Objectivism's Plague: Questions

[jenright]

Ellen, you might have forgotten these references. I highlighted the key word:

"The sex views professed by Women's Lib are so hideous that they cannot be discussed—at least, not by me. To regard man as an enemy—to regard woman as a combination matriarch and stevedore—to surpass the futile sordidness of a class war by instituting a sex war—to drag sex into politics and around the floor of smoke-filled back rooms, as a tool of the pressure-group jockeying for power- to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, and to swear eternal hostility to men—is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." Age of Envy

"Women's Lib joins a common front with lesbians and prostitutes, but its individual members are treated as respectable women. Yet a rightist is regarded as disreputable because the leader of an organization he may have addressed, later joined the John Birch Society." Disfranchisement of the Right

[Mike Hardy]

Yeah, well, by the time you got done thinking about it with as much carefulness as seemed to be required, where was the fun?

___

"Seemed" is an important word here, i.e. it was a cultural atmosphere rather than explicit philosophical statement. (I just remembered something I heard Murray Rothbard say, and I met him only twice and briefly: he said Ayn Rand thought you shouldn't be allowed to have sex until you invent a new kind of aluminum.)

[...] and she had a visceral distaste for lesbianism [...].

You mean male homosexuality? I don't recall her ever having been reported as commenting on lesbianism either with distaste or otherwise.

Ellen

___

No, I meant lesbianism, i.e. female homosexuality. I see John Enright's already cited the relevant scripture where she mentioned lesbianism. -- Mike Hardy

[Mike Hardy]

Ellen is not in the mood:

 (See the second half of a post - #28953 - by George Smith on A2 from earlier today if you want more of an idea, Mike.  I'm not in the mood for trying to get graphic.  What George talks about there suits the purpose.)

___

I'll look. I __did__ see that Debbie Clark "got graphic" in another post in that thread. -- Mike Hardy

[jenright]

> me to Connecticut, her to the Chicago area, and all that) and have heard nothing further about Plaisil from anyone else.

Googling leads me to believe they are now in your state.

John

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, you might have forgotten these references.  I highlighted the key word:

I sure had forgotten those references. Yikes! If one wants an exhibit of the sort of puritanical attitude conveyed, there's an example.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Googling leads me to believe [Ellen Plasil and her husband] are now in your state.

Time for a platitude such as "Small world, isn't it?"? Thanks for the info, John.

Ellen

___

[jenright]

You're very welcome, Ellen.

[Chuck]

AR, quoted by jenright:

"....to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians..."

I wonder how most lesbians would take to the idea of spiritual sisterhood with the likes of Andrea Dworkin or Luce Irigaray?

Chuck

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder how most lesbians would take to the idea of spiritual sisterhood with the likes of  Andrea Dworkin or Luce Irigaray?

I doubt that the majority of lesbians would find much "sisterhood" with those named. But what AR is saying in the quoted passage is that Dworkin and Inigaray are tarred by "sisterhood" with "lesbians," as if the latter category were ipso facto an offensive category.

Ellen

___

[Grinder]

No, I meant lesbianism, i.e. female homosexuality.  I see John Enright's already cited the relevant scripture where she mentioned lesbianism.  -- Mike Hardy

Would this passage from "Objectivism and Psychology" by Nathaniel Branden in Who is Ayn Rand? also qualify as "scripture?"

It is not astonishing -- when one considers the kind of moral doctrines which men have accepted -- that writers have been far more successful in their projections of mediocrities, dope addicts, homosexuals, murderers and psychotics, than in their (rarely attempted) projections of ideal men.

Who is Ayn Rand?, p. 85-6. (The copy in my local library happens to be a first edition from 1962.)

I'm afraid the passage stuck out with me largely because I'd been nodding my head reading along with most of the rest of the article. Perhaps he was simply expressing the prejudices of the time? Though to class homosexuals with "murderers and psychotics" seems a little harsh, even by the standards of 1962, doesn't it?

[Dan Barber]

I think the single biggest plague is the death of the leader. Ms. Rand

Another credible enough leader has not come along and evolved the philosophy enough, for it to stand on its newest legs yet.

We have plenty of good enough parott-ers, to keep status quo.

We are all in the noble process of evolving it. All this fracturing and bickering is actually the facilitator of the needed changes.

One day we will look back (if we are still alive) and see that the next stage in the development of a newly respected objective moral system was built though all the turmoil and the pain.

I'm sorry that so many must suffer for such a worthy cause.

Dan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

Welcome to OL. I hear very good things about The Fellowship of Reason.

There is an element of truth to what you say about the lack of a strong new Objectivist leader. An amazing fact is that the largest selling Objectivist (or Objectivist-friendly) fiction author after Ayn Rand is Terry Goodkind, but his kind of fiction is not for movement leaders. (Still, I love Objectivist success stories in real life.)

btw - That's an amazing picture you have there.

Michael

[Dan Barber]

Thanks for the welcome Michael,

I read all that I can on all the discussion groups. Distilling the valuable stuff from the immature. You have quite the task on your hands.

