Self-Esteem

[anthony]

Can you "do" induction? If you see a shadow, you induce "light", right?

Good for you that nature does its own thing regardless of what you decide is visible, otherwise you'd topple over like that iceberg.

Tell me scout. Do you mock the blind because they cannot see.

Yes. I can deduce, induce, and abduce. What I cannot do is ascertain the intentions of other people. I am mind blind. That comes with being an Aspie.

I see what is visible. I detect what is physically detectable. Everything else is pure guesswork.

Can you know more than what passes through your senses. If so, lucky you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not sure you can have it both ways. You're either blind or not-blind.

You can infer that there is more to an iceberg than is visible, similarly, more to a human than

meets the eye.

[BaalChatzaf]

You can infer that there is more to an iceberg than is visible, similarly, more to a human than

meets the eye.

Only if you have -seen- 9/10 th of an ice cube under the liquid in the glass in which the cube was floating. And even that would be a (highly plausible)

guess because you have not seen ALL the ice that was, is and will be.

Seeing (i.e. perceiving) is sometimes -knowing-. Any thing else is a guess. Guessing is a necessary uncertain activity we must undertake in order to survive. The gods were cruel not to make us omniscient.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

You can infer that there is more to an iceberg than is visible, similarly, more to a human than

meets the eye.

Only if you have -seen- 9/10 th of an ice cube under the liquid in the glass in which the cube was floating. And even that would be a (highly plausible)

guess because you have not seen ALL the ice that was, is and will be.

Seeing (i.e. perceiving) is sometimes -knowing-. Any thing else is a guess. Guessing is a necessary uncertain activity we must undertake in order to survive. The gods were cruel not to make us omniscient.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I take your point, up to a point. At some stage of a child's development he/she 'knows'

that although an object is partially obscured to his vision - that that same object does not

"end", but continues outside his sphere of vision..

An object or action exists independently of the observer.

You don't have to see a woman feeding her child, or a man dying - at this very instant

in time - to know with certainty that it IS occurring, somewhere, right now.

Induction is our extension of the "evidence of the senses" imo.

"Omniscient'? God, no! Every human would have committed suicide long ago.

[Dglgmut]

How can love be conditional, and self-esteem not be? It has to be earned, otherwise we are not judging.

If we are judging, then we must have criteria, and if we have criteria, then it does not follow that we must necessarily love ourselves before anything else.

[anthony]

How can love be conditional, and self-esteem not be? It has to be earned, otherwise we are not judging.

If we are judging, then we must have criteria, and if we have criteria, then it does not follow that we must necessarily love ourselves before anything else.

S-E is certainly conditional, conditional on the judgments one has consciously and subconsciously passed on oneself in the past.

[BaalChatzaf]

I take your point, up to a point. At some stage of a child's development he/she 'knows'

that although an object is partially obscured to his vision - that that same object does not

"end", but continues outside his sphere of vision..

An object or action exists independently of the observer.

You don't have to see a woman feeding her child, or a man dying - at this very instant

in time - to know with certainty that it IS occurring, somewhere, right now.

Induction is our extension of the "evidence of the senses" imo.

"Omniscient'? God, no! Every human would have committed suicide long ago.

Object permanence is one of the earliest "Jedi Mind Tricks" a youngster learns But sometimes objects do cease to exist, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

How can love be conditional, and self-esteem not be? It has to be earned, otherwise we are not judging.

If we are judging, then we must have criteria, and if we have criteria, then it does not follow that we must necessarily love ourselves before anything else.

S-E is certainly conditional, conditional on the judgments one has consciously and subconsciously passed on oneself in the past.

Exactly, and we must be able to observe ourselves in some way for us to be able to pass judgment. This observation requires evidence based in reality--meaning we have to actually DO stuff.

[anthony]

How can love be conditional, and self-esteem not be? It has to be earned, otherwise we are not judging.

If we are judging, then we must have criteria, and if we have criteria, then it does not follow that we must necessarily love ourselves before anything else.

