Christian Objectivist

[Xray]

Brant Valuing an objective truth is subjective. Knowing it's an objective truth may make you value that objective truth more than you would otherwise.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7060&st=220, # 224

Knowing a fact to be true says nothing about the value a person attaches to knowing the truth about a fact. For certain truths can be an emotional burden. In German, there's the phrase "Ich will das gar nicht wissen" ('I don't want know about it'), verbalizing a person's not attributing value to knowing the truth about something.

And in case a person does value truth about something, this does not make it an objectve value either, but merely subjective value depending on the goals this person has.

So the same truth may be valued by person X while disvalued by person Y.

Brant: Knowledge is an objective value. # 225

If that were true, then e. g. the knowledge a bank robber has acquired in opening the safe would be of "objective value" also to those he robbed.

So again, it is always value to whom, i. e subjective. The notion of "objective" value is a fallacy.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant Valuing an objective truth is subjective. Knowing it's an objective truth may make you value that objective truth more than you would otherwise.

http://www.objectivi...pic=7060&st=220, # 224

Knowing a fact to be true says nothing about the value a person attaches to knowing the truth about a fact. For certain truths can be an emotional burden. In German, there's the phrase "Ich will das gar nicht wissen" ('I don't want know about it'), verbalizing a person's not attributing value to knowing the truth about something.

And in case a person does value truth about something, this does not make it an objectve value either, but merely subjective value depending on the goals this person has.

So the same truth may be valued by person X while disvalued by person Y.

Brant: Knowledge is an objective value. # 225

If that were true, then e. g. the knowledge a bank robber has acquired in opening the safe would be of "objective value" also to those he robbed.

So again, it is always value to whom, i. e subjective. The notion of "objective" value is a fallacy.

I mean knowledge generally. Not any particular knowledge.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Why do you ask?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Why do you ask?

Dragonfly,

I'm curious as to whether the body of literature for this has been translated or whether it is learned in English over there. I am just now studying a few works involving it and I am seeing some strong similarities between the techniques that are taught and some texts I read on the Internet (mostly Xray's delivery on OL, but she's not the only one and OL is not the only place).

These are formal techniques that are taught in very clear language. You can point to the teaching and the texts I mentioned, especially if the pattern is repeated, and show that there is a great possibility that the text was modeled on this kind of formal teaching. It's like being in the midst of people who only speak common everyday language, then you come across someone who constantly uses more complex, but correct, grammatical constructions. A reasonable conclusion is that the person has studied grammar.

The kind of technique I mean (as an extremely simple example for clarity) is the standard hypnosis command, "You are getting sleepy... sleepy..."

NLP patterns are not so obvious as that, but they are just as recognizable once you learn them.

I am a bit amused when I see this, too, because the purpose of NLP (or techniques that incorporate the techniques without using the term "NLP") is to induce someone to think in a certain manner. On good sales letters it works. With President Obama it works, unless he has a really difficult crowd and he flubs the basics (like what has started to happen with the health care stuff).

In Xray's case, she is missing one critical component and this is the reason she is unable to convince anyone of anything. Notice that people (like you) who agree with her already hold many of her conclusions. So they don't need convincing and I believe that they don't even see the techniques employed. Most other people who interact with her and hold different views are irritated by the techniques because they are carried out ineptly—missing some of the basics. That is why she is unable to get through to them except for a minor point here or there.

So I started wondering if these techniques are taught in Germany, but if something is missing in the translation. I know this sounds like a put-down, and my opinion of Xray is well-known, but this is not my intention here. I am truly curious.

I don't see this ineptness of convincing folks in Internet communication using studied techniques with Xray only. There are several other people and places. It makes me wonder.

Michael

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Why do you ask?

I haven't the foggiest idea either. I also only have a very foggy idea of what it is, so I just looked it up in German Wikipedia - but the article is a bit of a mishmash, not clearly structured enough to give me something to hang my hat on. Edited October 21, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Why do you ask?

Dragonfly,

I'm curious as to whether the body of literature for this has been translated or whether it is learned in English over there. I am just now studying a few works involving it and I am seeing some strong similarities between the techniques that are taught and some texts I read on the Internet (mostly Xray's delivery on OL, but she's not the only one and OL is not the only place).

These are formal techniques that are taught in very clear language. You can point to the teaching and the texts I mentioned, especially if the pattern is repeated, and show that there is a great possibility that the text was modeled on this kind of formal teaching. It's like being in the midst of people who only speak common everyday language, then you come across someone who constantly uses more complex, but correct, grammatical constructions. A reasonable conclusion is that the person has studied grammar.

