Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[GALTGULCH8]

Michael,

I agreed with your post above and clicked on the box that had a check in it with the words Like This only to see a new window which said that I have reached my limit for the day which is nonsense. Talk about resentment.

Reminds me of a time when I was in the military, army medical corps, and my new commanding officer wanted all the officers under his command to have meals with him. At one of them he asked us to tell him what was the one thing we wanted in all our interactions with people we meet each day.

I said 'rationality.'

Naturally he said we were all wrong and that his answer, the right answer, is 'kindness.'

I have a grandson now which we didn't expect would ever happen. My son is a videographer/photographer and posts many pictures of the baby which I then purchase from an online professional service so they are high quality. I carry them around with me when I know I will meet with people who are friends of my wife or coworkers of mine. People who would care.

One of them said after seeing a handful of pictures of the baby that he is the most beautiful baby boy in the whole world.

That is what I appreciate in other people who have discriminating taste and judgment.

[Philip Coates]

As opposed to wasting time responding to the "shitstains" [J's copyrighted and precise term] on this thread, I've been having a good conversation with Roger on his blog. He had some support but also some criticisms of my actions, but in a benevolent way, so I tried to think through all his points.

[Philip Coates]

> responding to the "shitstains"

(Not in every post. Michael for example has made some civil comments...he's just mistaken or misconstruing.)

[9thdoctor]

I think another nice long break from OL would be best for Phil and the rest of us. Here's yet another musical tribute.

Not getting the hint, Phil? Too subtle? As I recall you like Rock music, so try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpRnaOq6raQ

[George H. Smith]

I think another nice long break from OL would be best for Phil and the rest of us....

I guess I will never understand why Phil doesn't write posts that focus on ideas, and stay away from his schoolmarm mode. I recall some posts he wrote on literature a while back, and they were fine. Some time ago, while we were debating the Peikovian view of history, Phil said he might write something on the role of ideas in history. That would be fine as well. (Whether I would agree is not the point here, of course.)

Alternatively, Phil could write a review/commentary of some book he has read, as Dennis Hardin once did with a book about American Deism. There are many possibilities, but Phil seems interested in little else except giving unsolicited advice to people who neither need it nor want it, while trumpeting his own supposed superiority in the process. This is what provokes such hostility to Phil.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

I agreed with your post above and clicked on the box that had a check in it with the words Like This only to see a new window which said that I have reached my limit for the day which is nonsense. Talk about resentment.

Reminds me of a time when I was in the military, army medical corps, and my new commanding officer wanted all the officers under his command to have meals with him. At one of them he asked us to tell him what was the one thing we wanted in all our interactions with people we meet each day.

I said 'rationality.'

Naturally he said we were all wrong and that his answer, the right answer, is 'kindness.'

I have a grandson now which we didn't expect would ever happen. My son is a videographer/photographer and posts many pictures of the baby which I then purchase from an online professional service so they are high quality. I carry them around with me when I know I will meet with people who are friends of my wife or coworkers of mine. People who would care.

One of them said after seeing a handful of pictures of the baby that he is the most beautiful baby boy in the whole world.

That is what I appreciate in other people who have discriminating taste and judgment.

Speaking strictly rationally, congratulations on the grandson! :-)

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just skimmed over the entry in in Roger's blog and I want to make one thing clear.

OL is not for preaching to a collective.

It is a place where people work through their ideas starting from being attracted to Objectivism and possibly influenced by it.

That's different than a mission to save the world in the name of Objectivism or establish a community like Galt's Gulch where we can be good Objectivists.

One common criticism I constantly read is present in that discussion--that there is a lot of misrepresentation of Objectivism on OL.

I say there is supposed to be.

(There's a lot of great stuff, too.)

How else is someone going to work through ideas? By getting everything perfect right from the start?

How do you do that?

I know I've never been able to pull it off, and it has not been from lack of trying. (Frankly, I get stifled, wooden and afraid to make mistakes when I do that--right before giving up.)

If getting everything perfect right from the start is to be the case, why bother thinking through anything at all? Just accept what you are told and shut the hell up until you can recite it back verbatim.

