Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Excerpts from "Objectivism as a Religion"


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:26 PM

Following is an excerpt from my lengthy article "Objectivism as a Religion," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (pp. 213-230, Prometheus Books, 1991). A few words about the history of this piece....

I wrote the first version of "Objectivism as a Religion" during my final year at the University of Arizona and delivered it as a lecture for the UA Students of Objectivism in 1970. After moving to California in 1971, I expanded the piece considerably and published it, in three parts, in the O'ist zine Invictus (published by Lou Rollins) in 1972.

When looking over previously published articles to include in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, I decided that the published version of "Objectivism as a Religion" was much too long, so I cut it down by around half. Throughout these numerous revisions, however, the sections on "The Objectivist Pedant" and "The Objectivist Martyr" remained substantially unchanged. So what you see here is virtually identical to my first version of the essay, written in 1970.

This essay -- and these two sections in particular -- grew out of my many college experiences with Objectivists. You need to keep in mind that I became interested in freethought and atheism during my second year of high school (1964), and that I didn't become interested in Rand until around 2 years later. The first book I read by Rand was The Virtue of Selfishness. Having been a fundamentalist Christian for most of my youth, prior to my interest in freethought, I naturally viewed Rand from the perspective of a young freethinker, and (unlike some readers) I experienced her ethics as extremely liberating. Rand's ethical theory, for me, was a welcome antidote to the suffocating ethics of Christianity, especially its focus on guilt and sin.

Not until I entered college and rubbed shoulders with fellow students who called themselves "Objectivists" did I discover how the Objectivist ethics was used by many people as a secularized version, in effect, of Christian ethics. This attitude came as a real shock to me, and I frankly could not understand it at first. I therefore talked to a lot of people and thought about this problem for around two years before writing "Objectivism as a Religion."


The Objectivist Pedant

Perhaps the most common type of religious Objectivist is the moral pedant -- the Objectivist who passes moral judgment for the purpose of intimidation. This type is easily identified by his incessant use of the terms "moral" and "immoral."

When the pedant is asked, "Why should I do x?" he replies, "Because it is the moral thing to do." He is asked, "Why is it moral?" He answers, "Because it is in man's interest qua man." He is asked, "But even if that is true, why should I do it?" He replies, in effect, "Because if you don't, you are sub-human." Or: "Because if you don't, you are morally degenerate." Or: "Because if you don't, you betray your status as a human being."

The pedant rarely concretizes moral abstractions and so fails to forge a link between "man's life" and real humans. Moral principles, in the hands of the pedant, acquire the characteristics of religious rules.

The pedant observes how Rand argues for certain kinds of action (such as productive work) as conducive to happiness, and he then transforms these actions into rules backed by moral sanctions. He defines an immoral action as one that falls outside the prescribed limits, and he defines an immoral person as one who breaks the rules.

If ever the pedant encounters a person who does not fit his preconceived mold -- even if that person appears happy -- the pedant will condemn that person as immoral. This judgment is supposed to evoke guilt and shame, which will then motivate the nonconformist to snap into line with prescribed rules. Thus, as used by the pedant, the term "immoral" is nothing more than a secularization of "sin." This can be illustrated with a few examples.

(1) For a Christian, to call a person sinful is a blanket condemnation. The is equally true of the pedant's use of "immoral." When this Objectivist says, "You are immoral" -- with that tone of indignation and disgust that only he can muster -- he might just as well say, "You are a worthless person." The religious Objectivist seeks to demote the condemned to a sub-human species, and, in doing so, he hopes to instill guilt.

(2) "Sin" does not leave room for moral innocence; neither does "immoral" as used by the pedant. This becomes evident when the religious Objectivist searches for the most vicious motives imaginable to explain what he regards as immoral behavior. It is not uncommon to find such Objectivists gleefully relating tales of the vile motives they have uncovered in other people; seemingly insignificant actions are interpreted as devastating insights into the characters of the condemned.

This is sadly apparent in the denunciations of Nathaniel Branden by some Objectivists after his split with Ayn Rand. Rand has pronounced Branden immoral. What else does the upright Objectivist need to know? Branden, we are told, should be shunned; moral people do not read his books or attend his lectures. Such ex cathedra thinking would turn the Pope green with envy.