S-E is certainly conditional, conditional on the judgments one has consciously and subconsciously passed on oneself in the past.

Exactly, and we must be able to observe ourselves in some way for us to be able to pass judgment. This observation requires evidence based in reality--meaning we have to actually DO stuff.

Long as "DO"-ing is all-inclusive of ALL *action*, yes: Action to me being:- inaction; deeds; thoughts; emotions - then, thoughts about thoughts, feelings about deeds, thoughts about emotions...feelings about inactions ...ad infinitum.

Self-observation is inescapable, ultimately, and so is the corresponding self-judgment. It's the basic human drive to be integrated with reality, and so too, within oneself. I think. If integrity is "congruence between what you know, what you profess, and what you do"[NB] we all, in our formative and later years, have "let ourselves down", been disloyal to ourselves, on thousands of occasions.

Add to that, undeserved guilt (in early family relations, religion, sexuality and so on), and add on top of that others' gratuitous and unjustified remarks, etc., which we have all been side-swiped and deeply affected by - and there is a lot of old rubbish still floating around in our subconscious.

Nothing to get paranoid about, or a need to re-visit all those old places obsessively, in my personal opinion - but also nothing that should be pooh-poohed and dismissed. "Learn to live consciously, because that is the foundation of everything" Branden advised (on advancing one's self-esteem.)

[Xray]

Self esteem is true knowledge of your capabilities and lack of capabilities.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But does true knowledge about these things automatically imply self-esteem?

'Self-esteem' also has an emotional component to it, imo it is more than mere cognitive awareness of one's capabilities (and lack of capabilities).

[BaalChatzaf]

Self esteem is true knowledge of your capabilities and lack of capabilities.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But does true knowledge about these things automatically imply self-esteem?

'Self-esteem' also has an emotional component to it, imo it is more than mere cognitive awareness of one's capabilities (and lack of capabilities).

Having the ability to grasp the truth of things, however confusing or complicated should give us an occasion to be proud. Truth grasping is not a passive matter. It takes hard work and perseverance. Being lulled and comforted by mere appearance is easy. Knowing what is, is hard.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Serapis Bey]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

All humans interpret events in terms of metaphysical models. An

unpleasant experience is compounded by an unpleasant conclusion. A

pleasant experience is compounded by a pleasant conclusion. All

conclusions (generalities) based on specific experiences are lies.

When repeated long enough they appear true.

We are all handicapped by our traditions and conclusions.

The notion of a metaphysical self that is either good or evil --

defined by other people's subjective needs and desires -- tell us more

about other people's needs than our own self.

These conclusions about self are without independent existence, yet

they deeply affect how we interpret the world and ourselves.

Since bad and good things will still happen regardless of what we do,

we find ourselves arranging these experiences into pre-existing models

that have been implanted in our head. Our salvation, however, is at

hand. We can save ourselves by saying, "I don't know."

At a minimum there are two levels of experience which are confused by

almost everyone: direct experience -- like a brick falling on your

head -- and the interpretive conclusionof the event. The first

experience is wholistic, the second is a combination of past models,

attribution needs, and anxiety. The feeling component of these two

experiences can become indistinguishable. Therefore, a model is

difficult to remove because it has become associated with the feeling

component. As feeling cannot be completely denied, the models which

interpret the meaning of the feeling also cannot be denied. Not

only are these models difficult to change, the model often becomes

independent of further experience and "causes" the feeling. This

further "proves" to the person the validity of the model.

Although thoughts do not "cause" feelings they do elicit them.

"Positive thinking" cannot be effective unless the underlying

metaphysical "feeling" models are in accordance with the positive

thoughts. Models run on automatic.

Models can't be made to coincide with positive thoughts because of the

simple fact that "bad" things happen no matter what thoughts a

person has. The solution to this is simple -- accept bad experiences

without having to have an explanation or a conclusion. If the

unpleasant feelings do not disappear within a short period of time,

you know that the experience is being upheld by a model which has

metaphysical implications about your self-worth and your competency in

the world.