In other words, the only alternatives are to promote indoctrination and/or blind faith.

I'm against both.

OL is a discussion forum, not a church for preaching or indoctrination center.

I'll take my own mistakes from my own honest thinking over preaching indoctrinated truth, or accepting a truth on faith, every time. There is no contest.

At least I know from which mind it came from and I can do something to fix it when I perceive the error. I simply don't trust anyone else to fix my own thinking for me--nor should anybody ever give their own mind over to someone else. I believe this with everything in me.

I'll look at ideas and observations that differ from mine, but whether I accept them or not--and even how well or how shallowly I learn them--is my choice and my choice alone.

Ditto for everyone here.

That doesn't mean that someone can't correct me if I get something wrong. He can. But he has to back it up with more than criticism in generalities and opinion before I'll take it seriously. Quotes, for instance (among other stuff), work really well for this. And I don't mean out of context quotes, either.

My underlying attitude is that people are basically good, even when they get everything wrong. I trust them to correct themselves--unless I perceive that they are running a ruse or hidden agenda. Then I engage with them to uncover it so that the meaning of their words is clear. But that's not my point right now.

I believe preacher-types generally don't trust others like I do. They get antsy when they read something wrong and jump on it as if it came from an enemy. And they show a strong and constant need to control the thinking of honest folks.

I, personally, love the human mind. That includes the messy process of using it to get identifications correct. One of my guilty pleasures is watching people work out something on their own and get it right in the end. Or, at least, realize that they should respect the mind of the other.

When I see this unfold, I know the world is a good place.

Michael

EDIT: Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not hold that Roger or Phil are preacher types (in the manner of someone like Peikoff or Hsieh). I just want to make sure the essence of OL is clear.

[Roger Bissell]

There is a spirit I would like to become predominant on OL one day.

How can I become wiser?

The real problem with threads like this current piece of crap is that the spirit started in the opening post with: How can I convince you people you are wrong?

This accusatory spirit is good at getting people riled up, but it sucks at making anyone wiser.

Something to think about.

There's a Part 2 to this, too. Resentment is one of the primary human drives (it stems from the critter brain level), but it is not one of the productive drives. It's destructive and almost entirely confined to social concerns.

The best way to prompt resentment in others is to start accusing them out of the blue. It doesn't really matter what you accuse them of. Just showing up, pointing a finger and mouthing off is enough to get many people to feel resentment.

If the accusation is false or poorly reasoned (as is the case with the opening post), the resentment caused by it becomes more intense.

Usually, people who do that, who prompt resentment in others by springing accusations on them out of nowhere, are seeking an audience.

I believe they should seek wisdom before seeking an audience. They wouldn't screw up so much if they did.

I, myself, try to prompt people to examine things from different perspectives and think through them for themselves. I also seek to entertain at times.

Others around here do the same. We all seek to share observations about issues we find important. Sometimes, I see people trying to prompt others to feel admiration for the stuff they find cool. Now, that's some good stuff.

I rarely see behavior--i.e., how to behave in our little community--discussed unless people like Phil show up and start slinging accusations at everyone at large.

Why do that? What is to be gained?

Here are a couple of questions for you.

The next time you see someone sharing something cool, or delving into the pros and cons of an important idea, and telling you that you should make up your own mind about it, ask yourself, what is this person after?

And the next time you see someone pointing an accusatory finger and trying to cause others to feel resentment over nothing, ask yourself, what is this person after?

I know the first inspires me to become wiser. The second makes me want to respond harshly. It turns off my search for wisdom and happiness, so it really wastes my time.

Michael

Michael, thank you for sharing these thoughts. I will reflect on the points you made about accusation and resentment.

One saying I like to ponder is: when you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. It's literally true, and sometimes even metaphorically true!

Another saying I like to ponder came from my high school wrestling coach: "if you don't improve, you stagnate." I always liked that saying, and it resonated more deeply when I later read Nathaniel Branden's excellent essay, "The Divine Right of Stagnation" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

I realized that there is a really deadly attitude that has crept into many people in our culture -- present company on OL excepted, of course! -- this whole James Taggart notion that you have "thought enough" or "achieved enough," etc. To me, that is the relevant truth of Phil's opening post -- that some people, in or out of the Objectivist movement, have settled back into the attitude that one can safely live the rest of his life in some little protected zone, without challenging oneself to improve, perhaps even trying to legally or psychologically hobble others who ~do~ want to improve, because the ambition of others is a reproach to one's passivity and stagnation.