(3) The idea of sin apply not only to actions, but to thoughts and feelings as well. So does the pedant's use of "immoral." For example, the religious Objectivist observes another Objectivist who responds romantically to someone who doesn't agree with Rand's ideas. Is it necessary to elaborate on the conclusions he will draw?

Examples like this could be multiplied endlessly, but they share a common theme rooted in what Objectivist writers call "psycho-epistemology." One's emotions are said to be morally significant because they flow from and reveal one's values. Thus emotions themselves become subject to praise or condemnation. To feel an "irrational" emotion is to display a flawed value premise, which suggests that one may be an immoral person.

(4) Christians may feel guilt because they think that God is always watching them. Surely there can be no comparable fear in the religious Objectivist (who is, after all, an atheist).

Although there is no literal parallel here, there is an important psychological one. Some Objectivists seem to feel that John Galt is hovering overhead, peering at them during every moment of their lives. Would John Galt approve of what I am saying? Would John Galt make the same decision I made? Would John Galt become upset with what I am feeling? In other words, the pedant is afflicted with an acute case of moral perfectionism.

The pedant is always out to prove something, even when alone. He will prove that, however miserable he may be, he is a good Objectivist, that he follows the rules faithfully. What of those non-Objectivists who enjoy their lives? Their "mindless pleasure," as the pedant is apt to call it, is not philosophically pure (as if anyone cares about this except the pedant).

The pedant, wound up like a spring, is a walking caricature of moral rigor -- rather like Mencken's puritan who is obsessed with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy. The pedant, like the puritan, is sure that he has the key to happiness, even though it doesn't unlock any doors. So the pedant takes his pleasure from possessing the key itself. He is a pious gatekeeper who is unable to pass through his own gate.


I will post "The Objectivist Martyr" shortly.

Ghs

#2 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:57 PM

Following is another excerpt from "Objectivism as a Religion," written (virtually as you see it here) in 1970. I have always regarded this discussion of "The Objectivist Martyr" as more insightful and significant than my discussion of "The Objectivist Pedant."

Note again my emphasis on the feeling of guilt. This was a major concern to me during my early post-Christian years, which I why I discussed guilt in considerable detail in ATCAG.


The Objectivist Martyr

The Objectivist martyr spends more time evaluating himself than other people. This is pedantry directed inward -- moral self-condemnation. Aware of Rand's emphasis on critical self-evaluation, the martyr scrupulously searches within himself for moral flaws and weaknesses. After finding these in abundance, his self-esteem plummets, and his guilt skyrockets.

The dynamics here are strikingly similar to the post-conversion experience of some "born-again" Christians. The sinner has been saved; his life will be immediately transformed, or so he thinks. His actions and emotions are supposed to follow suit with his beliefs and change as well, but many of them don't. Clearly, God has done his part, so any remaining blots must be the Christian's own fault.

Likewise, the religious Objectivist has been "saved." He has read Atlas Shrugged and is versed in Randian moral theory. Why, then, does the expected transformation not occur? Why do undesirable behavior patterns and emotions still haunt him? For the martyr, there can be only one answer: the lack of change is owing to a defect of the worst kind -- a moral defect in the person himself.

When the martyr does something wrong, he does more than evaluate his action as wrong (which normally causes one to feel regret or remorse). He passes a second judgment on himself; he condemns himself as immoral, thereby evoking guilt.

Thus, the martyr doubles his evaluations, and, in doing so, he doubles his misery. Two major consequences often follow from this.

(1) The Objectivist martyr is usually very passive. He pursues only modest, unchallenging goals. If he were to strive for more difficult goals, he might fail, and such failure would only make him feel worse. Even though passivity will not make him happy, he regards his lethargy as preferable to failure-provoked guilt.

Thus, to escape the dreaded, self-imposed judgment of "immoral" (or "inefficacious" or "unworthy" or some other value-laden term), the martyr drifts through a life without challenge. His emotional highs are barely distinguishable from his emotional lows.