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

Model building is an exciting activity. However, the models we build

as children are too personal. We generalize these models to the

universe at large, disregarding context and time. This causes no end

of grief. We hold on to these models even when we know cognitively

that they are flawed. The very fact that we are alive is somehow seen

as proof that these models are valid.

As a species we have not easily learned to think contextually or

probabilistically -- instead we think in discrete categories.

Generalities about self and life give us an illusion of security

regardless of the error and misery they cause us. For example, we

have a difficult time coping with disappointment when we don't have a

satisfactory model to explain it. When we have a model -- any model

-- we feel better, even though the model may be in error and we still

don't have what we want. Most people would rather "understand" than

live.

Every individual is superior to any disembodied concept used to

describe him. I say superior, not superior andinferior, since I

give the individual priority over any and all concepts.

NO RULE IS GREATER THAN THE CONTEXT WHICH VIOLATES IT.

Like justice, the metaphysics of personhood is nonsense -- serving,

like justice, an illusion to quiet the souls of those who have to

label themselves and others metaphysically to reduce anxiety and feel

at peace.

Metaphysical damnation, as well as metaphysical affirmation, are the

common drugs of the masses -- they are a poor substitute for a strong

stomach and a good right hand.

Children are the primary victims of these lies. Not only are

they told lies time and time again, they make them up. Almost

everything people believe as grownups consists of lies they were told

as children. Culture is nothing more than agreed upon lies.

Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this

statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different

level of abstraction -- a meta-level.) Logic asserts that like cases

are alike. This is fine, but in reality there are no "like cases."

We only assume like cases for convenience. Logic applies to closed

systems that allow us, by a process of elimination, to come up with

the one right answer. In open systems logic fails -- and rightfully

so.

Nothing is ever over with and nothing is ever put to rest -- things linger.

A strong feeling or emotion about one event can bring a whole array of other

thoughts and feelings into awareness. A failure in the present can bring forth

an array of failures of the past. Every event feeds one or the other

metaphysical notion -- damnation or affirmation. However, things are not

so simple. Some people only have damnation or non-damnation possibilities.

Nothing ever affirms them. Others only have affirmation or non-affirmation

possibilities. Nothing ever damns them. The latter group is frequently

regarded as "normal," while the former group is frequently regarded as

"pathological" This division is false, since both groups (and the mixed group)

are simply Zombies of a different flavor.

Other individuals flip/flop between high affirmation and high damnation.

One moment they are everything, the next they are nothing. This is frequently

associated with parents who used all-or-nothing metaphysical statements in a

confused, alternation fashion when responding to specific behaviors

--C.S. Hyatt

[Brant Gaede]

Too much to say too little. I think he thinks we're supposed to be impressed with his erudition. And that "meta-level" is pure garbage. I liked what he said about children and lies. Too much behaviorism. It's an implicit assault on cognition and reason and free will. All that "meta" stuff is is an affirmation he's a member of the elite.

--Brant

the elite rules

[Xray]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

--C.S. Hyatt

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this

statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different

level of abstraction -- a meta-level.)

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

[Brant Gaede]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

--C.S. Hyatt

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experinces is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

Strikes me as a hyperbolic statement that would break down with an attempted fleshing out, which might be why he didn't.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

--C.S. Hyatt

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experinces is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

>

Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this

statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different

level of abstraction -- a meta-level.)

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

1. You have a habit for rephrasing parts of the quotes as if you are arguing against them. "While all too human" is what you chose to rephrase this time, as if he didn't already implement that point into his overall theory.

2. I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent.

I found the passage pretty insightful. That line about civilization being "organized cowardice and laziness" lacks context, but again, depending on interpretation, it is spot on. Civilization, for many people, is just that. How can the law be so corruptible if it were not for cowardice and laziness?

Civilization may not have been the best target, but perhaps social organization (collectivism) of all kinds. Gift giving occasions are a big one for me... what level of organization we have accepted that we will be compelled by society to buy gifts on a schedule!

