Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[George H. Smith]

>

I don't think Objectivism is going to spread until a host of more fundamental attitudes, knowledge, liberal arts education, persuasion 'savvy', people skills are treated with respect and effort first. Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken", so no one in their right mind is going to listen to them. > give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified. I do have fans but they are not in this steadily declining arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture. And I have other goals, things I want to spread instead, which are more personally satisfying. And I'm afraid there are better people out there.

So why are so obsessed with this "sick little subculture"? Why not spread your light and genius to the world at large and ignore OL?

Yeah, right. Given your pedantic, self-obsessed method of communicating, you wouldn't stand a chance in the real world. Most people would ignore you or dismiss you as a kook. On OL you at least get some attention -- and that's what this is really all about, now isn't it?

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Goodness Gracious. Am I witnessing a neurotypical food fight in the making?

Sometimes it is fun to watch the NTs kick bite and scratch. But soft. That is enough schedenfreude for now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

>

I don't think Objectivism is going to spread until a host of more fundamental attitudes, knowledge, liberal arts education, persuasion 'savvy', people skills are treated with respect and effort first. Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken", so no one in their right mind is going to listen to them. > give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified. I do have fans but they are not in this steadily declining arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture. And I have other goals, things I want to spread instead, which are more personally satisfying. And I'm afraid there are better people out there.

So why are so obsessed with this "sick little subculture"? Why not spread your light and genius to the world at large and ignore OL?

Yeah, right. Given your pedantic, self-obsessed method of communicating, you wouldn't stand a chance in the real world. Most people would ignore you or dismiss you as a kook. On OL you at least get some attention -- and that's what this is really all about, now isn't it?

Ghs

Spreading Objectivism? I didn't know it was a jam.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You got it. Audience, i.e., attention is the name of Phil's game. And what's worse, he's getting it in the only manner he knows how: by demanding that others do what he himself refuses to do and ignoring the hypocrisy.

I used to think this was a blind spot, but I've grown to believe he does it on purpose. You see, this gives him low quality attention. Guaranteed. It's one of the few things with 100% predictability--it will piss people off. When I try to see the world from his eyes, I see the following. That's all he truly believes he can get. And that kind of attention is better than the alternative.

I don't think I've ever met a person so full of limiting beliefs with such a sense of wanting to do something.

Now here's the underbelly. (You got that right. This first part was the good part.)

Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken"...

Guess who Phil has in mind as the person who should do the "housebreaking"?

Hmmmm...?

You said I did well to throw this thread into the Garbage Pile. I probably could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and closed the thread along with it. I saw all this coming. I knew he would keep baiting people and it would evolve into a "let's pay attention to Phil and nothing else" thread.

But I didn't close it. I felt sorry for him.

I still do.

I hope he gets better over time. He's got a really good mind when he uses it for ideas instead of neurotic attention-getting games.

Onward and upward...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

George,

You got it. Audience, i.e., attention is the name of Phil's game. And what's worse, he's getting it in the only manner he knows how: by demanding that others do what he himself refuses to do and ignoring the hypocrisy.

I used to think this was a blind spot, but I've grown to believe he does it on purpose. You see, this gives him low quality attention. Guaranteed. It's one of the few things with 100% predictability--it will piss people off. When I try to see the world from his eyes, I see the following. That's all he truly believes he can get. And that kind of attention is better than the alternative.

I don't think I've ever met a person so full of limiting beliefs with such a sense of wanting to do something.

Now here's the underbelly. (You got that right. This first part was the good part.)

Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken"...

Guess who Phil has in mind as the person who should do the "housebreaking"?

Hmmmm...?

You said I did well to throw this thread into the Garbage Pile. I probably could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and closed the thread along with it. I saw all this coming. I knew he would keep baiting people and it would evolve into a "let's pay attention to Phil and nothing else" thread.

But I didn't close it. I felt sorry for him.

I still do.

I hope he gets better over time. He's got a really good mind when he uses it for ideas instead of neurotic attention-getting games.

Onward and upward...

Michael

Some good posts since George came aboard. Love that grammer!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Phil is actually very smart. He knows he's painted himself into a corner on OL and has made the most of it without acknowledging it.