(2) The martyr finds it difficult to isolate his specific problems. He does not say, These are the goals I want to achieve but cannot"; rather, he feels paralyzed, chronically guilty, unable to act. Whenever possibilities are suggested to him, he rejects them with a characteristic, "What's the use?"

The martyr is not especially productive. This violates Objectivist rules, so he feels guilty. Then his guilt reinforces his negative self-image, so he becomes even more passive, preferring lethargy to the risk of violating yet another rule. The martyr is caught in the vicious cycle of rules and guilt, and the results can be devastating.


Ghs

#3 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:10 PM

John Galt, aka John God!

--Brant
re the martyr: it has to be a case of if the shoe fits wear it and you must have encountered many examples which are needed here to flesh this out

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#4 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:32 PM

Don’t take this the wrong way, but for me these evoke Eau de Phil, the Martyr one a bit more so than the Pedant one. Add in some self-congratulatory material and the tone should get notably closer.

Do you shred your drafts? Is it possible he was raiding your garbage can back then?
Prandium gratis non est

#5 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:48 PM

Don’t take this the wrong way, but for me these evoke Eau de Phil, the Martyr one a bit more so than the Pedant one. Add in some self-congratulatory material and the tone should get notably closer. Do you shred your drafts? Is it possible he was raiding your garbage can back then?


I've encountered a lot worse than Phil. Here is one example.

In the early 1970s, not long after I had moved to southern California, my girlfriend and I held regular get-togethers for O'ist types. This was an open house, so it attracted some truly weird types.

One guy who always attended really got on my nerves. He was as rigid and orthodox as they come -- so much so that he always carried a worn paperback copy of VOS in his back pocket. Then, after prodding me to say something unconventional, he would pull out VOS, find a passage, and read it in an effort to correct me.

I got so fed up with this jerk and his lecturing that I pulled a joke on him that I had thought of in college, but which I never imagined anyone would be stupid enough to fall for. This is exactly what happened:

After the guy had annoyed me for around ten minutes, even though I made it clear that I had no interest in arguing with him, I said:

"You know a lot about Objectivism, so maybe you can clear something up for me."

"Okay," he replied, almost smacking his lips.

"According to Rand, you should only have sex with your highest value? Right?"

"Yes."

"She also says that you should be your own highest value. Right?"

"Yes."

"So does this mean you should go fuck yourself?"

There was a long pause, as this guy came to the realization that he had just been insulted. I took the opportunity to turn and walk away.

Ghs

#6 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:59 PM

Great stuff, George, and highlights for me the Passion Play aspect of grand Objectivism. It always struck me odd that objectivish people could not be happy with a small o, as with small c conservatives, skeptics, a small r rational thinker, pragmatist, realist, irreligionist.

But no, go for the capital O, get the books, tapes, magazines, pins, shibboleths and pennants. Use your telephone to listen to the experts in Irvine.

I cast my mind about looking for another philosophy that features the behavioural repertoire of Objectivist/m. How does a believer in jayzuss become a Fundamentalist or Methodist or Unitarian?

Is it how catholic tastes become Catholic, or how liberal appetites and humour lead to being Liberal?

He's a Marxist, she's a Marianist, they are Trotskyites, they belong to the FLN, she and he are both Objectivists. I am atheist. She is a feminist by nature.

I do remember a philosophy class chum in college. He and I and a third were the wiseacre brains of our class. We explored the philo-buffet on offer. Buddy one chose utilitarian as a stopgap, since he had been raised in an unsophisticated hard-drinking lumber town and buddy two decided to become a Mason. He said it was easier than any other philosophy (he was entranced with Derrida's boney prose and Nietzsche's superdupermachobrainiacman) and you could always find a connection anywhere on earth. The spiritual mumbo-jumbo he was willing to mouth for the benefits of membership. We were a fraternity of three, browsers with no particular committment to anything but ranting at each other.

I can imagine a fraternity of Nietzscheans, even a convocation of Peirce-ists, in ermine robes in some dull leafy college town, even devotees of Dewey and his decimal system prowling their clubhouse. And Foucault, we know, has a following today, a zany following as deep as it is wide. But, are there Foucaultivists? do any other moderns command a tribe of self-identified -Ivists?