Now, ~that~ is "degeneracy"! And when you tell those people about the desirability of life-time learning and self-improvement, or of staying open to new angles on their philosophy, they tend to get very huffy or uncomfortable, indeed! :-) There unfortunately ~are~ pockets of this kind of touchy reactiveness or intellectual squeamishness in the Objectivist movement, and I've had to keep those people at more than an arm's length, in order to keep their attitudes from dragging me down.

One of the things I most appreciate about OL is that there is no approval process for posting work-in-progress or thinking-out-loud on something, and no one apologizing to you that your ideas are unacceptable to be shared, because they are too controversial. So, thanks for that, too, Michael. It is one of the signal virtues and values of Objectivist Living.

Best,

REB

[Jonathan]

I thought I'd share here what I posted to Roger's blog (or I guess I should say "attempted to post," since it's Roger's blog and my post still awaits his approval before appearing):

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.

Then, as soon as your first sale comes in, and you have your first $10 happily in hand, announce a contest to, say, guess the point-spread of the Super Bowl or vote-percentage spread of the 2012 Presidential election, or whatever--the prize being a free copy of your book. Then, when your first and (so far) only customer asks if he wins, can he have a refund of his purchase, rather than an additional copy -- and when no one else among the 1000 or so members of OL buy your book -- then, and I would say ~only~ then will you be entitled to refer to people on OL as "degenerate Objectivists."

I think the above may be an example of thinned-skinned hyper-sensitivity and unjustified resentment.

Roger, if you held a contest in which you offered to give away a copy of something that you produced, it wouldn't necessarily be an insult if someone who had already purchased a copy inquired about what would happen if he won -- whether or not he would get a refund. There are possible contexts that you're apparently not considering.

For example, while you're looking at the product as something very personal and meaningful to you, the customer who is asking about reimbursement may be focused only on the contest and the idea of making sure that he's not being excluded from getting something for free. If he's posting in an Objectivist forum, it's not unlikely that he may have some difficulties understanding what's generally accepted as normal or polite behavior, and may not realize that you're taking his inquiry as an insult. He may not have a lot of people in his life, and might not know anyone to whom he could give an additional copy of your product as a gift. Etc.

Try to depersonalize the issue and look at it from a different perspective: If you were a CD salesman who had started a contest in which you offered, say, Lady Gaga's latest CD as a prize (rather than your own), and someone who had already purchased a copy of the CD from you asked if his prize would be a refund (in other words, the CD that he had purchased from you would instead become the CD that he had won), would you be insulted and upset and feel that you had the right to call him a "degenerate Objectivist"? Or would you recognize that he was only asking about a technicality of winning prizes?

Additionally, you appear to be saying that if none of us purchases a product that you're selling, then we're "degenerate Objectivists"!!

Does that work both ways? You've never expressed interest in purchasing my art. Does that make you a "degenerate Objectivist"?

J

[sjw]

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.

Maybe I should put REB in charge of marketing my book. I think only Brant bought a copy...

Shayne

[Roger Bissell]

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.

Maybe I should put REB in charge of marketing my book. I think only Brant bought a copy...

Shayne

Shayne, first things first -- I did not know you had written a book! What is its title, and where can I buy a copy?

Secondly, I suck at marketing. I have absolutely no aptitude for it. Any "bright ideas" I come up with for marketing that intrigue you are definitely ~not~ guaranteed to work! So caveat emptor...or whatever...on that!

However, I think it would not hurt to have someone of George Smith's stature and caliber to write some words of recommendation. Or did I miss his review, as well as your book announcement? <sigh>

REB

[Mikee]

Shayne, I just downloaded your book to my Kindle ($2.99). Frankly, I've been intending to read it for some time but I kept putting it off every time you called someone a nitwit or some such. I wish you could control your insults as I cannot see where they further your purpose.