[Xray]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

--C.S. Hyatt

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experinces is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

>>

Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this

statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different

level of abstraction -- a meta-level.)

lockquote>

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

1. You have a habit for rephrasing parts of the quotes as if you are arguing against them. "While all too human" is what you chose to rephrase this time, as if he didn't already implement that point into his overall theory.

2. I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent.

I found the passage pretty insightful. That line about civilization being "organized cowardice and laziness" lacks context, but again, depending on interpretation, it is spot on. Civilization, for many people, is just that. How can the law be so corruptible if it were not for cowardice and laziness?

Civilization may not have been the best target, but perhaps social organization (collectivism) of all kinds. Gift giving occasions are a big one for me... what level of organization we have accepted that we will be compelled by society to buy gifts on a schedule!

What I was getting at: everything that is biologically hardwired, we have to work with it, not against it. This does not mean giving in to every impulse, but awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there can be very helpful.

Calling the attempt to prevent bad experiences "futile" is an over-generalization by Hyatt. It can be futile in some cases, but by no means in all.

C. S. Hyatt's broadbrush attacks on civilization raise a red flag as well. For it leads to the question: 'What is (or 'was', since he died in 2008) his alternative solution? What was his vision of an ideal societey and - this would be especially interesting for Objectivists to discuss: what role did his occultism and magic play in all that?

[anthony]

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys:

---------------------------------

While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is

futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in

history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which

is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness.

--C.S. Hyatt

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experinces is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

>>

Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this

statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different

level of abstraction -- a meta-level.)

lockquote>

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

1. You have a habit for rephrasing parts of the quotes as if you are arguing against them. "While all too human" is what you chose to rephrase this time, as if he didn't already implement that point into his overall theory.

2. I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent.

I found the passage pretty insightful. That line about civilization being "organized cowardice and laziness" lacks context, but again, depending on interpretation, it is spot on. Civilization, for many people, is just that. How can the law be so corruptible if it were not for cowardice and laziness?

Civilization may not have been the best target, but perhaps social organization (collectivism) of all kinds. Gift giving occasions are a big one for me... what level of organization we have accepted that we will be compelled by society to buy gifts on a schedule!

What I was getting at: everything that is biologically hardwired, we have to work with it, not against it. This does not mean giving in to every impulse, but awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there can be very helpful.

Calling the attempt to prevent bad experiences "futile" is an over-generalization by Hyatt. It can be futile in some cases, but by no means in all.

C. S. Hyatt's broadbrush attacks on civilization raise a red flag as well. For it leads to the question: 'What is (or 'was', since he died in 2008) his alternative solution? What was his vision of an ideal societey and - this would be especially interesting for Objectivists to discuss: what role did his occultism and magic play in all that?

Some fallacies I think, though Hyatt's quoted para is good .1.Mysticism and determinism - that what civilisation exists now, was somehow exactly how it ' was meant to be'. 2. That civilisation as it is, is some sort of equally collectivised effort 3. that because we are 'hard-wired' it was our hard-wiring that created this civilisation, and will keep us civilised in future. 4. that hard-wiring has not, in fact, been the cause of much or most human misery.

(Men composed their rationalized doctrines.Then that ole tribal Us against Them Syndrome (hard-wired) was the easy next step.The brutal instincts (hard-wired) kicked in - then any atrocity could be justified by evasion.)

Of course, given all that, we have a perfect recipe for an authoritarian State bringing us its form of Utopia, since our 'excesses' of hard-wiring must 'obviously' be controlled (and channeled in the State's favour). With other freedoms of action along with them. So civilisations today would avoid the highs and lows of reality, to become tame, de-motivated and obedient - and believe they've made a good trade.

Admit even a partial identity of man as being "hard-wired" - moreso that we "should work with it"- and all the rest logically follows - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Dglgmut]

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

[anthony]

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

What makes you think mine was directed disagreement at you personally? I'm puzzled.

There are underlying premises to the concept "civilisation", and misperceptions of it as 'a metaphysical given' which I think are germane here. I believe I made a connection between

"bad experiences"- as I put it "the highs and lows of reality" - and expectations of people to be

cocooned from that private pain and hardship by the State..somehow. At their cost in the end.