This ongoing part of objectivist reality still baffles me. Just by making it a System the philosophy may attract the kind of folks who tend to be joiners, of movements/sects/factions/teams/parties, rather than necessarily philosophically-minded fellow-travelers. Thoughtful free-market Shriners at best in terms of impact, not yet like the Masons in terms of scope and penetration.

Perhaps Objectivist worlds lack a ring and apron and symbol bestowed upon novices. Maybe by borrowing some of the ineffable from earlier Ists and Isms and Ons and Ians, some of the regalia and secret handshakes and bestowals of rank, Objectivism can add punch and appeal.

But without a actual ecclesiastical/professional hierarchy of ordained, who would be the granting authority? Until religious objectivists become a strong or dominating sect, there will be no equivalent to baptism or other rite of membership, dang it.

I was first a Benthamite, then at age 7 switched allegiance and became a little atheist. It wasn't until I read my second book by Susan Haack that I became a Haackist.

Does any of this sound like a built-in bug of 'objective'-ism writ large as it might be a bug in any 'officializing' movement/grouping/community of thought? Must it inevitably collect cultists and simpletons as magnets collect filings?

Edited by william.scherk, 29 February 2012 - 09:09 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#7 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:17 PM

"So does this mean you should go fuck yourself?"


Reminds me of Woody Allen’s line “don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with someone I love”. Of course in that film his character lacks for self-love, and there’s the irony.

In my experience about 1 in 10 of the people who come out for an Objectivist get together show strong cultist tendencies. I'm not counting Atlas Society events here, but mostly campus clubs and local clubs. Does that jibe with your experience? I wonder if it's the same now as in the 70's.
Prandium gratis non est

#8 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:36 PM

"So does this mean you should go fuck yourself?"

Reminds me of Woody Allen’s line “don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with someone I love”. Of course in that film his character lacks for self-love, and there’s the irony. In my experience about 1 in 10 of the people who come out for an Objectivist get together show strong cultist tendencies. I'm not counting Atlas Society events here, but mostly campus clubs and local clubs. Does that jibe with your experience? I wonder if it's the same now as in the 70's.


I haven't attended specifically O'ist meetings for many years, so I don't have much of an opinion. When I formed the UA Students of Objectivism club during the late 1960s, I made it into more of a philosophy club -- one that focused on Rand's ideas -- than anything else. (We had over 100 members.) I had little patience with the cultish attitude, as is clear from the following true story.

Not long after my girlfriend had received NB's "Basic Principles of Objectivism" set, I decided to play the records on a weekly basis at UA Students of Objectivism meetings. After sending out notices, I got a call from an attractive woman -- except for the pole up her butt -- in her thirties, who had attended most of our earlier meetings but never said much. Our brief phone conversation went as follows:

"Mr. Smith, I see that you are planning to play Nathaniel Branden's lectures on Objectivism."

"Yes."

"Are you aware that Miss Rand has issued a statement regarding those lectures?"

"Yes."

A pause ensued, after which she asked:

"Well, what do you plan to do about it?"

"Uh, not invite you to attend?"

Click....

Ghs

#9 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:01 PM

Here is an interesting sidebar about the original version of "Objectivism as a Religion."

Not long after I met Nathaniel Branden in 1971, I gave him a transcript of my original talk from 1970. When I asked Nathan about it later, he didn't say much, though it was clear he didn't care for it. The only specific criticism he mentioned, however, was in regard to my distinction between remorse (or regret) and guilt. Nathan said that he didn't see any substantial difference between these feelings. He also said that if a person does something seriously wrong, he should feel guilty.

In this and in subsequent conversations with Nathan, I tried to explain how "guilt" can permeate one's entire sense of self, whereas remorse and regret are more shallow and transitory. Nathan never agreed with me, however, and I concluded that he could never have been a religious person. Every former fundamentalist Christian I have ever discussed this matter with immediately understood the difference.