The kind of technique I mean (as an extremely simple example for clarity) is the standard hypnosis command, "You are getting sleepy... sleepy..."

NLP patterns are not so obvious as that, but they are just as recognizable once you learn them.

I am a bit amused when I see this, too, because the purpose of NLP (or techniques that incorporate the techniques without using the term "NLP") is to induce someone to think in a certain manner. On good sales letters it works. With President Obama it works, unless he has a really difficult crowd and he flubs the basics (like what has started to happen with the health care stuff).

In Xray's case, she is missing one critical component and this is the reason she is unable to convince anyone of anything. Notice that people (like you) who agree with her already hold many of her conclusions. So they don't need convincing and I believe that they don't even see the techniques employed. Most other people who interact with her and hold different views are irritated by the techniques because they are carried out ineptly—missing some of the basics. That is why she is unable to get through to them except for a minor point here or there.

So I started wondering if these techniques are taught in Germany, but if something is missing in the translation. I know this sounds like a put-down, and my opinion of Xray is well-known, but this is not my intention here. I am truly curious.

I don't see this ineptness of convincing folks in Internet communication using studied techniques with Xray only. There are several other people and places. It makes me wonder.

Michael

The ideas behind NLP have been around for a very long time, so they could be learned from other sources. It's not a co-incidence that one of the earliest books on NLP that the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming) refers to was entitled Structures of Magic. You can go into any New Age or occult bookstore and find the methods taught in any book that teaches visualization and certain forms of meditation, which is an important part of magickal practice. And a lot of self help books I've seen (and probably, a lot that you've seen) have them without referring to NLP by name. But if you refer back to George Orwell's treatment of Newspeak, you can see another version of the method being used in a non-magickal context. It's even present in Objectivism, in the sense that it is what underlies Rand's insistence on redefining commonly held words.

However, in reference specifically to Xray, I think what you're seeing is a more basic flaw: the refusal to hold to any principles, resulting in a cloud of obscurity. It seems to have gotten worse since I've joined here. I don't know if that's merely a sign of my increased familiarity with her style, or there's an actual decline: but her arguments generally now start out as a cloud of fog and get worse from there.

[Xray]

The problem of induction is the problem of the black swan event. The black swan can not be excluded as a possibility without knowledge of all swans. Eventually they found a black swan, albeit a great rarity. Hence, the problem.

--Brant

The black swan deal has been around for a long time. It's much ado about nothing except to show what categorizing or syllogisms are about.

Premise 1: swans are white

Premise 2: the bird is a swan

Conclusion: the bird is white.

The "big deal" is that somebody comes along and discovers an entity with strong similarities to a white swan, but which is black. This shows the syllogism to be incorrect. So what? A syllogism is no better than its premises, which may be true, or may be false.

All of this "complexity" and confusion comes about by denial of entity identity as the root of knowledge.

Suppose I see an entity with a long neck, a bill, and white feathers that often is seen swimming in water. Maybe I

also see an entity with some similarities that I call a duck, or goose.

From each identity I arbitrarily select similarities and attach a label such as 'swan'. Eventually, I come across an entity with pretty much the same characteristics, only the feathers are black. The early category is never alleged to be objective identity.

A category is not an entity, but a mental invention. Being a creation of mind, I can change the selected similarities at will. I can expand the category, swan, to include those with black feathers; or, if I choose, I can present a different subjective label for those with black feathers.

So how does you mentioning induction the relate to the discusso of Rand's premises?

There is no such thing as a dual value system of both subjective and objective value. Whatever the existent, relationship, belief, feeling, etc. no "value" is attached unless and until an individual subjectively assigns

value to it.

A value is no objective entity like a black swan. Therefore you will never 'discover' any objective value "out there".

For I'm getting the impression that you now argue: "Okay, so far no objective value has yet been discovered, but maybe one day an objective value will be found, like they finally found a black swan." Is that it, Brant? ;)

Edited October 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffrey Smith

The ideas behind NLP have been around for a very long time, so they could be learned from other sources. It's not a co-incidence that one of the earliest books on NLP that the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming) refers to was entitled Structures of Magic. You can go into any New Age or occult bookstore and find the methods taught in any book that teaches visualization and certain forms of meditation, which is an important part of magickal practice. And a lot of self help books I've seen (and probably, a lot that you've seen) have them without referring to NLP by name. But if you refer back to George Orwell's treatment of Newspeak, you can see another version of the method being used in a non-magickal context. It's even present in Objectivism, in the sense that it is what underlies Rand's insistence on redefining commonly held words.

Why do you write "magickal" with 'ck'?

JS: however, in reference specifically to Xray, I think what you're seeing is a more basic flaw: the refusal to hold to any principles, resulting in a cloud of obscurity.

What 'principles'? Unless you become precise, this is too obscure.

But if you refer back to George Orwell's treatment of Newspeak, you can see another version of the method being used in a non-magickal context. It's even present in Objectivism, in the sense that it is what underlies Rand's insistence on redefining commonly held words.

The "selfless man" for example, is example of such Randspeak. Or attaching the label "altruists" to the "looters and moochers".

Edited October 21, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Textbook xray.

Tedious.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Textbook xray.

Tedious.

Adam

Will the leopard change its spots? Not likely.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

The "selfless man" for example, is example of such Randspeak. Or attaching the label "altruists" to the "looters and moochers".

I think of an altruist as someone who advocates altruism for others so to grease the shit he wants them to swallow. Xray would say all at this party are acting selfishly, but that's only her subjective (value) opinion.

--Brant

Edited October 21, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

A value is no objective entity like a black swan. Therefore you will never 'discover' any objective value "out there".

For I'm getting the impression that you now argue: "Okay, so far no objective value has yet been discovered, but maybe one day an objective value will be found, like they finally found a black swan." Is that it, Brant?

Well, I do concede, Xray, that you are not an objective value.

While I did not read your post closely--I'm busy trying to understand the price of oil--I get the impression that, yes, you have solved, you think, "the problem of induction," not that I'm personally interested in the problem one way or the other, but many big philosophical brains are.

--Brant

not a philosopher, but if a carpenter isn't around you have to drive your own nails

Edited October 21, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly,

Do you know if NLP is big in Germany?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Why do you ask?

Dragonfly,

I'm curious as to whether the body of literature for this has been translated or whether it is learned in English over there. I am just now studying a few works involving it and I am seeing some strong similarities between the techniques that are taught and some texts I read on the Internet (mostly Xray's delivery on OL, but she's not the only one and OL is not the only place).

These are formal techniques that are taught in very clear language. You can point to the teaching and the texts I mentioned, especially if the pattern is repeated, and show that there is a great possibility that the text was modeled on this kind of formal teaching. It's like being in the midst of people who only speak common everyday language, then you come across someone who constantly uses more complex, but correct, grammatical constructions. A reasonable conclusion is that the person has studied grammar.

The kind of technique I mean (as an extremely simple example for clarity) is the standard hypnosis command, "You are getting sleepy... sleepy..."

NLP patterns are not so obvious as that, but they are just as recognizable once you learn them.

I am a bit amused when I see this, too, because the purpose of NLP (or techniques that incorporate the techniques without using the term "NLP") is to induce someone to think in a certain manner. On good sales letters it works. With President Obama it works, unless he has a really difficult crowd and he flubs the basics (like what has started to happen with the health care stuff).

In Xray's case, she is missing one critical component and this is the reason she is unable to convince anyone of anything. Notice that people (like you) who agree with her already hold many of her conclusions. So they don't need convincing and I believe that they don't even see the techniques employed. Most other people who interact with her and hold different views are irritated by the techniques because they are carried out ineptly—missing some of the basics. That is why she is unable to get through to them except for a minor point here or there.

So I started wondering if these techniques are taught in Germany, but if something is missing in the translation. I know this sounds like a put-down, and my opinion of Xray is well-known, but this is not my intention here. I am truly curious.

I don't see this ineptness of convincing folks in Internet communication using studied techniques with Xray only. There are several other people and places. It makes me wonder.

Michael

It doesn't matter how effectively she uses NLP or anything else. She can't and won't get by the likes of me.

--Brant

vicious guard dog; won't eat poison

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

The decline you see is not a sign of lack of clarity in Xray's thinking (from what I detect). It is a sign of incompetence. What I see is like a person who pushes a heat-transfer operated button and it doesn't work, so he pushes harder and harder until he is thumping it. Of course, since the button is heat-transfer operated instead of pressure operated, thumping doesn't work.

Let's take the issue you mentioned: cloud of obscurity.

This has several names in the different schools of thought I have studied. Ambiguity and pattern interrupt are two. The purpose of the technique is to interrupt the previous thinking—the presuppositions—of the targeted person, to make him pause to get his bearings, especially with respect to expectations and previously held meanings. Throwing the person mentally off balance opens a small window of time (or opportunity) where he is more susceptible to having an idea implanted in his mind from a whole slew of below-the-surface techniques.

If this sounds manipulative, it is. But it's not all bad. Our nature is such that often what we desire and what we need (using a rational standard, of course) are quite distant. The good guys who do this stuff actually help us. For instance, the great leaders and millionaires who have become beloved are masters at satisfying both the desires and the needs of their public at the same time. In attending their public's desires, they nudge folks toward also acting on their needs.

Those who get in positions of prominence and satisfy only the desires but not the needs are usually seen as scam artists, sleazy people, vain self-promoters and the like that. (Those who do the needs but do not focus on the desires are often farmers and livestock merchants, etc. )

The funny part about watching Xray's performance is that no ideas get implanted in the targets at all. Instead, she pisses people off. As a practitioner of this stuff, she has a long, long way to go.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

One of my Father's favorite stories from his childhood was his classroom with the know-it-all kid who really pissed off the teacher: "But teacher," he said, "I only want that you should know the truth."

--Brant

[Mike Renzulli]

Yes it is. Here is why:

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.

- Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.

It would be one thing if there was a movement who liked both Christianity and Objectivism and decided to pick and choose which tenets of either philosophy they decided to follow. However, there is a (albeit small) group of people who claim to be Objectivists while simultaneously Christian.

To do so is an insult to the philosophy if not Ms. Rand herself. Quite herself since (if one studies both philosophies) one sees that Objectivism and Christianity are not compatible with one another.

Objectivism is based on reason and egoism while Christianity is based on self-sacrifice and faith.

Is it an oxymoron for one to identify themselves as a Christian Objectivist?

(I apologize for not elaborating much on the question. It is a fairly strait forward question that I have been trying to figure out myself, figure I'll ask the OL community and get some feedback on it.)

Edited July 23, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Xray]

I have bumped up this thread because of a recent PM I've had with poster Mike82ARP over the topic.

I've asked Mike if he would allow me to quote from what he wrote in the PM exchange since it contains several points which would make for a good discussion/debate on the forum. He allowed me to do so (the same goes for me).

Mike wrote:

"I dont see atheism as a necessary tenet of Objectivism and think Rands analysis in this arena was incorrect." [end quote Mike82RAP]

I replied:

I have to disagreee here - I see atheism as one of the pillars Objectivism rests on, and recall quite a few controversial discussions I've had on OL with other posters over that." [end quote Xray]

Mike:

"I've read enough Rand to see that her views on Christianity are wrong mainly because she paints Christianity with a broad brush and commits a composition fallacy/straw man. As I read her works and specific criticisms on religion/Christianity I thought, I've never heard of what she is talking about preached or taught in my church." [end quote Mike82RAP]

Mike:

I disagree with the premise that God doesn't exist and have my reasons. Neither viewpoint can be proven. I've been through these discussions ad nauseum, but I'd be interested to read why atheism is a "pillar of Objectivism". [end quote Mike82RAP]

Imo in examining the claim that Objectivism does not contradict the Christian religion(s), the key issue is not whether the premises of Objectivism/of the Christian religion(s) are correct/false - it is about whether they are compatible with each other.

I think they are so incompatible that one would arrive at massive contradictions in trying to become a 'Christian Objectivist'.

For Rand was clear as a bell when she said "No supernatural dimension exists."

With such a clear position, how can the Jesus character (the product of a supernatural being) be integrated into Objectivist thought without arriving at a substantial contradiction?

Not to mention that the Jesus figure is also the classic case of the 'sacrificial lamb', in a type of sacrifice which Rand spent a lifetime in attacking as 'irrational' and therefore 'immoral'.

To avoid possible misunderstandnigs, Mike: I'm no Objectivist, I'm merely pointing out what I think are incompatible contradictions between the Christian faith and Objectivism.

[BaalChatzaf]

On the other hand, Rand tells us that Existence Exists.

On yet another hand; when Moses asked G-D what His name is, G-D replied: Existence and A is A. "I am what I am"

In fact the name Yaweh is a form of the verb to be in Hebrew.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

God's an Objectivist!

Who'd of guessed...?

[Reidy]

_{That has been the official NBI / ARI line for over fifty years.}

[Selene]

Angela:

Thanks, nothing like the ole intellectual "bump and grind!"

Your post is an excellent window into several exceptionally intriguing issues of the individual's relationship to a secular reality and the individual's non-secular relationship to reality. Many have struggled with this issue from Martin Buber, the Jesuits and a lone individual sitting on the shores of great oceans, or, the tops of great mountain ranges.

Wondering how, and why, this immense panorama relates to them.

Angela's statement has validity, in, an "Objectivist" context, or, any other context:

For Rand was clear as a bell when she said "No supernatural dimension exists."

With such a clear position, how can the Jesus character (the product of a supernatural being) be integrated into Objectivist thought without arriving at a substantial contradiction?

Not to mention that the Jesus figure is also the classic case of the 'sacrificial lamb', in a type of sacrifice which Rand spent a lifetime in attacking as 'irrational' and therefore 'immoral'.

However, Mike's statement that:

"I've read enough Rand to see that her views on Christianity are wrong mainly because she paints Christianity with a broad brush and commits a composition fallacy/straw man. As I read her works and specific criticisms on religion/Christianity I thought, I've never heard of what she is talking about preached or taught in my church."

I have been exposed to both "camps."

The Quaker "church" that my lady and I attended in Virginia was completely comfortable with my expressions of Ayn's philosophy.

My father was excommunicated from the Catholic "Church" in the late 1930's for being a Mason.

So be it.

This is about personal integrity and, frankly, Angela, you did not have a "positive" experience in the "religious" schools that you were forced to attend.

Nor did I have any kind of "positve" experience with the Catholic "church."

However, I have had exceptional relationships, and, acceptances, with Quakers, fundamentalist christians and other seekers, both secular, and, non-secular.

I would hope that it is because I do not have a closed mind.

Great thread.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I used to think atheism was critical to Objectivism. But over the years, I've only seen this stance used as a litmus test to demarcate territory--them over there as opposed to us over here.

There is one exception. I have seen some people who have had extremely unpleasant or traumatizing experiences in religious environments and they are prone to emphasize the atheism component of Objectivism more than others. To them it is fundamental. To most people I see who adopt Rand's ideas, though, they don't care one way or the other.

Metaphysically, I remain ignorant on the issue. Like I have said elsewhere, I reject the dichotomy. The only thing I know about it is that I do not have the equipment to know anything with certainty beyond normal human knowledge. Belief in God demands a subjective experience. And, as far as subjective experiences go, people's mileage varies. Certainty only comes in subjective things to the person who experience it. (I'm talking about honest people here.)

There's enough similarity in reported experiences for me to respect the honesty and sanity of those reporting when they have good character.

This last--good character--to me has become far more important than metaphysics in dealing with others around a body of ideas. I would vastly prefer to discuss Objectivism with a Christian of good character, even though I may disagree with him or her on some issues, than discuss Objectivism with an Objectivist of bad character with whom I agree more than disagree.

I don't mean to insinuate which side has good or bad character, though. I only want to emphasize that character is my standard.

Apropos, I consider fundamentalists of any sort as having bad character. They will ALWAYS betray you or viciously attack you in a heartbeat if what you do or say conflicts with their dogma in a manner they determine is threatening. How do they determine that? It varies, but the one thing that seems to be universal is that if what you say or do can cause them to doubt their beliefs. That is the deal-breaker.

But that to me is a weak mind. And when these folks start destroying others to protect themselves from doubt, that is a bad character.

Branching out from Objectivism, I prefer to discuss Christianity, atheism, politics, dog training, recipes, whatever using the same criterion.

The takeaway here is that, in my experience, when a person adopts Objectivism, atheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of it, this is not a guarantee of good (or bad) character. Often, it is not even a good rule-of-thumb indicator. I. at least, need to know more about the person to make an evaluation I feel comfortable with.

So I've gone back to my roots on this one, a lesson I was taught as a kid: Compare a person's words with his or her actions. When they don't align, the deeds are a far better indicator of character than the words.

Michael

[anthony]

Belief in God runs too deep in the psyche, in earlier years especially, to just be rationalized out of oneself.

Could it be (it's appeared sometimes) that Objectivism is a useful vehicle away from religion, towards atheism for some?

It explains some anomalies among O'ists - if it is a transfer of loyalties, simply

Anyhow, the philosophy is exclusively pro-mind pro-reality, and less anti-god-concept - as I see it.

[BaalChatzaf]

One of my Father's favorite stories from his childhood was his classroom with the know-it-all kid who really pissed off the teacher: "But teacher," he said, "I only want that you should know the truth."

--Brant

And she replied: And the Truth shall send you to the Principle's Office.

Ba'al Chatzaf