Nice job with this site! I'm proud to contribute to it.

We (F.O.R) have our own dynamics. We continually get motivated objectivist joining us who like what we are doing, but want to influence us to become more of what they long for; a living breathing objectivist group in Atlanta, which it is not. It is applied objectivism. Thus we garner people from a larger pool of philosphy. And this has its own challenges built into it. Challenges that have the effect of honing and polishing the current leaders of the group. Which achieves the desired effect! Bottom line we are not an activist organization, thus people with any agenda except their own personal flourish-ment will be disappointed.

People seem to join groups sometimes, to get others to do what they are not strong enough to handle by themselves.

BTW. That picture was taken at a Halloween party, and rumor has it, that is the only day when I can safely show my true colors, <wink>

Dan

[Aaron]

Greetings Dan, good to see you here.

It surprised me you refer to FOR as 'applied objectivism'; it seemed even bigger-tent than that. Some of the individuals are oist, but I thought it had at least as much other atheist or humanist influence. Is that not true?

I like a lot of the FOR individuals and its types of activities (eg. book clubs, movie nights, pub night) but never really got into the group. I'm probably one of those Oists who flirted with FOR with the hopes of it being a living breathing Oist group. The closest thing to such a group would be Georgia Objectivists (GO) which does not have near the membership or structure as FOR.

[Dan Barber]

Hello Aaron,

There are basically 2 main influential groups that drive the direction of F.O.R. Right now it is a balance between the two. So depending on who you talk with in the group, you have an equal chance to get either side of the coin.

In one camp, we have many who use the term personal flourishing though "applied objectivism". In the other you will hear personal flourishing though a classic philosophical education. (They might think Rand was at best, a hack philosopher)

Thus the emergent term is eudiamonism.

The better way to handle this is to find out if their is something valuable to their perspective, rather than walk away angry. This serves the individual best. After all the common denominator of us all is; the desire to live the examined life.

I don't think there is any one leader that wants to turn the group into a pure objectivist group. But we do support anyone bent in exploring that fine moral direction.

I think of us as a supplement to any reason based activist group out there, or a fine wine to go with a nice objectivist meal!

Speaking of wine, why don't you come up to the lake this weekend and enjoy an adult beverage with us and we can discuss the benefits and plans for the future of F.O.R!

Dan

Call me 770-595-6106

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

Any chance of FOR opening a Satanic branch? Quite a few Satanists are strong admirers of Ayn Rand. See Michael Prescott's blog entry, "That ol' black magic."

You already have a head start on promotional pictures.

//;-))

Michael

[JennaW]

I'd probably be more into a FOR-type group as I love meeting people who can interact with me on my different facets, and therefore bring some new, interesting, independent viewpoint. Not sure if there's a more-or-less cohesive group like FOR in SF though... seems like most of SF comes from very many different aspects anyway. I'm pretty much "over" the "pure 100% Objectivist" thing by now; I would enjoy a group that is not just Objectivist but consists of many realistically-minded members who bring their own cards to the table, instead of looking to be offered cards ;)

As for Osim and activism-- obviously the politics and pettiness aren't helping the movement, although the publications from all sides are valuable for anyone who wants to read about it. Maybe the focus shouldn't be on "the movement", but instead on "realistic, individual application". Yet, I still think there needs some fundamental changes-- especially in the arena of having a realistic understanding of human nature all around-- most especially where insight is as important as exsight.

Love the costume; I need to practice with the face painting.

[Dan Barber]

Hello Jenna,

We started the group with a handful of Objectivists who were like you; ready to "apply" what they had learned. Take the training wheels off.

And open the circle a bit. See if the objective principle has enough integrity to stand up to the ultimate test in the free market of ideas.

Inviting those that were interested in a reason based moral community to celebrate life, achievement, heroes, friends, life’s milestones, etc.

All the good things that a church community does, without the supernaturalism. YES we are constantly criticized for the church like part of the organization. Specifically the once a month FORum we hold in a Unitarian Church. But I look at as re-claiming valuable concepts that super naturalists have no patent on.

The results has been many years of very fulfilling and challenging discussions at every event we host. up to 22 per month!

Not just a bunch of head nodding agreement, or the inevitable tweaking of very minute details about what Ayn Rand meant when she said this or that. Which keeps things very fresh!

The basic idea that, through relationships people eventually consider new perspectives and eventually accept better systems for personal flourishing.

I'm sorry there isn't one in your area, but we have all the systems in place for you to start one.

www.fellowshipofreason.com

I recommend moderating a small philosophy cafe in a local bookstore, talk about the different branches of philosophy and develop a bond with about 10 people who want to take it to the next level.

Please contact me personally if serious about this. autodoc@earthlink.net

Sorry Barbera for temporarily hijacking this thread.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming!