"As per usual", freely admitted, it's the *principles* I like to search for - like it or not as you wish..

[Brant Gaede]

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

A pilot flying an airplane believing this will crash and burn.

--Brant

not that he would have the job

[Serapis Bey]

I posted this excerpt merely to foster discussion. I can't speak for Hyatt's views _in toto_, but I have enough of a feel to clarify some things.

Xray rightly asks what can be gleaned from such a conception of human nature, and what such a conception says about social organization? Nothing, really. Hyatt was primarly concerned with "liberating" and "empowering" individuals, regardless of any moral consideration of their actions, to say nothing of whatever social order might result if everyone followed his program. I was an avid fan in my younger years, when such a message was well recieved. In this respect, Hyatt follows in the tradition of libertarianism and Objectivism with their emphasis on the primacy of the individual, irrespective of cultural norms. However, this perspective has been rightly criticized by others as an endorsement of sociopathy (and even worse, autism), and although Objectivism attempts to salvage its veneration of self-interested egoism with noises about "rational" selfishness, I feel such efforts are futile. As I have grown, I have developed an appreciation for the more time-tested and traditional conceptions of man as a social animal, and it seems to me that THE philosophical issue of the day is the conflict between the good of the individual vs. the good of society. For the record, I think the issue is irresolvable. There are some actions which, while good for the individual, if followed by everyone would mean the dissolution of social order.

Nonetheless, balance in all things, and radical individualists always have something to offer, and I posted this excerpt because of the impression it left on me, and because I felt it spoke to the issue being discussed in this thread: the nature of self-esteem, or self-regard, etc.

I view it as a difference of perspective, i.e., Branden focuses on the "software" of the human animal, while Hyatt focuses on the "hardware"(with some hope of making radical changes in oneself that effect real transformation vs. turning inward towards solipsistic mental self-talk.)

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

I believe the emphasis on "metaphysical" in the quoted excerpt indicates a focus on the threats to the ego, or self-system, not anything physical.

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

Yes, he was given to hyperbole to shake his readers awake. It was intentional. But he is not equating "lie" with "error", I believe he was equating "lie" with "less than the whole truth"

[Serapis Bey]

Civilization may not have been the best target, but perhaps social organization (collectivism) of all kinds. Gift giving occasions are a big one for me... what level of organization we have accepted that we will be compelled by society to buy gifts on a schedule!

"What other creature needs holidays to remind him of what to feel and when?" - Hyatt

[Serapis Bey]

What I was getting at: everything that is biologically hardwired, we have to work with it, not against it. This does not mean giving in to every impulse, but awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there can be very helpful.

How can "awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there" be helpful if it does not result in any change of behavior?

Calling the attempt to prevent bad experiences "futile" is an over-generalization by Hyatt. It can be futile in some cases, but by no means in all.

Hyatt's focus is on the tendency to prevent "bad experiences" as such. Of course, people should use their minds to avoid truly "bad things" which stand in the way of pursuing one's goals. Again, his usage of the word "metaphysical" (i.e., the old-fashioned use of the term) is meant to refer to all the abstract mental constructs which people use to assuage themselves and feel at peace, e.g., calling other people "evil" for having thwarted one's desires, or creating personal narratives about oneself as a coping mechanism. I believe his view is that these mental phenomena act as soporific, and do not serve a person in the acquisition of their values or goals. I'm reminded in this respect of that Bidinotto essay during the "Truth and Toleration" debates wherein Bidinotto characterized the Objectivist """valuer""" as some schlub who issued forth a pronouncement of judgements about the "good" or "evil" of various aspects of his environment from the comfort of his sofa, and in so doing, imagined himself the equal of D'anconica or Rearden.

C. S. Hyatt's broadbrush attacks on civilization raise a red flag as well. For it leads to the question: 'What is (or 'was', since he died in 2008) his alternative solution? What was his vision of an ideal societey and - this would be especially interesting for Objectivists to discuss: what role did his occultism and magic play in all that?

