> Remember, Phil, in The Fountainhead..."show me your achievement; and the knowledge will give me courage for mine." ...why not put it to work in ~your own~ life?...write that book you've been threatening to write.

Roger, I have to concede that your criticisms and points are right on target.

To admit to the honest, shameful, embarrassing truth, I have a certain kind of what's-the-use depression+cynicism+hopelessness that tells me no one will read it, appreciate it, and I'll end up feeling even worse. When Rand started feeling those things late in life and couldn't write another novel, unlike me she had already accomplished a life's work. In my case on the other hand, I'm basically still a nobody who has accomplished *nothing* of importance intellectually, and I'm having trouble finding motivation. When I sit down to write I feel a huge lack of energy.

> Then announce its availability to OL members. Even better, get a well-respected, prolific thinker and writer on OL to praise your book's merits and to recommend others buy it.

I think this is pretty much the last place I would want to do that. (And I've given up on Objectivists as a market or audience. What my market or audience would be: ???)

> Phil, I think that your original use of the term "degenerate Objectivist" was way over the top, considering what you wanted to accomplish. Your point was well taken (in my opinion), that there is an AWFUL lot of uninformed criticism and mis-application of Objectivism on OL

I'd have to reread my first post, but I don't think I aimed it at OL but at the wider universe of millions of people, such as those countless ones who say "I loved Rand in my youth before I wised up" or "I used to be an Objectivist, but now I see it is invalid/limited/corrupt/a cult/is uncaring and cold..."

OL is way too small a subculture -- This is a phenomenon which applies to hundreds of thousands who have drifted away, lost the idealism of youth or become lazy or inert or sloppy intellectually. (( It is only worth looking at as a source of stark examples because, in my view, the most prominent of its regulars have been unusually articulate in expressing their resentment of / disagreement with / misunderstand of the ideas --and/or-- show a lack of effort at applying its principles ...as evidenced by how they post and the level of thinking involved. ))

> other people's misbehaviors and defaults is not my responsibility, but theirs. I did not ~cause~ it, and I cannot ~control~ it or ~cure~ it.

I agree that it's not my responsibility, but it's a valid life choice to be someone who points out and thus tries to cure or correct mistakes.

> Phil, I think that your original use of the term "degenerate Objectivist" was way over the top, considering what you wanted to accomplish. Your point was well taken (in my opinion), that there is an AWFUL lot of uninformed criticism and mis-application of Objectivism on OL, and that more careful study of the available Rand and post-Rand material would go a long way to eliminating the ignorant crap we have to wade through. But you expressed it in such a negative and condescending way that the response you received was inevitable...

Roger, I'd say two things in response to this:

1. It's clear to me that no matter how benevolently or tactfully I point out mistakes to the people on this site, they will still find something to resent about it. I know that before I was met with insults I -used- to point things out with tactfully and without naming names or "putting people on the spot".

2. Now, no one has to think the term "degenerate Objectivist" applies to them, and they may think they have good reasons for a waning of commitment to the ideas, but the term is accurate for what I've observed about people's "drifing away" from Objectivism over decades:

"Degenerate" ===>

Adjective: Having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

Verb: Decline or deteriorate physically, mentally, or morally.

And, if I recall, I did point out in my original post that the loss or decline does not have to be a -moral- issue, it can be an honest belief or a forgetting or a simple failure to have ever fully 'got it' or fully applied and integrated it. Oism is hard, so to degenerate is understandable if someone never got that. I met lots and lots of people during the Peikoff years, often the most fervent and outspoked true believers, of whom I had a sneaking hunch, "Yeah, well, Loudmouthdude won't be around in twenty years."

> I've moved toward my happiness, rather than letting the shortcomings of others drag me down.

This is another excellent piece of advice, Roger.

For some reason it's hard for me to avoid being dragged down by it.

Phil, if it's hard to avoid being dragged down by the shortcomings of others, consider the possibility that you are taking it on yourself to "somehow" fix their shortcomings--that "if only" you could just say the right words of inspiration or encouragement or admonition or whatever, they would mend their ways and be more appreciative of your attempts to help them.

You already recognize that this isn't going to happen with the "usual suspects," right?

So, I wonder if you aren't having trouble letting go with the notion that somehow you should keep trying to "save" them, and that it's your mission in life to do so. This is how I interpret your saying it's a "valid life choice" to point out mistakes to others, hoping it will help them "cure or correct" those mistakes.

