyone who is in the throes of the other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I want to expand on my thinking just a moment. One thing that has always puzzled me was the disconnect between you and Jonathan.

Okay.

Both of you are very talented, both love art, both are very serious, yet there is constant friction when you guys discuss stuff. And I don't think it is vanity (or at least not much :) ).

I believe my idea of epistemological habit could explain a part of it, if not a good part.

A Romantic artist sets a vision in his mind and looks at reality through that vision. And that is as it should be when you are creating things--especially unique things of lasing value. I can't imagine doing it differently. It's like imagining form, then seeking the content to fill it.

Looking at reality through romantic glasses? If that is a variate on what you mean, seems weird to me.

I'm talking about basic perspective here, not every single moment. Obviously thinking up something new and creating it involves many different kinds of "actions of consciousness" (to use Rand's phrase from ITOE). But to keep morale going and stay focused, a creator has to stay in a highly tuned normative before cognitive mode. At least during projects. This is where I see you often. Even when judging the works of other artists.

90% of my work is cognitive, i.e. how to make it work. The normative stuff is done before I start and then runs in the background of my mind while I work.

Jonathan often takes the approach I do. When looking at something new, I see him use the cognitive before normative approach. I don't know how it works on a deeper level with him, but with me, it is as if I am saying to myself, "I want to make sure I get this right from all angles before I will allow myself to judge it." Once again, I am talking about a broad perspective, not 100% of every waking instance.

I can see how you guys think that way.

If I see something really ugly, say, a grotesque main subject in a painting, I will react to it as ugliness, just as anyone will.

I don't react this way. I react more to the quality of the painting than I do to the subject.

Now here is the difference I see between the two approaches using this ugly main subject in a painting as an example.

If a person (and I mean someone like you, me or Jonathan, not some weirdo loon) is ramped up in normative before cognitive mode when, say, pursuing beauty, he will automatically feel that painting to be celebrating ugliness as the point to life and things like that. He will be repulsed on a very deep level and this will color everything else he will discover about it.

If he is riding on a cognitive before normative wave, he might be turned off immediately, but he will push that off while he examines why he felt that way, if there is some kind of social or personal context for the artist to have done that, if there is something beautiful underlying it that he did not see at first, and things like that.

In the first case (the Romantic view), this does not mean that the person will not look at context and so forth later. A good thinker will. But it does mean that his judgment will inform the information he uncovers unless he uncovers something that drastically invalidates his appraisal.

In the second, understanding fully what it is before judging, this does not mean he will not judge. If he is worth his salt as a thinker he will. But it will take a longer process and he will be more open to multiple interpretations.

Let me add that experience, problems solved, time, talent, mistakes, good or bad choices, remedies or not, are all and more of the factors that influence judgments and one's confidence in those judgments.

On reflection, when I have seen you and Jonathan go at it (and I am leaving out the personal stuff, since that junk passes with time), I see these two epistemological approaches clearly. You have a big picture in your mind and are fitting things into it, and Jonathan is looking at little pictures and trying to come to a big picture with them. You both clash when things don't fit both perspectives at the same time.

You think? :)

Which is right? I think they both are. I know I do both. That's one of the reasons I have rarely intervened.

Is there common ground? There should be. But I think that's tougher than it looks once you get rolling. A person who is barreling along open throttle in one mode does not want to change gears. I know I don't, regardless of which one I am in. In fact, I believe many of the disagreements about Objectivism and Rand include this problem of one person seeing a topic through one epistemological approach and trying to discuss it with another person who is using the other way.

I have no point in mentioning this right now other than to say this is what I have started seeing. I think it is important. And I have a feeling that this is something that is going to grow into something really good...

This was an interesting post...odd mixture of points, and ways of thinking. But I couldn't help feeling that you didn't get it quite right. I am reminded that I should like Perigo for lots of reasons, and shouldn't for lots of reasons, but I don't have a thought that I should resolve any of that kind of stuff. It will play itself out.

Michael

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