--Brant

not kidding!

[caroljane]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies.

Why should I even bother?

You should bother, Phil, not with this particular typical exchange , but with your own goals in analyzing, writing about and ultimately spreading Objectivism, with or without the feedback of others here If it's with, you can put up with the comments of the snark squad who may occasionally have something to contribute to your endeavours, or you can ignore them in numerous ways which WSS has painstakingly explained to you.

What you cannot do, is get your enemies to do what you want them to do, whatever that is, or make them go away which they won't. And if they make you go away, which apparently has happened before, then they win.

Carol

Friend to all

[George H. Smith]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. Why should I even bother?

You should bother, Phil, not with this particular typical exchange , but with your own goals in analyzing, writing about and ultimately spreading Objectivism, with or without the feedback of others here If it's with, you can put up with the comments of the snark squad who may occasionally have something to contribute to your endeavours, or you can ignore them in numerous ways which WSS has painstakingly explained to you. What you cannot do, is get your enemies to do what you want them to do, whatever that is, or make them go away which they won't. And if they make you go away, which apparently has happened before, then they win. Carol Friend to all

This has nothing to do with "winning" or with Phil's enemies. It has to do with Phil's dishonest threads that are superficially about subject X, but which he uses as platforms to drone on about his supposed communication skills and to lecture others about their supposed deficiencies. Consider this thread, for example. Phil will not say what he has read by Branden, why he doesn't think that Branden's ideas are original or profound, or where he got the notion that Branden places too much stress on self-esteem.

What has Phil actually read by Branden, and what did he read that left him with a negative impression? Phil won't even address these issues.

Whenever someone says something positive about Phil, he glows like a firefly and favors us with the details of his genius, up to and including a brief outline of some talk he gave and letting us know that he has some "fans." If Phil is so starved for positive feedback, he needs to write some posts with substantial content. I have commented favorably on such posts from time to time, and I have no problem with doing so in the future, providing Phil can bypass the self-congratulatory BS.

Phil lacks self-awareness to an astonishing degree. While lecturing others about how to communicate, write, etc., he remains blissfully unaware of why his own writing style frequently provokes strong negative reactions. And what is worse, he doesn't seem to care. Phil consoles himself with the silly belief that he has enemies who will criticize and mock anything he writes, so he stays stuck in the same rut that he has been stuck in for years.

This thread is a sham. As Michael pointed out, it was started on false pretenses and with a highly misleading title. I stayed away from responding negatively to Phil for quite a while, but I'm sick of this Mickey Mouse shit.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some good posts since George came aboard. Love that grammer!

Brant,

There's more.

Notice that the best, most informative posts do not involve Phil or what he wants to discuss?

He thinks he's a martyr and everybody is out to get him.

But the truth is most people like him, even at his most obnoxious.

I've only seen one or two people with the ability to immediately spoil a good discussion with the consistency he has exhibited of doing it in the same way for years on end. You gotta give him points for stubbornness. Useless stubbornness, maybe, but to keep it up in the same form and lack of substance for as long as he has takes discipline.

Michael

[caroljane]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. Why should I even bother?

You should bother, Phil, not with this particular typical exchange , but with your own goals in analyzing, writing about and ultimately spreading Objectivism, with or without the feedback of others here If it's with, you can put up with the comments of the snark squad who may occasionally have something to contribute to your endeavours, or you can ignore them in numerous ways which WSS has painstakingly explained to you. What you cannot do, is get your enemies to do what you want them to do, whatever that is, or make them go away which they won't. And if they make you go away, which apparently has happened before, then they win. Carol Friend to all

This has nothing to do with "winning" or with Phil's enemies.

Ghs

Sorry, I think it has something to do with it, and I know you are not actually Phil's enemy. It is about the fact that he does not know that, lacks self-awareness and so on, and refuses to address such points, while claiming you do not address his poiints, and the wheels of the bus go round and round.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, OL is about ideas, primarily, not teaching them. Phil purports to be a teacher of Objectivism but has not made one post about the philosophy itself I've ever read that demonstrates any real mastery or knowledge of the philosophy. If he had such knowledge and presented it all the other crap we keep objecting to wouldn't matter very much even if still somewhat irritating. I'd put up a lot from experts or masters of a subject. Those are the real teachers. And the older I get the less slack I give people unless they are truly seeking, most evident in the very young. I think about Objectivism; I think about a lot of things from geo-politics to economics to psychology and history and political philosophy and war and peace and anything else concerning human being and human well being. I've got ten to twenty years left to ~teach~ anything to anybody which is what I am all about since I was less than three years old trying to know and understand. The most horrible thing I ever came to understand was the atomic bomb. I guess I was six or seven. Then the possibility of General Thermonuclear War and countries including my own utterly destroyed. I went to a lecture when I was 15 by an air force officer. He told us that a 30-megaton nuclear bomb exploded at 30,000 feet over New York City would destroy by fire everything burnable in a circle encompassing Boston and Washington DC. One big bomb! I can't grok triteness! Teaching per se is trite! All through the 12th grade! Learning is not! But learning is not the other side of the coin from teaching. Teachers do not teach. They inspire or de-inspire. We teach ourselves, aka learning. Really. Teachers can keep us on the right track. That's extremely important. A few words here; a few words there. Bad teachers get in your way. Good teachers essentially stand aside and let you go, go, go!--cheering you on.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. Why should I even bother?

You should bother, Phil, not with this particular typical exchange , but with your own goals in analyzing, writing about and ultimately spreading Objectivism, with or without the feedback of others here If it's with, you can put up with the comments of the snark squad who may occasionally have something to contribute to your endeavours, or you can ignore them in numerous ways which WSS has painstakingly explained to you. What you cannot do, is get your enemies to do what you want them to do, whatever that is, or make them go away which they won't. And if they make you go away, which apparently has happened before, then they win. Carol Friend to all

This has nothing to do with "winning" or with Phil's enemies.

Ghs

Sorry, I think it has something to do with it, and I know you are not actually Phil's enemy. It is about the fact that he does not know that, lacks self-awareness and so on, and refuses to address such points, while claiming you do not address his poiints, and the wheels of the bus go round and round.

That's the best possible explanation. Unfortunately I don't think it's true. Not anymore.

--Brant

[Mikee]

What you cannot do, is get your enemies to do what you want them to do, whatever that is, or make them go away which they won't. And if they make you go away, which apparently has happened before, then they win.

Carol

Friend to all

That's exactly what Phil does do. I'm don't think he conciously plans it, but he's like a cowbird, lays an egg for someone else to hatch. His parting insults just prime the stage for the next time. He also never has to give credit for the ideas hatched in threads like this. I've been informed by the quality of some of the posts. I plan to reread some of Nathaniels stuff with this in mind. Thank you Phil for starting this thread.

[Dennis Hardin]

Evil is impotent and wins only by default of the good. With every serious passion you renounce because the people around you don't share it--with every compliment you do not pay to those who have earned it, because you fear the recipient will be indifferent--with every statement of love you do not utter, because you equate love with vulnerability, and strong feelings with helplessness--with every action you do not take in defense of your values, because you believe they are doomed--with every surrender to silence and passivity in the face of that which you know to be immoral, because of fear, hopelessness, or disgust--with every second-rate pursuit you turn to, because you believe that nothing else is possible--you are contributing to that default which makes the victory of evil possible and are creating the very universe you dread: a universe in which the good has no chance.

Nathaniel Branden, The Vision of Ayn Rand, P. 524 (‘The Benevolent Sense of Life’)

Since this thread is about Nathaniel Branden, I decided to throw in this additional quote. It’s from Branden's original lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism." I think I first heard it in 1964. It had a huge impact on me then and has continued to inspire me ever since.

I'm quite certain that, despite my best intentions, I often fall short in my effort to live up to the principles Branden describes here. Nonetheless, much of what I do and say derives from this basic theme. If it should happen to matter to anyone, you will understand me better if you understand Branden’s words.

Nothing I have said on this thread (or any other) should be taken personally by Phil or anyone else. I am simply using my judgment to the best of my ability and trying to be worthy of this vision.

Very little else matters to me. That's me. That's who I am.

I guess I should say I'm sorry if specific things I do offend anyone. But the truth is I'm not sorry. And your hurt feelings are your responsibility, not mine.

[Philip Coates]

> I've been informed by the quality of some of the posts. I plan to reread some of Nathaniels stuff with this in mind. Thank you Phil for starting this thread. [Mikee]

> He also never has to give credit for the ideas hatched in threads like this.

Setting aside the personal attack posts, I also have learned some things from a number of the posts. And been reminded of some valuable things I'd seen but forgotten in Branden's work in The Objectivist. I'll also be doing some more reading. (It'll also be interesting for me to see if I can reconstruct why I started and stopped several of his post-break books, but that's less important.)

So I guess I'm sort of glad I started the thread, as I can set aside the usual convening of the ad hominem brainless psychologizing-about-my-motives clown school and just extract some positive insights. (It's amazing how someone like George or Dennis can be so intelligent, objective, and insightful about many intellectual matters relating to ideas, Objectivism, psychology - and even books on grammar and writing - and such an abrasive moralizing Ayn-Rand-at-her-worst!!! psychologizing asshole when it comes to attacks on someone's personal character, insults, food fights.)

[Philip Coates]

> I'm quite certain that, despite my best intentions, I often fall short in my effort to live up to the principles Branden describes here. [DH]

We all do. Those principles are hard. It's human nature that we often tend to cut ourselves some slack but don't cut other people any slack and think the worst of them, especially if they've angered us. Ayn Rand was at her worst when she turned disagreement about ideas or slowness to accept her views into attacks on that person's seriousness, commitment, integrity, character, etc. That kind of injustice is how you narrow your circle, permanently lose friends who don't feel visible or respected, don't want to have anything further to do with you, etc. I personally don't mind that much when people make mistakes in the realm of ideas or when they tell me my ideas are really dumb or rationalistic or poorly thought out, but I never forgive or forget or want to have anything further to do with them when someone has attacked my honesty or character.

[9thdoctor]

I'm sick of this Mickey Mouse shit.

Good points, but I think you're referencing the wrong cartoon mouse.

[Brant Gaede]

I had forgotten Mighty Mouse! Thx!

--Brant

much better than Mickey!

[George H. Smith]

I personally don't mind that much when people make mistakes in the realm of ideas or when they tell me my ideas are really dumb or rationalistic or poorly thought out, but I never forgive or forget or want to have anything further to do with them when someone has attacked my honesty or character.

What do you expect? You are, after all, an active participant in an "arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture" that is populated by "vicious little turds" and "lowlifes." It is good to know, however, that you can rise above all the juvenile name-calling.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Ayn Rand was at her worst when she turned disagreement about ideas or slowness to accept her views into attacks on that person's seriousness, commitment, integrity, character, etc. That kind of injustice is how you narrow your circle, permanently lose friends who don't feel visible or respected, don't want to have anything further to do with you, etc...

Hence your extremely small circle....

Ghs

[PDS]

Evil is impotent and wins only by default of the good. With every serious passion you renounce because the people around you don't share it--with every compliment you do not pay to those who have earned it, because you fear the recipient will be indifferent--with every statement of love you do not utter, because you equate love with vulnerability, and strong feelings with helplessness--with every action you do not take in defense of your values, because you believe they are doomed--with every surrender to silence and passivity in the face of that which you know to be immoral, because of fear, hopelessness, or disgust--with every second-rate pursuit you turn to, because you believe that nothing else is possible--you are contributing to that default which makes the victory of evil possible and are creating the very universe you dread: a universe in which the good has no chance.

Nathaniel Branden, The Vision of Ayn Rand, P. 524 (‘The Benevolent Sense of Life’)

Since this thread is about Nathaniel Branden, I decided to throw in this additional quote. It’s from Branden's original lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism." I think I first heard it in 1964. It had a huge impact on me then and has continued to inspire me ever since.

I'm quite certain that, despite my best intentions, I often fall short in my effort to live up to the principles Branden describes here. Nonetheless, much of what I do and say derives from this basic theme. If it should happen to matter to anyone, you will understand me better if you understand Branden’s words.