[sjw]

Shayne, first things first -- I did not know you had written a book! What is its title, and where can I buy a copy?

It's called "For Individual Rights", and it's at Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Individual-Rights-Treatise-Human-Relations/dp/0984587004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278694389&sr=8-1

Secondly, I suck at marketing. I have absolutely no aptitude for it. Any "bright ideas" I come up with for marketing that intrigue you are definitely ~not~ guaranteed to work! So caveat emptor...or whatever...on that!

It'd be hard to be worse than me at it...

However, I think it would not hurt to have someone of George Smith's stature and caliber to write some words of recommendation. Or did I miss his review, as well as your book announcement? <sigh>

Come to think of it I'm not sure if I announced it here or not, though it's slipped into the conversation here and there.

I sent George a free copy, but I think he's just being kind by not reading/reviewing it given his attitude about my posts.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I remember George apologizing to you--with all due emphasis and not one qualification--for making light of you writing and publishing a book during one of your spats.

You guys may clash, but that act, to me, shows good character.

Michael

[sjw]

Mikee, thanks for the purchase, I hope you get something of value out of it.

Shayne

[Roger Bissell]

Shayne, first things first -- I did not know you had written a book! What is its title, and where can I buy a copy?

It's called "For Individual Rights", and it's at Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Individual-Rights-Treatise-Human-Relations/dp/0984587004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278694389&sr=8-1

Secondly, I suck at marketing. I have absolutely no aptitude for it. Any "bright ideas" I come up with for marketing that intrigue you are definitely ~not~ guaranteed to work! So caveat emptor...or whatever...on that!

It'd be hard to be worse than me at it...

However, I think it would not hurt to have someone of George Smith's stature and caliber to write some words of recommendation. Or did I miss his review, as well as your book announcement? <sigh>

Come to think of it I'm not sure if I announced it here or not, though it's slipped into the conversation here and there.

I sent George a free copy, but I think he's just being kind by not reading/reviewing it given his attitude about my posts.

Shayne

Thanks for the pointer, Shayne. I have ordered the paperback version, and it is on its way!

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Shayne,

I remember George apologizing to you--with all due emphasis and not one qualification--for making light of you writing and publishing a book during one of your spats.

You guys may clash, but that act, to me, shows good character.

Michael

I agree. George is a clash act. :-)

I am grateful to him, not only for his complimentary comments on my music, but for his generously setting up a/v displays on YouTube of some of the tracks.

We have shared a lot of good music over the years. I'm sure that we have both expanded our music libraries and enriched the composers and musicians and amazon.com et al greatly in the process.

REB

[sjw]

Thanks for taking the time to look at it Roger.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

***

[9thdoctor]

***

Aww, changed your mind? I'd already picked you out a tune!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLPtg_h4tY

BTW, when someone calls something "degenerate", this is the first thing I think of:

http://en.wikipedia..../Degenerate_art

[Jonathan]

> I guess I will never understand why Phil doesn't write posts that focus on ideas

No longer for this audience.

Why does Objectivism attract such people? How did Objectivism go from the fictional independent strength and confidence of Roark, and the urbane persuasiveness of Frisco and Galt, to the real-life petty schoolmarm nagging, puffer fish puffery, and whiny victimhood of Coates? WTF?

J

[Jonathan]

BTW, when someone calls something "degenerate", this is the first thing I think of:

http://en.wikipedia..../Degenerate_art

The Nazis must not have gotten the message that both Naziism and Modern Art were caused by Kant, otherwise you'd think they would have been a little friendlier toward it, no?

J

[Brant Gaede]

> I guess I will never understand why Phil doesn't write posts that focus on ideas

No longer for this audience.

Why does Objectivism attract such people? How did Objectivism go from the fictional independent strength and confidence of Roark, and the urbane persuasiveness of Frisco and Galt, to the real-life petty schoolmarm nagging, puffer fish puffery, and whiny victimhood of Coates? WTF?

J

It's the Internet, dear boy. Get a grip!

--Brant

I was wondering how long it would take before this thread got nasty.

[Roger Bissell]

You've never expressed interest in purchasing my art.