Ghs

#10 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:04 PM

When I got back from Vietnam in Sept 1967 I enrolled in the University of Arizona in my hometown of Tucson. Eventually I got wind of lectures on Objectivism and signed up for Branden's BPO. I had read AS in my sister's home in Flagstaff, AZ in the summer of 1963 and became the inhabitant of two worlds: one was intellectual and one was cultist. The trap for me was my interest in saving the world and that was what was going on--no?--in O Land. It was a long path to real education and growing up. Anyway, these taped lectures were given at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Peter Beatson. They had a small living room with chairs lined up in front of a reel to reel tape recorder-player on a table which could have been an altar. We were told it was okay to ask some questions and not others according to Barbara Branden. Philosophical questions? Sure. Why Ayn Rand smoked? No. I was thinking, in my first smidgen of doubt, why not? A bunch of us repaired to the dining room and table to hear it all from there, but were informed by Mrs. Beatson that those swivel chairs we were so enjoying swivelling on were supposed to last for quite a few years, so please go back to the LR. Damn! I wanted to swivel! I'd of paid more! Anyway, I listened to half the lectures and left for NYC, dropping out of college, in April of 1968, to get the real stuff live! Before I was to leave, Peter offered us a vote on the next two lectures we could get: NB on romantic love and BB on efficient thinking. I was the only one who wanted BB's!

--Brant
what happened to Peter Beatson?--I liked the guy

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#11 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:22 PM

When I got back from Vietnam in Sept 1967 I enrolled in the University of Arizona in my hometown of Tucson. Eventually I got wind of lectures on Objectivism and signed up for Branden's BPO. I had read AS in my sister's home in Flagstaff, AZ in the summer of 1963 and became the inhabitant of two worlds: one was intellectual and one was cultist. The trap for me was my interest in saving the world and that was what was going on--no?--in O Land. It was a long path to real education and growing up. Anyway, these taped lectures were given at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Peter Beatson. They had a small living room with chairs lined up in front of a reel to reel tape recorder-player on a table which could have been an altar. We were told it was okay to ask some questions and not others according to Barbara Branden. Philosophical questions? Sure. Why Ayn Rand smoked? No. I was thinking, in my first smidgen of doubt, why not? A bunch of us repaired to the dining room and table to hear it all from there, but were informed by Mrs. Beatson that those swivel chairs we were so enjoying swivelling on were supposed to last for quite a few years, so please go back to the LR. Damn! I wanted to swivel! I'd of paid more! Anyway I listened to half the lectures and left for NYC, dropping out of college, in April of 1968, to get the real stuff live! Before I was to leave, Peter offered us a vote on the next two lectures we could get: NB on romantic love and BB on efficient thinking. I was the only one who wanted BB's! --Brant what happened to Peter Beatson?--I liked the guy


I may have told this story before, but if so it is worth telling again.

After I had played NB's Basic Principles course and BB's Efficient Thinking course, I began playing NB's "Seminar" recordings at our weekly meetings of the UA Students of Objectivism. These were held in a large classroom on the UA campus and typically attracted 50 or more people.

Early in the series (#4 sticks in my mind, for some reason), Nathaniel had what we called his "raw sex" Q&A. This seminar covered a variety of sexual issues, much of it based on the popular books by Masters and Johnson, Human Sexual Response (1966) Human Sexual Inadequacy (1970).

The fun began when Nathan got to the issue of penis size. Supposedly following Masters and Johnson, Nathan claimed that men tend to compare penis sizes in locker rooms, when the organs are in a flaccid state. This is supposedly when sizes appear to differ most. But in the erect state, he went on to opine, the sizes tend to equalize, and there isn't much difference.

This is when laughter erupted throughout the room. And all the laughers were women. The men, meanwhile, tried not to notice. Who were we to question Masters and Johnson, after all? ^_^

Ghs

#12 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:27 PM

NB knew little about erect penis size.

--Brant
but he knew a lot about his, natch!

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#13 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:38 PM

Before I left for NYC in 1968 Robert Kennedy appeared on campus running for President. I was there when he got up on a truck and gave an impromptu address to us, his audience. All I could think was how easy it would be for someone to shoot him down and kill him. Two months later he was. I do not have an entrepreneur's brain. I have a security brain. If you think creation, I think protection. In Vietnam I saw time and again how fuck-ups cost lives.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#14 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:42 AM


The fun began when Nathan got to the issue of penis size. Supposedly following Masters and Johnson, Nathan claimed that men tend to compare penis sizes in locker rooms, when the organs are in a flaccid state. This is supposedly when sizes appear to differ most. But in the erect state, he went on to opine, the sizes tend to equalize, and there isn't much difference.

