Passing Judgment

[CNA]

I'm tickled pink !! Thank you very much Jody and LW and Michael for the words of encouragement !! And ecstatic that I've inspired any one of you on OL !!

Thank you to everyone else that posted or sent private messages.

Maybe one of these days we could all get together and have a big ass party; a party where the people are better, the food is better, the beer and drinks are better, and the conversation is phenomenal. A party of CELEBRATING life for what it truly means and what it represents to each of us !!

We are the fighters for what is RIGHT !!

Angie

[Kat]

Back in my newbie days at SoloHQ I was also surprised to find that the Objectivist movement was divided and so I posted a message asking what the issue was. Apparently ARI would withdraw their support of student groups affiliated with Solo or TOC. Read the letter Luke quoted. Interesting in light of recent events.

Kat

[L W HALL]

Kat,

Although I did find the post by Luke interesting, in light of what's been going on about Chris S and his (supposedly) asserting that ARI puts pressure on it's contributors and to which Diana H says there is absolutely no basis to believe and further goes to great length to show her indignation about, the post right below yours by Lindsay Perigo kind of jumped out at me.

And I quote:

You won't be "excommunicated" from here because of any ARI connection, but I can't guarantee the reverse. Our first SOLO Yahoo moderator was told by ARI he had to choose between them & us, though he was given a year to think about it! Faced with the loss of ARI resources for his university O/ist club, he chose ARI (where his real sympathies lay anyway).

Linz

Now I am not saying this is exactly the same, but nevertheless coming from Lindsay who is on the Diana team, I did find it food for noodlethought.

L W

[CNA]

Thank you, Kat, for the post.

Very interesting considering what's going on. I've read the posts and links about ARI and have learned quite a bit and it speaks volumes.

Angie

[Chris Grieb]

This is in reply to Michael's post about ARI. ARI has also helped increase the sales of Miss Rand's books. I think some of the books they have produced are well worth having. The Essays on We the Living and Anthem are very well done. The above is two separte books Mayhew's book on AR's HUAC testimony is good contribution to her scholarship.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

You are correct that ARI does some good work. ARI members also have put together new compilations like Rand's writing books, the journals and letters, The Voice of Reason, etc. So in that sense, by providing new Rand compilations, they help the publishers sell more Rand books.

I buy ARI stuff. As you rightly say, there are some very good things published by them.

I just get riled at the stone throwing by some ARI members - especially since it is not a profit organization, yet it projects itself as the official carrier of Rand's capitalist flame.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

The "movement" is looking more and more like a bowel movement these days.

It is factionalized, and polarized. In negotiating terms, it is a deadlock.

For sure, certainly unattractive for potential prospects. And, for the most part, the responsibility among all of us who work in these spaces is at least in some way shared.

Objectivism looks like a bloody battleground. Personally, I prefer taking a walk in a nice, green forest.

But there is no sign of anyone backing down. That is the hallmark of a classic deadlock. Even I, as an involved hybrid, have violated my own principles (which largely conflict with ortho-O), and have taken up the sword.

"Why can't we just all get along?" ain't flying.

So the question becomes- what is the answer? Perhaps for now there is none; maybe we have no other choice than to let time do it.

rde

still not done with the killin' yet.

[Rich Engle]

I don't think I'm quite done yet.

What really ends up sticking in my craw is not even the discussions about "tolerance," (which for the most part I have found overly-detailed, and inept, as things often become in the O-World<tm>), but the social, group retardation/deterioration. Some of the best thinkers in the world are also engaging in some of the most embarrassing. It's a giant

slappy-fight, and that is silliness.

For one thing, there's a few that better get over the religion thing. Two varieties: missionaries, and vanquishers. Neither work too well. If for a moment anyone here thinks that the general O-approach to dealing with other belief systems is anything other than, er, sub-optimal, here's your sign and have a nice day. That dog won't hunt, and it won't help.

MSK, by the way, is a glorious exception to that condition.

In general, the judging thing sucks ass. Casting souls into the void sucks ass.

Sun Tzu would be embarrassed, because we make war, but from within, and there is never purpose to that.

O'ism lives smack dab in the middle of the modern world. One of the characteristics of those systems is that the world of the we is dealt with not unlike chess is played. Now, I love chess and I play it every day, but for one, it is a war game on a board, and in the human world, I have other concerns.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Rich wrote:

*The "movement" is looking more and more like a bowel movement these days.  