Well, unless you're firmly oriented toward and trained in one of the "helping" professions, I wonder just how effective you can really be in pursuing this as a "life choice."

I have a "Rule of Three," which I have seen operate in my own experience, and in the lives of others I've observed at close hand. It's really a humbling realization to reach about just how stubborn people are to changing bad life trajectories.

Here's the rule: If there's something that a person needs to take to heart and do something about, maybe changing a habit or pattern of behavior, it often takes hearing it from at least three people, before it will sink in and become something worthy of serious consideration.

So, at best, your telling resistant people the obvious will only be the triggering instance, at the end of a series of other instances. It just as well could have been someone else of a similar outlook who tipped them over toward a healthier pathway. More likely, you will be one of the contributory instances, and will likely not even get the satisfaction of seeing clear-cut effects of your own input.

If this uncertain manner of payoff for your efforts sounds OK to you, then go for it. But it seems to me that you are experiencing a lot of frustration and disappointment at not being able to be a positive influence in the OL milieu. I would suggest that the active, outspoken posters on OL, the ones with whom you interact, are beyond whatever help you might want to offer them. Hell, they tell you they don't want it!

However, there may, in fact, ~be~ a non-participating person lurking on OL, perhaps a younger one and/or a female, who will read and take to heart what you have said about "Degenerate Objectivists," and never speak up on the list or write you privately to thank you for it. For what it's worth, I think that such people are your ~real~ audience on OL, the ones who need to hear what you have to say and who will take it to heart. The Silent Non-Alpha Majority, so to speak.

Heck, Phil, ~I~ appreciate your having said it! It's certainly true, especially as you explain it in your post here, as applying to the wider Rand-influenced milieu, and the countless thousands who once considered themselves Objectivists and later drifted away.

There ~is~ such a phenomenon as "stagnation," the notion that you've "got it," that you've "thought enough," and that urgings from others to study more and get more clarity are just too much bother, or perhaps even a reproach to your passivity and life-drift. Branden wrote about this in "The Divine Right of Stagnation." I think it was one of his finest essays, and it really highlighted the "James Taggart" mentality, which unfortunately is alive (undead?) and well (festering?) in our movement and the culture at large.

I'm sure it's an uncomfortable subject for some, a subject they would rather not be brought up. (That may, in part, explain the vehemence of the reaction against your thread in the OL Living Room.) But hey, as I like to say: if the stagnant shoe fits, wear that sucker out! :-)

As for your feeling of depletion or energy-lessness when you sit down to write, that to me is a sign that you are trying to do something you really don't want to do, that you are perhaps operating from a sense of duty, rather than a sense of joy and desire. Or, needing to reevaluate your goals and get more clarity about what you most want to achieve and experience in life.

The next time you experience this (or sooner), I would suggest backing away from the keyboard and doing some values- and goals-clarification. (Write down the questions and the answers.)

What are the ten most important things you want to accomplish with your life? Of those, what is the single most important one? Suppose money were no concern...suppose you were going to die in 6 months...suppose you knew you could not fail--what would you try to achieve?

Once you know the answer to those questions (they're likely to all be the same or very similar), you then will know exactly what you very likely ~could~ achieve, at least ~in part~, if you just set out to do it, one step at a time.

In other words, maybe it's time to set aside the things you ~think~ you want to do, or think you ~should~ do, and get in touch with what you really ~want~ to do with what's left of your life. Then figure out the steps to take in order to accomplish it. Then start taking those steps, and don't stop. You can do it.

REB

Try this: write that book you've been threatening to write. Pour a year or two of your heart and soul, your blood, sweat, and tears, into it. Publish it, which doesn't cost a lot these days. Then announce its availability to OL members. Even better, get a well-respected, prolific thinker and writer on OL to praise your book's merits and to recommend others buy it.

That's a great idea. I'd love to see Phil announcing on OL that he has produced and is selling something which he has poured his heart and soul into for a year or two.[....]

"To admit to the honest, shameful, embarrassing truth, I have a certain kind of what's-the-use depression+cynicism+hopelessness that tells me no one will read it, appreciate it, and I'll end up feeling even worse."

Rand gave the best reason I've heard of for writing a book: to create something you'd want to read. That is what my book on rights is. (it has imperfections that I can't afford to work on at the moment, but I don't regard them to be of fundamental significance).