This is when laughter erupted throughout the room. And all the laughers were women. The men, meanwhile, tried not to notice. Who were we to question Masters and Johnson, after all? ^_^

Ghs


John C. Holmes (aka "Johnny Wad") was just beginning to make porno films around that time. Branden was clearly not exactly an aficionado of porn, or he would have known better than to say such things.

I participated in a few 'Seminar' recording sessions. At that time, given my familiarity with the official Objectivist view on sex (e.g., Francisco's speech in Atlas Shrugged), I wasn't about to educate him.

#15 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:49 AM



The fun began when Nathan got to the issue of penis size. Supposedly following Masters and Johnson, Nathan claimed that men tend to compare penis sizes in locker rooms, when the organs are in a flaccid state. This is supposedly when sizes appear to differ most. But in the erect state, he went on to opine, the sizes tend to equalize, and there isn't much difference.

This is when laughter erupted throughout the room. And all the laughers were women. The men, meanwhile, tried not to notice. Who were we to question Masters and Johnson, after all? ^_^

Ghs


John C. Holmes (aka "Johnny Wad") was just beginning to make porno films around that time. Branden was clearly not exactly an aficionado of porn, or he would have known better than to say such things.

I participated in a few 'Seminar' recording sessions. At that time, given my familiarity with the official Objectivist view on sex (e.g., Francisco's speech in Atlas Shrugged), I wasn't about to educate him.


I participated in many of the Seminar recordings. In fact, we might very well have been in some of the same ones, since (as I recall) we were in the same group and hung out together at times.

Btw, I've been meaning to ask you a question: Did you get beat up once (c. 1972) on or near Hollywood Blvd? I think it was you. I recall seeing you with a bruised face, and when I asked what happened, you said some guys gave you a hard time, after which you decided to "play John Wayne." You added that this was not a good idea.

Was that you, or am I thinking of someone else?

Ghs

#16 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:19 PM


Btw, I've been meaning to ask you a question: Did you get beat up once (c. 1972) on or near Hollywood Blvd? I think it was you. I recall seeing you with a bruised face, and when I asked what happened, you said some guys gave you a hard time, after which you decided to "play John Wayne." You added that this was not a good idea.

Was that you, or am I thinking of someone else?

Ghs


Not exactly one of my proudest moments, but yes, that was me. I was in a movie theatre, and three guys behind me were yelling and making a lot of noise. I told them to shut up. A shouting match ensued, and we ended up outside the theatre. It was Sunset Blvd, rather than Hollywood Blvd., not that it matters. I was doing my John Wayne act, and things didn’t exactly turn out the way they always did in his movies. It wasn’t nearly as easy to beat up three guys at once as I had expected. There is also an aftermath which the movies seem to skip over. Getting repeatedly kicked in the face tends to have problematic consequences for one’s complexion. Unlike Wayne, I didn’t have a make-up artist standing by for my next scene.

I was in therapy with Dr. Branden at the time, working on purging myself of some of the delightful trappings of manhood for a boy growing up in the ‘Deep South.’ He brought it to my attention that you can keep your man card without necessarily being the baddest cat in the valley.

My wounds have mostly healed now, I am glad to report. :blush:

#17 Reidy

Reidy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA
  • Interests:Architecture, cooking, music, philosophy

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

Was the guy in #5 a history major at UCLA? I think I knew him. You'll be pleased to know that he took your advice.

#18 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:08 PM

I once knew a rather young illegal Chinese man who was assaulted by three Anglos in Queers, NY. He beat them up. He had studied martial arts in Hong Kong with a master who had instructed Bruce Lee. He had to leave Queens because all the Chinese gangs were trying to recruit him. I last saw him in 1989. I hope he went back to Hong Kong where the opportunities had to have been greater for him.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users