Nothing I have said on this thread (or any other) should be taken personally by Phil or anyone else. I am simply using my judgment to the best of my ability and trying to be worthy of this vision.

Very little else matters to me. That's me. That's who I am.

I guess I should say I'm sorry if specific things I do offend anyone. But the truth is I'm not sorry. And your hurt feelings are your responsibility, not mine.

Very interesting, Dennis. The excerpted quote alone makes me want to buy Branden's book.

[George H. Smith]

Evil is impotent and wins only by default of the good....

I have never agreed with the notion that evil is impotent. I'm not even sure what this maxim is supposed to mean.

Good and evil are moral evaluations of human action. An action is said to be successful to the extent that it achieves the goal of the acting agent. Evil actions are frequently efficacious in this sense. In fact, they have been a dominant and driving force throughout history.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> What do you expect? You are, after all, an active participant in an "arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture" that is populated by "vicious little turds" and "lowlifes." [GHS]

Subject: Three little Sleazeball tricks in Perpetuating the Food Fight

Here we go round and round again:

I've pointed out that (1) I -respond in kind by kicking you in the teeth - when I'm vilified and slimed**. You keep acting as if I were the initiator. Or (2) you blur the distinction between criticizing someone (which I do frequently) and attacking their character (which is a frequent response of yourself).

Over and over you and your cohorts have done this; another trick: (3) pick a quote of mine out of context and lie to pretend that I'm the initiator.

(I've made this point on probably a half dozen threads, and you clowns [ yes, I'm now sick enough of your attacks that I will regularly use insulitng and abusive language] never seem to learn.)

**how would you expect someone to react?

[George H. Smith]

> What do you expect? You are, after all, an active participant in an "arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture" that is populated by "vicious little turds" and "lowlifes." [GHS] Subject: Three little Sleazeball tricks in Perpetuating the Food Fight Here we go round and round again: I've pointed out that (1) I -respond in kind by kicking you in the teeth - when I'm vilified and slimed**. You keep acting as if I were the initiator. Or (2) you blur the distinction between criticizing someone (which I do frequently) and attacking their character (which is a frequent response of yourself). Over and over you and your cohorts have done this; another trick: (3) pick a quote of mine out of context and lie to pretend that I'm the initiator. (I've made this point on probably a half dozen threads, and you clowns [ yes, I'm now sick enough of your attacks that I will regularly use insulitng and abusive language] never seem to learn.) **how would you expect someone to react?

The extent of your self-deception never ceases to amaze me. Poor innocent Phil!

I would strongly advise against engaging in a war of words with me. You are not nearly clever enough. You have no talent for polemical jousts, or for debates in general. Your writing skills are mediocre, and your insults are typically shopworn and trite.

At least you are not a "vicious little turd." You are not vicious, merely tedious and inane.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Substituting Moralizing Character Attack for Discussion of Issues

These personal attack accusations remind me of the Rodney King thing. You need to view the start of the incidents before the police baton beatdown came on to evaluate the whole thing.

I distinctly remember bending over backwards not to respond in kind when I first encountered these kinds of vicious character attacks over on SoloP when I was defending Chris Sciabarra. Post after post after post questioning my honesty, calling me an evader, claiming I was a troll, was just seeking attention.

When was that? '06? At a certain point, I ran out of patience - I don't remember whether that was over there or over here when people started outragedly responding when I was very critical of their posts by calling me*** a liar, an evader, questioning my character ... all the usual ARAHW** moralizing rhetoric that only Objectivists seem to have absorbed in their movement.

**Ayn Rand At Her Worst

*** It wasn't just directed at me - IIRC, George has done it with Shayne and vice-versa, Jonathan with Michael Newberry and Roger Bissell, MSK with several opponents. Lindsay Perigo with other opponents. Diana Hiseh, of course, was one of the first to do it with Chris Scibarra. People on both side of PAR, PARC, etc. And on and on.

And they'll always say:

"Yeah, but it's *true* in -this- case: Coates, Branden, Perigo, Newberry, Peikoff, Bissell, SJW REALLY IS A COMPLETE STINKER AND THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW, DAMMIT!!! "