It is disappointing when people you think should be interested have no interest in your work. However, this does not fundamentally detract from the value of your honest effort. And the effort itself makes you a better writer and thinker.

The only thing I would advise is the same thing many writers advise: don't count on making a lot of money. If it's not a labor of love, don't do it.

Shayne

I'm glad Jonathan agrees that it would be a good thing for Phil to bring his ideas to publication, so that we could read them and think about them. Especially since, as Phil has indicated in our Living Room area, we apparently won't be reading them ~here~ any longer.

Shayne cites Rand's intrinsic motivation for writing a book, and I'm sure she felt this way about both her novels and her non-fiction writing. It is essentially the same as my basic motivation for writing music: to create music I would want to listen to. Or, as I sometimes put it, in parallel to words I've read of Rand's, to create the kind of musical "world" in which I would want to live, at least for a brief while. Her books on fiction and non-fiction writing give very good guidance on this issue.

When I write a musical arrangement, or play a ballad or jazz solo, or compose a song, I try to put myself in the listener's seat. To be my own "ideal listener," so to speak. I try to do the same even when writing the individual parts in a composition or arrangement, thinking as best I can what it must feel like for each of the players to play that part. It sounds like it would be difficult and take a lot of time and focus, but really, with practice and experience, it becomes pretty much automatic.

This way of writing and creating is ~very~ satisfying to me. I admit it does not completely nullify my hope and wish that there be others "out there" who enjoy what I create and let me know it, and that they want to hear more. But long ago, I realized that allowing such extrinsic motivations to rule my energies and my goals is ~not~ the path to deep, fulfilling satisfaction with what I create. As Shayne said, it really needs to be a "labor of love." If it's not, why are you doing it??

REB

Phil's post in response to your plaint is especially instructive, Roger. I am sorry that Phil feels somewhat defeated by a longstanding hostility or indifference to his work and studies in Objectivism, and that he has given up on getting through to or influencing Objectivists. He sounds thwarted, depressed, full of anomie (and not a little bit of resentment). I feel compassion for Phil and I salute him for offering a frank psychologically open rejoinder.

As with his much earlier notes on disappointments and setbacks in regard to Peikoff and TAS, it is these kinds of notes that make a deep impression on me. The honesty is remarkable, and the stark centre of his distress is made apparent.

There is an Elephant in the room, however. When Phil last retreated from posting on OL, he closed the door to OL with insults and contempt for this place. The impression he have was that he would NEVER be back.

Well, he came back. And when he came back, of course folks here were waiting to comment on his Final Departure Notice from several months back.

That Elephant, that action, that slamming of the door, and that contemptuous dismissal of the entire community lingers in the minds of those he assailed on his way out.

When he came back to posting, he did not in any way comment on the circumstance of his departure. Nor did he respond to the first polite and then increasingly insulting demands that he answer for himself. The contempt he had for the people here, for Michael, for Kat was profound.

In my eyes, he has only deepened the sense of disdain and contempt for the community by refusing comment on his earlier departure. In my eyes this was a mistake, and at least part of the present dogpile is directly related to that contempt he showed to everyone. It rankles. It needs explaining. It needs comment -- from Phil and no other.

> What are the ten most important things you want to accomplish with your life? Of those, what is the single most important one? Suppose money were no concern...suppose you were going to die in 6 months...suppose you knew you could not fail--what would you try to achieve?

Roger, these are very good questions that everyone who is less productive than they might be should ask themselves.

I think I have a pretty clear idea, but the more abstract and philosophical/epistemological/'heavy' topics it's hard to find an audience for.

Phil, sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't just mean philosophy-oriented goals. I have half a dozen "life areas" that I focus on and have goals in, including intellectual, friends/family, financial, health, etc. But I admit I would be surprised if your process of narrowing down to the single-most goal ended up with something ~other~ than something that was intellectually productive.

My own goals in that area are books, and I have wrestled with the market/audience problem, too. For instance, one of my big deals is tetrachotomies and their applications as a way of dealing with false alternatives and resolving philosophical issues. Rather than writing a treatise on the subject, I have decided to write a series of essays that utilize tetrachotomies, and then compile them into a book with an introductory theory section. Each of the essays gets published in a journal (so far, it has been Journal of Ayn Rand Studies) and/or delivered as a talk at a conference, then included in the compilation when it's time to publish it.