As I previously mentioned, this is a good question. I believe he had an evolutionary conception of mankind, and wanted anything that would move us beyond where we are now. He was impatient. "I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve."

His interest in the occult was just more of his desire to acquire "self-mastery", i.e. more freedom and "self-liberation". Is such an approach successful? Open question.

[anthony]

I posted this excerpt merely to foster discussion. I can't speak for Hyatt's views _in toto_, but I have enough of a feel to clarify some things.

Xray rightly asks what can be gleaned from such a conception of human nature, and what such a conception says about social organization? Nothing, really. Hyatt was primarly concerned with "liberating" and "empowering" individuals, regardless of any moral consideration of their actions, to say nothing of whatever social order might result if everyone followed his program. I was an avid fan in my younger years, when such a message was well recieved. In this respect, Hyatt follows in the tradition of libertarianism and Objectivism with their emphasis on the primacy of the individual, irrespective of cultural norms. However, this perspective has been rightly criticized by others as an endorsement of sociopathy (and even worse, autism), and although Objectivism attempts to salvage its veneration of self-interested egoism with noises about "rational" selfishness, I feel such efforts are futile. As I have grown, I have developed an appreciation for the more time-tested and traditional conceptions of man as a social animal, and it seems to me that THE philosophical issue of the day is the conflict between the good of the individual vs. the good of society. For the record, I think the issue is irresolvable. There are some actions which, while good for the individual, if followed by everyone would mean the dissolution of social order.

Nonetheless, balance in all things, and radical individualists always have something to offer, and I posted this excerpt because of the impression it left on me, and because I felt it spoke to the issue being discussed in this thread: the nature of self-esteem, or self-regard, etc.

I view it as a difference of perspective, i.e., Branden focuses on the "software" of the human animal, while Hyatt focuses on the "hardware"(with some hope of making radical changes in oneself that effect real transformation vs. turning inward towards solipsistic mental self-talk.)

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening.

I believe the emphasis on "metaphysical" in the quoted excerpt indicates a focus on the threats to the ego, or self-system, not anything physical.

>

>

Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'.

But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

Yes, he was given to hyperbole to shake his readers awake. It was intentional. But he is not equating "lie" with "error", I believe he was equating "lie" with "less than the whole truth"

Good thought provoking input. It reminds me that truth be told, I don't know if I can envisage clearly a completely individualist society -

It's like imagining full laissez-faire capitalism after generations of State intervention - and equally, business involvement in government.

Man is also a social animal, yes. But is it his defining feature? He has instincts, good and bad (for him) but do even the 'good'

instincts show him how to co-exist with others? Is his reason and volition not what makes him a social animal, par excellence? I.e. that he chooses his immediate 'society' according to all sorts of values he finds in others.

I don't see a conflict between the good of the individual and society.

Unless one creates it.

It is of course straight Objectivism that the good of the individual IS the good of society.

Simply, as it is for socialism not surviving long, without some, arbitrary level of free-enterprise existing to support it - so I see an analogy from the perspective of a rational egoist: That a firm and established base of selfishness is the prerequisite for empathy of other people. Even further, empathy is a necessary and rational follow-on from it, I'm certain.

In contrast, from the self-defined 'selfless' individual, empathy and compassion are mostly, then, "feel-good" hot air: Quite ineffectual and somewhat meaningless.

Overly uncompromising, maybe, but I feel that clear parameters should be drawn.

[Brant Gaede]

"Defining feature" is one thing, predominate feature, another. "The rational animal" recognizes he is also a social animal, not a cat slinking through the jungle at night. Psychologically some people need more social interaction than others, but for most some significant amount is needed. Regardless, choice is a matter of wealth and comparative freedom and little is available in primitive agricultural or hunter gatherer societies or purely tribal conglomerations where banishment was a death sentence. The last arrangement got the human race through its first several million years. What's interesting is the human brain is now making the world go so fast one wonders if it's part of a fulminating process called "progress."

--Brant