It is factionalized, and polarized. In negotiating terms, it is a deadlock....

...So the question becomes- what is the answer? Perhaps for now there is none; maybe we have no other choice than to let time do it.*

Time is important but, by itself, time does nothing but make you older and weaker. I think Barbara is on the right track. We need to understand why Objectivism is plagued with animosity. I think if we can identify the psychology behind the problem, we can get closer to letting time do its work. If we can understand the causes, if we can shed a little light onto what compels us to behave so irrationally in the context of such a rational philosophy, we can start to see what steps need to be taken to integrate these two competing but valuable perspectives within the Objectivist movement and to stop the infighting. It is only a small task I am suggesting. We just need to map out and understand the nature of the subconscious and its relationship to our interpretations and our behaviour. That’s all.

Paul

[Rich Engle]

Agree, but with understandable trepidation, Paul.

The psychological piece is on-point. However, psychology is tender in this world, no?

In general, agree greatly.

rde

Ain't seein' no olive branch anytime soon.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Rich, you said:

However, psychology is tender in this world, no?

That's part of the problem.

Paul

[gary williams]

I'm with LW.

That was a jewel of a post by Angie! Very good!

That is IT! To a T!

I am thinking of having it printed onto brochures, so when someone asks me, "So gary, what do YOU think?"

I'll simply say - "Here! Have one of these!"

It will save so much time. Time I can use to chase skirts or to learn how to hunt curmudgeons properly!

Next,

Igloo Noogier,

You said this -

Time is important but, by itself, time does nothing but make you older and weaker. I think Barbara is on the right track. We need to understand why Objectivism is plagued with animosity. I think if we can identify the psychology behind the problem, we can get closer to letting time do its work. If we can understand the causes, if we can shed a little light onto what compels us to behave so irrationally in the context of such a rational philosophy, we can start to see what steps need to be taken to integrate these two competing but valuable perspectives within the Objectivist movement and to stop the infighting. It is only a small task I am suggesting. We just need to map out and understand the nature of the subconscious and its relationship to our interpretations and our behaviour. That’s all.

I don't see a problem. Let the oil seperate from the water.

It is desirable to glean the wheat from the chaff. It appears to my humble and jackassy self that the problem resides in some people not recognizing the valuable from the stuble.

A rational philosophy can not be harmed.

Let there be factions! Hell, let it factionalize all the way down until every individual is a faction. After all ain't that how it was supposed to be?

Sorry if I'm snarky today! I'm in a real funky mood!

gw

[Rich Engle]

Yes indeedy, let there be factions. This clearly is and has been for awhile a shooting war.

Of course, even if you count the ancillary, and the lurkers, you're probably talking about less than minions. More like about eighty.

But that's OK, wherever there's a curmudgeon to hunt, if you've got the time, we've got the beer.

rde

Exterminating Curmudgeons since, Hell, ever!

[tndbay]

We need to understand why Objectivism is plagued with animosity. I think if we can identify the psychology behind the problem, we can get closer to letting time do its work. If we can understand the causes, if we can shed a little light onto what compels us to behave so irrationally in the context of such a rational philosophy, we can start to see what steps need to be taken to integrate these two competing but valuable perspectives within the Objectivist movement and to stop the infighting.

what may not be clear to you, as you are embroiled in the middle of it, is starkly clear and simple to me.

i have to say, also, that were i to name it here and now, i expect i'd be tarred and feathered and run out of dodge. until i've had a chance to make friends (or not) i plan to resist doing that.

but to an observer from my generation and perspective- it's glaringly obvious.

however, i will state unequivocally that 'objectivism is not plagued with animosity'. one must look elsewhere than a rational philosophy to find a plague. rationality is hardly at root of the squabbling.

but no worries- demographics ensures that this squabbling will end, perforce, when the utility function evaporates.

pete

[CNA]

Pete, I know the word you will not name and I agree with it "if" we are thinking along the same lines. But I also do understand the squabbling amongst a few very "key" individuals and why but these are my personal opinions, observations, etc., that I've chosen to keep to myself just as you've done. I don't think I would be tarred and run out though becauseI don't think it's that bad. I've stated it before in posts. We all have our own definition of who are Objectivists, etc. I know I have a very clear cut and strict I guess guideline or criteria of who I personally consider to be a true objectivist. It's just the "irrational" people that call themselves Objectivists that are within Objectivism that's hurting it. But this is a subject I've decided to keep to myself.

Angie