And yes, I will be self-publishing it. My audience will be an extreme niche market, so digital download and print-on-demand will be my way of distributing it to whoever is interested. That is how I will get some level of extrinsic satisfaction from this avenue of effort: having both the wider audience for the individual essays and the narrower market for the book. If I had a Ph.D. and university position, or were ensconced in ARI or TAS (though the latter seems not as fertile ground for even monographs as it did, and I have an unhappy memory of an abortive project with them), I would try to get at least an academic press or movement-subsidized publication. But that is not in the cards.

The tetrachotomy umbrella is ~part~ of the work I intend to publish in the area of logic. The two other areas I am preparing material for are aesthetics/music and free will vs. determinism. Again, conferences and JARS or other publication will be the path I travel toward the books I want to publish.

The one other thing I envision in podcasts or videos to upload to YouTube. DVD lectures are probably too ambitious a format to tackle. But 20-minute or so mini-lectures might be just right, and fun to do as well, whether as a straight-out talk or possibly in "interview" Q&A style, like in some of the "economic crisis" quasi-interview documentaries I've seen on the web. I hope you are considering something like this.

That's all for now, Phil. Go for it! And please feel free to run by me any of your works-in-progress for constructive feedback.

Best, REB

William, thanks for your comments. It's good to hear someone express appreciation for Phil's willingness to engage in self-examination. He's a good example to all of us, in that regard.

As for his exit-entrance behavior being an Elephant in the Room that has poisoned the well, that depends on how you interpret the motives behind the behavior. If it isn't asking you to be inappropriately psychologistic, consider the possibility that the emotions behind Phil's answering insults with insults and departure, then returning with non-explanation, were something other than contempt and clueless hubris on his part. That's all I'll say here.

REB

Roger, I just realized that somewhere up above you got the impression that I was leaving OL. I wasn't saying I won't post again, just that I haven't found in the past this not audience not to be a good one for my substantive projects, or for my more 'positive' and more detailed intellectual efforts.

William, it doesn't imply that I have contempt for -everyone- on OL when I don't feel the need to explain my comings and goings or my reasoning to people who treat me with hostility.

I think what we're seeing with Phil and OL is two kinds of vice playing off of one another. There are always important truths in what Phil likes to say, but he doesn't ever learn that those truths are of no interest to most of the members here. Also, he mixes in truth with half-truth or falsehood, which certainly doesn't help his case (which would be hopeless regardless but it's even more hopeless if it's not precisely correct).

Instead of bitching and moaning about how wrong/bad people are (which he indeed may be right about in many respects), Phil should formulate his points into a philosophical essay. He could then post it here, get criticisms, and honestly apply those to revising the essay. Obviously he'll get a lot of bullshit criticism, but some of it will be helpful. Call it the "Gorillas in the Mist" phenomenon. I use it with George all the time ;)

He has an ax to grind, and that's fine, but I say forge and grind and polish; don't just hack a crude ax out of stone, make a finely honed carbon-steel instrument.

Shayne

Shayne, I think your suggestion is a good one. Although it's been several years since my "Art as Microcosm" essay was posted here (after its initial publication in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies), there has been a substantial amount of comment generated by it, either directly or tangentially. This in turn nudged me to clarify my own ideas further. My eventual book is going to be considerably better as a result.

I'm getting similar benefits from discussions of logic over in the Henry Veatch folder.

As for "a finely honed carbon-steel instrument," my copy of your book arrived today from Amazon.com. It looks terrific! Please tell me who published it for you, or how (in brief) you did it, if it was "all you."

Comments to follow soon!

REB

Roger, it's not quite so finely honed as I'd like (and I think the post you're replying to there didn't make it on your wall), but I drew a line. It was all self-published, I used OpenOffice (now LibreOffice) and CreateSpace. My son created the cover with my input. I got quite a bit of feedback from a circle of friends and family as I was writing it.

Most of the ideas came to me in fragments while I was pedaling my bike, then I'd get home and jot them down. After doing that for a while the idea for the structure of the book started to take shape, but initially it was very vague to me. It started out as a laundry list with no logical order and had several false starts on trying to order them. Initially I didn't even think it was a book, but more of a shorter article or essay. Then one day I had an insight about the logic and the outline and then it was largely just placing all the little fragments in the right place, and then editing, editing, editing... until I said enough is enough.

Shayne