Dan

[Aaron]

Dan-

I hope I didn't come across as angry. I liked a number of aspects of and people in FOR. I don't have any anger for the group in general or non-Oist members (if I have time and inclination I sometimes visit with the largely non/anti-Oist Atlanta Atheist meetup or Atlanta Freethought Society ). It's just a personal time+priorities decision; I'll try hard to visit GO monthly, and will catch FOR or other groups occasionally given time and a particular topic or event.

Thanks for your comments and especially your offer. I might take you up on it if it's open a few weeks down the road. That type of friendly reaction is generally uncharacteristic of us Objectivists (or most others, really), and I think such personality is key in how FOR has had such success in membership and duration that it has.

[Dan Barber]

Aaron,

So we don't owe you a hundred bucks?

(I have this running joke, if you can offend me, I'll pay you 100 bucks.)

No, I didn't think you were angry, perhpas disappointed or unchallenged intellectually, perhaps, as is sometimes the case; not enough single chicks? But definitely not angry. I ve seem my share of that, believe me.

Thanks for the compliment! I agree, we are not your ordinary objectivists. Perhaps due to objective based theoretic work, we have enough of our emotional needs fulfilled, were we are able to finally look outward for the values in others too.

This is success, as far as I'm concerned!

Thank you

Dan

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Michael, I have read your post on mediocrity and I must say that I am very impressed. I certainly hope I don’t come across as fawning by saying this, but truthfully, this is an excellent post.

I love the below. But you are so bang-on right throughout the whole work.

There is something close, though. If you are lazy or mediocre, it is a poor substitute, but it does allow you to get by and fool yourself into thinking you are a virtuous Objectivist hero. You can point your finger at a group of people and condemn them. You can call them evil or immoral or evaders or whatever makes you feel good.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Thank you for the compliment.

Do you think mediocrity is a symptom or possibly one of the causes (sometimes) of the denunciations and excommunications that plague the Objectivist subcommunity? Or both?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

YOU ASK:

Do you think mediocrity is a symptom or possibly one of the causes (sometimes) of the denunciations and excommunications that plague the Objectivist subcommunity? Or both?

I think that many people who are attracted to Objectivism have not fully ridden themselves of the fragments of their religious upbringing—which is still very much apart of their psychology. The culture is drenched in subjectivism, intrinsicism and religiously—and one does not purge its effects overnight. Even children who brought up by atheist parents are instilled with the idea that ethics and religion are of one fold—such is religions all encompassing influence.

Does one purge this overnight? Very much the opposite--it can take years. It is both observation and introspection that I say this. Religion's metal grip is great.

Now, what does all this have to do with “mediocrity as a symptom or one of the causes of denunciations?”

These denunciations and excommunications are characteristic of all religions throughout the ages. It was characteristic of Communism (I hope that I won’t be disputed on the claim that communism is a religion.) Why have Christians been more disposed to have the “wrath of God” descend on their perceived enemies than “turning the other cheek” to them? Why have Christians been more verbose in damning their perceived enemies to hell with greater passion than they do giving expression to their elation of the inevitable rewards of heaven? (This is, of course, calls for a greater explanation that what I can say now—but I do suggest that one read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer). These questions alone is material for an article and books.

I think that one of the other things that plague the Objectivism movement is this: adopting it as if it were a religion. It’s not. Is a rational philosophy—very much a different thing.

When you approach Objectivism as if it were a religion--it inherits all the junk that is endemic to religion. (Of course Objectivism takes the blame.) And, clearly, you can see this.

I also think that ENVY is one of the CAUSES of the rabid moralism that plagues Objectivism--of which denunciation and excommunications are the SYMPTOMS. Now then, what could be the cause of a person’s envy? That’s simple enough: someone’s superiority (as perceived or grasped by the envier). A person’s superiority (perceived or in fact) only serves to heighten the envier’s feelings of mediocrity. Hence all the problems you talked about.

Naturally, Rand’s article “The age of Envy” and “Hatred of the Good for Being the Good” comes to mind.

Fran makes a good point: "In a movement that places high emphasis on achievement and self-actualisation (which are good things), someone with poor self-esteem may see this as a 'threat' and attack others as a defensive strategy (I'm going to reject you before you can reject me)."

edit: The following is one of Barb Branden's items, and I select it for brivity's sake: Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor

It occurred to me that it would be a good idea to link to my article you quoted.

Online Objectivist Mediocrity

One comment about religion and Objectivism. A herding or flocking instinct actually exists in man and it is innate (including the urge to follow a leader). Man created religion partly to satisfy this inner drive. Religion did not create man and make him that way. By not recognizing this drive, even denying that it exists, some people can treat Objectivism as a religion and fool themselves that they are being rational and individualistic.

If you want this innate thing explained in Objectivist terms, man is defined by Rand as a rational animal, with "rational" being the differentia and "animal" the genus. The innate stuff belongs to the genus part (being an animal).

Michael

[gary williams]

but I do suggest that one read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer

Victor is right. (damn it!)

Read this book. Read it now. Stop posting, go to your local book store & buy it and read it.

No more dilly-dally'n around.

Just do it.

gw