Objectivism and Rage

[Victor Pross]

M,

I hear what you're saying, and it's all very reasonable. Good to hear that you'll be reading and listening to his stuff---with a critical ear too, no doubt.

Y' know, I had a little laugh at this: "Some of Peikoff's attitudes are worthy of lampooning, though. (For instance, the end of "Fact and Value, where he essentially says: Go away and leave me and Objectivism alone. I don't want you and the dead Ayn Rand doesn't want you."

In the paragraph cited, he never said leave ME and Objectivism alone---but rather, 'leave Objectivism alone.' And he says also "Ayn rand would not have wanted you", which is a little more forgiving than if he had said: "AYN RAND DOES NOT WANT YOU. I just spoke to her ghost."

That would really be funny.

[Barbara Branden]

Peter Reidy: "Historical question for Barbara Branden: who came up with the term "psycho-epistemology"? I recently saw the claim that Rand coined it, but the evidence I'm aware of is inconclusive. I believe the first public use was in your Efficient Thinking lectures (1960?) and the first use in print was in the lead essay in For the New Intellectual (1961)."

The term was mine -- unfortunately. I'd be delighted if I could put the blame elsewhere. It's a horrible word, and I wish I could think of a descriptive term that would be better. Does anyone have a suggestion?

Barbara

.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, Victor.

If you want to use exact quotes, let's get it right:

... if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it—please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you..

.

The last time I looked, "we" included "me." (I was just trying to make him sound more individualistic and less collective.)

So he said "Ayn Rand would not have wanted you" instead of "Ayn Rand does not want you." More forgiving? Of dissenters? Peikoff?

Heh.

If you say so.

Let's complete the thought: The dead Ayn Rand would not have wanted you if she were still alive. How do I know? Hmmmmm. She sure ain't around to say so for herself. But I just talked to her ghost.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I found this interesting article (in the form of a FAQ) by Chris Wolf that may be relevant to this discussion.

[reason.on]

... if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it—please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you..

What a DORK. Clearly, Miss Cleo would be impressed with the ghost-whispering talents of LP (not so sure about Ayn Rand, though).

I know this is posted elsewhere in the forum, but I think it is quite appropriate to tack on to this thread, for the record, you know...

As cultural signs, I think the thing that really changed my whole mind is NBL. It's the whole phenomenon of Nathan's lectures. As you know, when he first started I wasn't opposed to it, but I can't say that I expected too much. I was watching it, in effect, with enormous concern and sympathy for him, because I thought there was a very good chance of it failing. I could not see, since the culture in general seemed totally indifference to our ideas and to ideas as a whole. I didn't know how one could make a lecture organization grow. Also, the first few classes I was very disappointed and depressed in the nature of my followers. They seemed, you know, well-meaning but emotional, we did not discover any particularly great mind, and so I thought that my fans disappointed or depressed me worse than my enemies. But with the passage of time, two things happened. One, and it's very important, I began to see how even the least promising of Nathan's students...were not the same as they were before they started on the course, that Nathan had a tremendous influence on them, that they were infinitely better people and more rational even if they certainly were not Objectivists yet...What I saw is the cultural phenomenon of the influence of ideas and to what extent none of them...will be the same after Nathan's course than they were before...That ideas take in a manner which I did not know...Then then whole enormous response to Nathan, that gave me a preview of what can be done with a culture. And seeing Nathan start on a shoestring with the whole intellectual atmosphere against him, standing totally alone and establishing an institution, that was an enormous crucial, concrete example of what can be done.

If LP isn't careful, he is not only going to have dead Ayn Rand all to himself, but dead "Objectivism" as well (btw, as clarification, I believe some or most of the work of Ayn Rand will likely live "forever", but the organized philosophy and movement of "Objectivism" is subject to mortality, and as I see it, is quickly becoming culturally and intellectually irrelevant, despite what I see as growing sense of popular "libertarianism" in American culture at large).

All the more reason for rational folks to organically integrate (and distinguish, where appropriate) Rand's work into past and present intellectual traditions, and leave the stale rotting corpses in the graveyard of history where they belong.

RCR

[John Dailey]

~ As I mentioned in RoR on a thread re BB's article, my comp needed Dr. House to employ his 'Rubiks Cube' complex to it for optimum u-functioning. Am sure the earlier symptoms which I complained about on a different thread herein were the prelude to it's dys-functioning death-rattle. Since all fixed, found that y'all'er talking about that article here. Will continue my thoughts (picking up at EVASION) here. I see a lot to comment about apart from her well thought out essay.

~ Unfortunately, found V.P.'s article re Quantum Mechanics before this one, and, after printing all that out am working on that at the moment; mainly it's the comments which all get into derivative or at least relevently associational areas re philosophy, and ideas about 'beaming'-vs-'identity' that've got me going.

~ Anyhoo, fascinating, thought-provoking stuff on this thread as well.

LLAP

J:D

Edited September 7, 2006 by John Dailey

[Victor Pross]

Hi John,

I would very much be interested in hearing your feed-back regarding Quantum Mechanics. Mind you, I am no expert in this science, but I have always had a keen interest, going on 16 years now.

I do struggle with the ideas and I'm still placing the puzzle together, but I have a very good foundation. Is there anything in particular that you find that does not carry any validity on where I stand--given what I do understand?

You mention "relevently associational areas re philosophy" and that is no accident. I don't regard philosophy as a separate department from science--except in that: science is specialized, and that is all.

Thanks,

Victor

Edited September 7, 2006 by Victor Pross

[MBM]

~ Unfortunately, found V.P.'s article re Quantum Mechanics before this one, and, after printing all that out am working on that at the moment; mainly it's the comments which all get into derivative or at least relevently associational areas re philosophy, and ideas about 'beaming'-vs-'identity' that've got me going.

~ Anyhoo, fascinating, thought-provoking stuff on this thread as well.

LLAP

J:D

John, since you express an interest in "ideas about 'beaming'-vs-'identity'", let me draw your attention

to this post which I left on the Quantum Physics thread a while ago:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...post&p=7853

Maybe you'd like to weigh in on that (preferably on that thread, since it doesn't have much to do with

rage. )

MBM

[Philip Coates]

> "psycho-epistemology"?...I wish I could think of a descriptive term that would be better. Does anyone have a suggestion? [barbara]

To speak of a person's "psychology" is to speak of a total of which his method of mental functioning is only a part. It occured to me some years ago is that one way to take the curse out of the word is to pair it with what makes up the -rest- of a person's psychology:

1. Content. 2. Method.

Just as one can divide many things up into content and method: for example a novelist's creation, a work of literature. In English class you can discuss the content of Atlas Shrugged: the story, the events, the characterization. And you can discuss the method: how did the author achieve it.

In a person's psychology, one can discuss it's content: the ideas, the knowledge, the values he possesses. And the method.

If *psycho-epistemology* is the term for the method or approach, the processes he repeatedly uses, then *psycho-metaphysics* is the content of his mind. [That's the term I came up with.]

So a person's "psychology" = the content of his mind and the methods and processes of his mind = his psycho-metaphysics and his psycho-epistemology.

The common sense term people use for psycho-epistemology is: how a person's mind works. [which the closest, Barbara, I think to a direct answer to your original question.... or you could just say "mental processes and approaches".]

The common sense distinction is between how a person approaches things or how his mind works and what his mind -contains-. For example, how knowledgeable he is.

What would be a word for someone who has a lot of good content (well-integrated) and a good psychoepistemology - he thinks well, is intelligent, doesn't lie to himself, has his emotions and his reason in balance, etc., etc.?

I would reserve the word "wisdom" for that sort of person. Some dictionaries defines wisdom as "the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight" or "ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight". Which might suggest, for example, a combination of years of experince and the ability to apply that experience. Good content. Good methods or "processing" (to use a more geeky or less common term, but one oists and intellectuals understand).

Good psycho-metaphysics and good psycho-epistemology.

I probably have more thoughts on this but it's nearly midnight on the west coast...bonsoir.

[Philip Coates]

Forgive the typos in the preceding post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Thank you for bringing the issue back up. I had originally meant to comment on psycho-epistemology when Barbara wrote the following, but I got sidetracked:

The term was mine -- unfortunately. I'd be delighted if I could put the blame elsewhere. It's a horrible word, and I wish I could think of a descriptive term that would be better. Does anyone have a suggestion?

Rand used the concept of psycho-epistemology to arrive at her sense-of-life idea, from which she derived her aesthetics.

To me, this has always been a bit of an incomplete concept. Here are the official definitions from a previous post by me on OL:

The first printed Objectivist definition of psycho-epistemology.

As endorsed by Ayn Rand in “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” in The Objectivist Newsletter (Apr 1965/4:4)

(See Nathaniel Branden's article on "Psycho-Epistemology" in the October and November 1964 issues of this NEWSLETTER, where he defines psycho-epistemology as "the study of the mental operations that are possible to and that characterize man's cognitive behavior.")

Interestingly, when she published this same essay in The Romantic Manifesto, she removed Branden’s definition and supplied her own: “(Psycho-epistemology is the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.)”

I like your idea of separating content and method in what goes on in the mind. Objectivism has too little written on the nature of memory, so I can see something like psycho-metaphysics. (I can also see Barbara cringe at the name.)

There is another consideration. "Sense of life" is a normative idea. Rand stated clearly that normative abstractions were a different category than cognitive abstractions. (She was not exactly consistent in always keeping this distinction, though. This has caused a hell of a lot of misunderstanding that persists until today. Without meaning to, I came up with the equivalent of a sense of life on the cognitive level in my article Understanding Addiction—One Objectivist's View. I called it a sense of identity. Here is a quote about it.

According to Rand (“Philosophy and a Sense of Life,” in The Romantic Manifesto), a sense of life is “a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and existence.” A sense of identity is similar, but it is a pre-conceptual equivalent of the axiom of identity at the personal level, an emotional subconsciously integrated appraisal of who and what a person is in relation to life and existence. I know I just coined this term, but the basic conceptual idea is Ayn Rand’s. These levels are about the deepest ones where a mental event can be perceived.

So it looks like Barbara’s little ugly duckling will not only keep the same name, it is starting to acquire some new brothers and sisters.

Incidentally, I think the way Barbara was pushed aside in this issue by Rand and NB does not reflect well on them. To his credit, NB finally attributed her with the term in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

The term [psycho-epistemology] was mine -- unfortunately. I'd be delighted if I could put the blame elsewhere. It's a horrible word, and I wish I could think of a descriptive term that would be better. Does anyone have a suggestion?

Barbara

.

For what it's worth, I immediately came up with "cognitation" upon hearing the request. But even if the original term has too many syllables to use repeatedly in one essay, I never had a problem grasping its referents or its connotations. My term suffers from being no more obvious to those who have not heard the definition. But it is shorter, and not implausible.

My personal favorite rhetorical dislike of the moment is the "metaphysical versus the man-made." I get the intention of the concept. But once created, human artifacts are, well, facts. And animals do have some element of will, (if not-self reflective) or we would not punish them and expect improvement. We do indeed blame animals, and even put them to death, but we just don't keep (I hope) haranguing them long after the fact. I feel the issue is fundamentally an ethical one, not a cosmological or ontological one. The underlying point is that raging at brute nature or forgiving everything human, no matter how heinous, under, to use Simpson's terminology "a writ of boys will be boys" is an ethical mistake, not a scientific or a metaphyisical one.

Ted Keer, 21 November, 2006, NYC

[kgregglv]

I'd like to comment on the matter of "Rage" from a somewhat different stance. You see, I've been a professional mediator (domestic relations) for a number of years before I recently retired.

In helping people frame a separation agreement for a divorce decree, I work directly with both parties on a range of intimate levels: who gets the child(ren), who pays child support, who gets the pets, the house and furnishings, how to separate all of those things commingled for years, often decades. Both have invested their lives and work into building up these pieces of their lives and they often have no idea how to do all of this.

I facilitate the process with them, identifying the minor and major issues, the points of agreement and of contention, so that they can move forward to a point where they are ready to begin the rest of their lives. There are times when you just have to break down the issues to the simplest levels, start from there and move on to the areas of disagreement which, hopefully, we can resolve before they go in front of a judge. Sometimes it works all of the way through, sometimes there are stumbling points which the judge will decide. I always point out, though, that compliance is better if they come to an agreement directly with each other rather than wait for the third-party (judge or arbitrator) to make the decision.

These are emotional and difficult issues to work through, and rage is not uncommon, especially, although not solely, with the men. For whatever reason, a man's ability to communicate is not as good as a woman's and it becomes important for them to express the specific problems in the mediation process. There are many times when all they can feel is the anger flowing through years of frustration and noncooperation.

When I observe, either from the body language or how they talk, that there is a subtext of rage, I separate them into different rooms and discuss the areas that we are going to cover and see what their reactions are. As I begin to see the hot spots, I open them up so that they can express their anger and anguish. Once these are brought out, then the emotions are usually released to the point that we can move on with the process. This is all part of the facilitation process, bringing out the issues which need to be resolved so that they can move on with their respective lives. Not all mediators like to do this, but I've always found it valuable.

Then we move on together putting together worksheets of what is the most and least important so that we can start the separation agreement with the things that they both agree upon. Once the mediation process gets moving, it's easier for both to get caught up in the process and work out their disagreements through a negotiation process.

I think that many people separate because their family life has had no experience in negotiation. It's easier for them to have an authority to go to (parent, judge, politician) to make the decisions for them. Part of the facilitation process is to teach them methods of cooperation and negotiation which they can recognize and utilize not only throughout the mediation, but also later on when they may need to make adjustments in their separation agreement. I'd rather not have to have them go back to the judge--or me!

Now we can come back to the matter at hand--rage.

I've found that rage will exist whenever there is an inability to communicate, to talk to others about the matters that make them angry. Communication doesn't come automatically. We have to learn how to do this. Yes, you may be able to talk about your family, but not about your religion or your politics. Alternately, you may be great on the technical issues of objectivist metaphysics, but does that get you someone to be with on those lonely saturday nights?

Perhaps your friends are all about beer and sports, but you want to be with friends who talk about the latest broadway show, or the election results. You become lonely, your loss of communication, if it continues, will probably result in rage.

Certainly objectivists have issues. Objectivism comes to a person, more often than not, through reading a fairly long novel, and then identifying with the principles that one has now read about. You are excited, but you may never have heard about another objectivist in your life! Who do you talk to, communicate with? Your family is probably religious, or if relatively non-religious, they have never heard of Ayn Rand or objectivism, or if they have, they have a negative opinion of objectivism. Talk about minorities! You are a minority of one in a culture of religion, pop music and Playstations!

Maybe you come across another objectivist online or perhaps a campus club. Your life, however, is a lonely one comprised of yourself on contraposition to the rest of the world. Rage? Of course you have rage. In a land of communicants, you are the voiceless.

This can change the more you are in contact with fellows of like mind. You have to make the effort to make friends, to bring yourself into a regular exchange. The internet certainly helps, but you need more contact than that. Many objectivists bring their rage with them because they have not yet learned the tools of communication and used them effectively. There is potential and danger in this process. The potential for life-long friendship is there as you meet fellow obectivists.

The danger is that the objectivist groups will keep themselves separate from the rest of society and fail to develop social connections with others not in their own groups. Herein lies the beginning of cults. This is something which objectivists need to be aware of and able to break through. NB does have some great material about this (although not specifically directed toward this issue) which is quite useful.

Keep yourselves open and part of the general society. There is a balancing process to this, which teaches one wisdom. Good luck in finding this for yourselves!

Best to all of you!

[hbar24]

Hmm. I enjoyed the article. I did want to comment on what seemed to be some objectivist assumptions, though. The idea of a boss serving his employees seems illogical, but in practice he may come in on weekends, be asked to solve all employee problems, keep the working environment warm and safe and in many ways be a servant to the employees. He takes the responsibility for the whole. Linear thinking may not allow for apparent contradictions. Presidents age quickly in office. In a like manner, we trust in the output of a calculator, if it has proven to be accurate. Would we ignore it's output consistently? Well we do that with the subconscious mind. I don't believe that most people realize how accurate it is when not tampered with by our ignorance. I say that because we don't use the most objective tool we have properly or objectively when we don't like the answer. Our thoughts are always in the way manipulating each other, chasing their tail, when the mind should be applied to manipulating the output of the mind, the intuition and picture logic it produces. Test it out with no preconcieved notions and you will see it to be so, if you can be that objective. Nowhere that I have gone have I seen people that actually practice their own beliefs. I always do and soon find out if they are true or not. Objective analysis of the output of the subconscious is so superior to the conscious mind that it makes calculators efficiency over the mind look like a small comparison. The picture logic of the brain is output in words and pictures which most people only seem to access intuitively at present.

I should stop here as that is enough to digest and a few weeks of work to do to see the incredible results, but always intrepid, I would like to add this: Although most religions have traditionally been nuts, to use a technical term, the teachings in what we call in the West, the Bible, are not as they seem. They can only really be understood with right brain thinking or roughly the eastern mind. Conclusion: After all is said and done, all branches of knowledge and belief systems have some merit, lowering or raising us all to a more or less level playing field. The good news is that we can all come together and still save face. None knows all and none knows nothing. Just consider the little girl who told her parents to please stop fighting or the cannary in the mines who warns miners of bad air or the rocks that scientists study to come up with most of what we so prize.

[John Dailey]

~ Well, at this point/time, I'd guess that there's little point in trying to continue *my* thoughts on Barbara's original article, per se. However, Kenneth's views on the subject do call for a comment...or two.

~ Clearly, this subject, 'rage', is right up Ken's alley. He's shown that he knows whereof he speaks. Ignore his thoughts, and you ignore the subject. But...the latter is the source of 'the problem', no?

~ This 'rage' is exemplified by those who ignore-the-subject; those who have no prob 'communicating-to-others,' but have a big prob 'being open' to being-communicated-to. They show a need-to-talk/write; but no need-to-digest/chew what they hear/read...especially if it's contrary to what they wrote. The 'rage'-filled ones will not 'think-about'/digest...if they bother even finishing reading...Ken's thoughts.

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 31, 2006 by John Dailey

[Etisoppa]

Ms. Branden:

I think the key to this "anger" thing, and to so much in our societies, is "socialization". Psycho-emotional socialization. This is a concept Ms. Rand was not fully aware of or appreciative of. I put this down to the times she lived. In fact, my experience informs that many intellectuals tend to downplay this aspect of learning, albeit social learning.

They approach some problems as a problem of the intellect when these are more often problem of socialization. There is much we human learn through socialization. Its processes are so subtle and it sets the stage for so much. It is so interesting peeling of its layers and understanding its processes.

Let me bring it home with an example. Take the Edwardian British for example, or how they have been portrayed in literature, movies, plays etc. The decorum with which they handle conflict, ideas etc. amongst themselves was all learnt through socialization. No written rules or didactic lessons were involved, or very few at the least.

Etisoppa

[Alfonso Jones]

Thanks to Barbara for sharing this. It is of course also available in audio form from TOC bookstore.

Excellent insights.

Alfonso

[ebelisha]

I suspect that a lot of the 'objectivist rage' is a direct result of the enraged person's failure to comprehend the most basic objectivist concepts.

For example, a girl might pontificate mightily on objectivist ethics, but steal an ashtray from a restaurant as a souvenir. Which part of property rights did she fail to comprehend?

One of Rand's most important concepts was 'sanction of the victim', and it's the concept that seems to fly over people's heads. A person who points at me and yells, "Irrational! Anti-life!" is going to have exactly the same effect as a person who yells, "Darksided! Satanist!": none.

"But I don't think of you," is my all time favorite sentence in a book. I'm sorry they seem to feel it necessary to live their lives with their blood pressure up from continually searching for enemies. I refuse to participate. People can rant, rave, call me a poopy head, and say I dress funny... it's meaningless chatter to me. It's as important as listening to birds screech. The only judgement I have to work with is mine. In that sense my consciousness does create my reality.

[Xray]

"But I don't think of you," is my all time favorite sentence in a book.

Howard Roark said that. Imo he was completely devoid of empathy and that's why he didn't care. That "hero" had characterstics almost going in the direction of "autistic" .

Imo one could also argue that feeling he had the right to blow up the building and acting upon it, thereby endangering other people's lives, was the work of a psychopath.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"But I don't think of you," is my all time favorite sentence in a book.

Howard Roark said that. Imo he was completely devoid of empathy and that's why he didn't care. That "hero" had characterstics almost going in the direction of "autistic" .

Imo one could also argue that feeling he had the right to blow up the building and acting upon it, thereby endangering other people's lives, was the work of a psychopath.

He had empathy for Steven Mallory, not the spiritual Adolf Hitler who was Toohey.

Blowing up the housing project is an allegory within a bigger allegory which is a work of art, a novel. Like all novels, The Fountainhead is flawed. I could write at least ten thousand words on that alone right off the top of my head. Of her big three novels, We the Living is the least flawed in terms of real human beings and their interactions under the horrible stress of a communist, totalitarian state. No, you don't do what Howard did in real life if only because of the near impossibility of not hurting someone, which in fact he did. Dominique almost died. Also, that it was built in the first place was his own damn fault. He should have known better. He wasn't paid? He didn't deserve to be paid. His work was altered? He gave it away to Keating. He participated in a gross dishonesty. His trial? Convicted, absent jury nulification. Take the dynamiting out of the novel? Throw the novel away. You just ruined a great American classic.

I know you are being provakative for sake of seeing what the hornets might do, but you continue to show that you grab things off the shelf and have fun with them without really knowing what is going on. I can only conclude you do it to accelerate your education.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I am starting to detect preaching in you.

I don't like preachers.

Why not make your own forum and see who shows up?

Michael

[JustFact]

From the original post of this thread, "Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once."

This seems like saying, "Say a kind word about something Adolf Hitler did for Germans — and you'd better expect a load of anger." especially when such a statement, in relation to the U.S.A., comes from a rational person — "my worthy opponent" in this case. But wouldn't anger be appropriate when considered in context?

I understand the context of the post is not on politics, but you may have forgotten what politics is consistent with "Objectivism" because I'm sure you are aware of "The Patriot Act" and that it is not patriotic. The Bush patriarchs are filth. Thus I think the quoted statement is a very misguided example to justify your post.

Along with this, I wonder when did leaning toward the "Neo-Con" mindset become a prerequisite for any leading character of the Objectivist movement? Leonard Peikoff, now Yaron Brook, and once some infiltration by Alan Greenspan. Who's next to speak for pop. rational philosophy, Ram Emanuele!? Wow. I stand in awe of this absurdity.

[edited for the forum owner's sake]

Edited June 3, 2009 by JustFact

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

JustFact,

Do your name justice and stick to the facts, not the people.

If you are spoiling for a fight, you will have to go elsewhere to find it.

Another direct attack on Barbara like you just did will not be tolerated.

Michael

[JustFact]

Perhaps Barbara can defend herself by replying to the content of my post. Or maybe someone else will reply to the content.

Michael, well done dodging the subject.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

JustFact,

I'm not even going to let it start. I don't like bullies and you are a bully.

5 posts so far and 5 times goading people. That's enough for my radar.

Your posts will be reviewed before they go up so the bullying content can be removed.

Michael