Where is your art for sale? When you posted the samples on OL, I noticed a number of people asked about this, and you indicated you would make an announcement in the future, but I haven't seen one so far. Did I miss it? Are there digital downloads available? For how much? Or are they available only as "hard copies"? And how much are those? Please point me in the right direction. I'd at least like to see what you're asking for the ones I might consider buying.

Personally, though, I have to say that my appreciation of visual art does not extend to ~collecting~ very much of it. Most of my meager inspirational funds go toward books and music. I do like to read about and watch videos on visual art, to peruse visual art in museums, to look around in art galleries, and to peruse artworks shown on the Internet. And I ~have~ commissioned a portrait from my step-daughter, who is a very talented painter, but she's a special case.

So, while it's not the case that I have ~no~ desire to support the visual arts, I'm just not as interested in doing so as I am in supporting the literary and musical arts. I know that other people are just the opposite, while still others grab some of all of it or don't much care for any of it. To each his own.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite personal anecdotes (though I'm sure I've shared it before on OL) -- several years ago, I wrote Leonard Peikoff and offered to send him a free copy of my first CD, the one of jazz and ballads by me on trombone and my piano partner, Ben DiTosti. His secretary wrote back and said that Dr. Peikoff doesn't like trombone and piano jazz, only piano jazz. I thought this was very odd, and I have since wondered that since Peikoff loves "Cyrano de Bergerac" so much, perhaps he was also a big fan of "Pinocchio." :-)

Niche markets are a wonderful aspect of even a semi-free market. And it takes very few customers and interested fans from any sub-culture to give an artist or writer the sense that he is appreciated and valued. But it does take ~some~. And if a sub-culture that, by its definition or self-identity, claims to support the independent creator, is not able to eke out even some modest amount of patronage of struggling artists or writers in that sub-culture, then I'd say that ~something~ is wrong.

As you note, there may be a number of possible factors involved, either on the side of potential customers, or the artist or writer, or both. It may be a failure of the creator to offer something that connects with his niche market. It may be the failure of people in the niche market to put their money where their espoused ideals are. Or both. Or something else. Or all of the above.

So, in particular, no, I don't think that a given person's not buying, or asking about how to buy, your paintings makes him a "degenerate Objectivist," any more than your not purchasing, say, my newer CD makes you a "degenerate Objectivist" -- or, since you ~did~ purchase my earlier CD, a "half-degenerate Objectivist." As for Leonard Peikoff, I'd say he's hopeless. :-)

But in the case of Phil, I'd definitely say that since people are vigorously ~encouraging~ him to "write that book" -- if he did so and made it available, and then all he heard was the sound of chirping crickets, I'd say that there was a good bit of insincerity and, yes, degeneracy behind the exhortations to "go for it" or to "put up or shut up." And that he would then be justified in being irritated and thinking there was something really morally corrupt going on. But that he should withhold such an extreme judgment as "degenerate Objectivists" at least until then. And that if people actually opened up and bought his product, he should dump the judgment entirely and find something else to be concerned about. Like writing his next book!

REB

[George H. Smith]

Shayne,

I remember George apologizing to you--with all due emphasis and not one qualification--for making light of you writing and publishing a book during one of your spats.

You guys may clash, but that act, to me, shows good character.

Michael

I agree. George is a clash act. :-)

I am grateful to him, not only for his complimentary comments on my music, but for his generously setting up a/v displays on YouTube of some of the tracks.

We have shared a lot of good music over the years. I'm sure that we have both expanded our music libraries and enriched the composers and musicians and amazon.com et al greatly in the process.

REB

Roger and I have also shared some truly crappy music. I just uploaded one of the worst to YouTube for the listening misery of OLers. I sent Roger (and Chris Sciabarra) this butchered version of "The High and the Mighty" -- by Al Caiola, recorded during the 1960s -- a couple years ago, when I was downloading different versions of this beautiful song, composed by Dimitri Tiomkin. This is when I first learned from Roger about the term "mewing" (or "meowing') violins.

Listen, if you dare....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O-g7M_kUeM

Ghs

Addendum: This version by Les Baxter is what Tiomkin's song is supposed to sound like: