Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

The most obvious uses for NLP that I have come across are the typical values people have pursued throughout the ages of human history when they try to control others: getting power, getting money, getting a person into bed.

On a small philosophy forum, I can only speculate what this person wants. The two things I have come up with that sound the most plausible to me are (1) to sow the seeds of doubt concerning Rand and Objectivism anywhere and everywhere possible, and (2) to practice for bigger things.

In the first (seeds of doubt Rand-wise), she has latched on to my statements about checking all premises, including ones from Rand, as the justification for doing her attacks on Rand here. My intent is to foster people thinking through issues and arriving at their own conclusions. This might be considered as manipulating others (and several fundamentalists are on record as considering this to be an attack on Rand), but I am up front about what I am doing. Nothing is hidden. (Hell, I'm even blasting the covers off this subliminal stuff.)

I have the best interests of everyone at heart. I sincerely believe there is nothing more important in a person's life than the practice of thinking for himself, especially on fundamental issues. I am selling that viewpoint, so to speak.

In her case, her intentions are masked as true interest in ideas, true interest in what folks are thinking, true interaction with others, true interest in Objectivism and Rand, etc. But the series of techniques presented in her posts are too structured (despite the ineptness) to be coincidental. This is studied stuff deployed for a specific reason.

One of the things taught in these techniques is that you have to prepare a person before your ideas can be properly implanted in his mind (mostly through embedded commands). A person who is convinced of an idea not only needs to doubt the idea, but needs to doubt the source of why he arrived at it in the first place. He needs to be totally off balance in his mind. At that moment you can zap him with a pretty high possibility of making some kind of impact.

As far as I can tell, Xray's conception of preparing folks is to get them to doubt all things regarding Objectivism, starting with the word "objective." This explains to me why she has criticized a lot, but presented very little. She's in the first stage of subliminal persuasion, which is prepare the target. But there's a lot more to this stage. I believe that any dork following the routines in a standard bestseller on how to pick up chicks would do a better job than she's done so far.

In the second case (practice—sort of like finger exercises to learn the piano), it is obvious that the ideas in Objectivism represents a major threat to established domatic institutions and even the government. Those who believe in dogma (or pursue power) feel the threat on a visceral level. And I know it must be aggravating to them that, for as much as they poke fun and sneer at Rand and Objectivism, it just won't go away. This is not due to the efforts of the "movement," either. The [dis]organized Objectivist movement is a mess.

The fact is that Rand's books sell over a half a million copies each year. Many people of influence and power are touched by Rand, one-by-one. And they say so. Just look at their stories of how they came across Rand. You will hardly ever see the finger of the "movement" in these stories. I know that this fact does not escape dogmatists and power aspirants. So they have to figure out what to do about it.

Discredit Rand is the obvious course of action. And where do you do that? I am speculating, but the core movement places like ARI and TAS is where I would start. Although these are not a primary causes in spreading Rand's ideas, they actually do perform some idea spreading and they do come with an air of authority. But before taking them on, you better get discrediting Rand to those who agree with her right, though. That means practice.

What better place to practice than a place like OL where you won't get banned like you do at the minor fundamentalist online places for exploring negative thoughts about Rand and Objectivism?

At first I fell for all this and tried to discuss ideas in depth with Xray. Once I became convinced of the patterns I was seeing unfold in her behavior in light of studies I am doing for Internet marketing (where NLP is used by the major players to sell their stuff online), I lost all interest in discussing intellectual issues with her.

Now, in my mind, she is not really a person anymore. At least not a person I want to discuss ideas with.

She is an excellent specimen for study, though.

I find her ineptness at manipulating others through subliminal techniques fascinating within this context. That's why I discuss her. It's sort of like a frog you dissect in a high-school biology class.

You can learn just as many useful things watching someone fail as you can watching others succeed.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Does anyone know if Barbara has bailed out from OL?

She hasn't posted for a month and a half and whenever I've logged on and seen who is online, she has never been looking at the list for that same period.

Barbara Branden wrote carefully, intelligently, and clearly, didn't post every thirty seconds, and was one of the handful of posters who has something to say and was worth reading.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[tjohnson]

....and is one of the handful of posters who has something to say and is worth reading.

Do you include yourself in that group?

[Brant Gaede]

Does anyone know if Barbara has bailed out from OL?

She hasn't posted for a month and a half and whenever I've logged on and seen who is online, she has never been looking at the list for that same period.

Barbara Branden wrote carefully, intelligently, and clearly, didn't post every thirty seconds, and was one of the handful of posters who has something to say and was worth reading.

Gee. Only a "handful" post anything at all. I'd like to see Phil's list. I'm sure Xray is right up there near the top--unless it's alphabetical.

Barbara was last signed on on Sept. 17. I presume she's writing or on a cruise and is well.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I presume

Answers, not guesses.

[Michelle]

Michelle,

The most obvious uses for NLP that I have come across are the typical values people have pursued throughout the ages of human history when they try to control others: getting power, getting money, getting a person into bed.

On a small philosophy forum, I can only speculate what this person wants. The two things I have come up with that sound the most plausible to me are (1) to sow the seeds of doubt concerning Rand and Objectivism anywhere and everywhere possible, and (2) to practice for bigger things.

In the first (seeds of doubt Rand-wise), she has latched on to my statements about checking all premises, including ones from Rand, as the justification for doing her attacks on Rand here. My intent is to foster people thinking through issues and arriving at their own conclusions. This might be considered as manipulating others (and several fundamentalists are on record as considering this to be an attack on Rand), but I am up front about what I am doing. Nothing is hidden. (Hell, I'm even blasting the covers off this subliminal stuff.)

I have the best interests of everyone at heart. I sincerely believe there is nothing more important in a person's life than the practice of thinking for himself, especially on fundamental issues. I am selling that viewpoint, so to speak.

In her case, her intentions are masked as true interest in ideas, true interest in what folks are thinking, true interaction with others, true interest in Objectivism and Rand, etc. But the series of techniques presented in her posts are too structured (despite the ineptness) to be coincidental. This is studied stuff deployed for a specific reason.

One of the things taught in these techniques is that you have to prepare a person before your ideas can be properly implanted in his mind (mostly through embedded commands). A person who is convinced of an idea not only needs to doubt the idea, but needs to doubt the source of why he arrived at it in the first place. He needs to be totally off balance in his mind. At that moment you can zap him with a pretty high possibility of making some kind of impact.

As far as I can tell, Xray's conception of preparing folks is to get them to doubt all things regarding Objectivism, starting with the word "objective." This explains to me why she has criticized a lot, but presented very little. She's in the first stage of subliminal persuasion, which is prepare the target. But there's a lot more to this stage. I believe that any dork following the routines in a standard bestseller on how to pick up chicks would do a better job than she's done so far.

In the second case (practice—sort of like finger exercises to learn the piano), it is obvious that the ideas in Objectivism represents a major threat to established domatic institutions and even the government. Those who believe in dogma (or pursue power) feel the threat on a visceral level. And I know it must be aggravating to them that, for as much as they poke fun and sneer at Rand and Objectivism, it just won't go away. This is not due to the efforts of the "movement," either. The [dis]organized Objectivist movement is a mess.

The fact is that Rand's books sell over a half a million copies each year. Many people of influence and power are touched by Rand, one-by-one. And they say so. Just look at their stories of how they came across Rand. You will hardly ever see the finger of the "movement" in these stories. I know that this fact does not escape dogmatists and power aspirants. So they have to figure out what to do about it.

Discredit Rand is the obvious course of action. And where do you do that? I am speculating, but the core movement places like ARI and TAS is where I would start. Although these are not a primary causes in spreading Rand's ideas, they actually do perform some idea spreading and they do come with an air of authority. But before taking them on, you better get discrediting Rand to those who agree with her right, though. That means practice.

What better place to practice than a place like OL where you won't get banned like you do at the minor fundamentalist online places for exploring negative thoughts about Rand and Objectivism?

At first I fell for all this and tried to discuss ideas in depth with Xray. Once I became convinced of the patterns I was seeing unfold in her behavior in light of studies I am doing for Internet marketing (where NLP is used by the major players to sell their stuff online), I lost all interest in discussing intellectual issues with her.

Now, in my mind, she is not really a person anymore. At least not a person I want to discuss ideas with.

She is an excellent specimen for study, though.

I find her ineptness at manipulating others through subliminal techniques fascinating within this context. That's why I discuss her. It's sort of like a frog you dissect in a high-school biology class.

You can learn just as many useful things watching someone fail as you can watching others succeed.

Michael

Well, one thing is for sure: this place is exhausted soil for her. She has been deliberately confusing discussions for months, and everyone has followed the same route: they talk to her seriously, because she acts 'innocent and interested,' if you will, to discover what they believe. After a while, they start getting frustrated because she acts daft and all their discussions go in an incomprehensible circle. Eventually, they start wising up and noticing patterns to her behavior. Suspicious patterns. You don't have to know NLP techniques to realize she's just messing with you. Eventually they either end up ignoring (as I usually do now) or insulting her.

I don't like speculating about motives, because I feel it is none of my business, but I think you're probably right about *why* she's doing this. She's not a troll, since she's not trying to just rile shit up. She's obviously not interested in serious discussion. She can't be here for pleasure: she shares no common values with the people here, and she is constantly being insulted.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Michelle R

[Brant Gaede]

> I presume

Answers, not guesses.

My guesses are my answers. Learn to read plain English. And while you're at it, learn to avoid your collective insult technique as on display in your previous post. You do it time and time again.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

I think that the problem with Eddie Willers isn't so much that his fate is tragic, that he becomes the victim of the looters' society, but the cavalier manner in which the heroes treat him. He's not asked for the Gulch (in contrast to a truck driver, for example). The farewell to Dagny is embarrassing, as he confesses his love for her, which comes as no surprise to her, but of course as some kind of lower animal he's too far below her to think of anything more. Why didn't she have at least occasional sex with him? He was perhaps not a great innovator or leader, but he must have been quite competent to be Dagny's Special Assistant for years and he shared her philosophy, but it seems he had one fatal flaw: he didn't belong to the elite.

What irks so many people (Objectivists included) is that the cavalier attitude of Dagny and the other heroes contributes to his fate. Yes, officially he chose it himself, but there is no serious attempt to dissuade him from his dangerous and probably fatal mission, let alone any attempt to rescue him. The official reason for his fate might be that people of his calibre cannot survive in a looter's society, but the impression that the reader gets is that the heroes are quite unconcerned about his fate and seem to treat it just as collateral damage. That is the origin of the dissatisfaction with Willers' fate, not the tragic end in itself. We may feel sad at reading the fate of Cherryl Brooks or the Wet Nurse, but we don't have the feeling of betrayal that we experience with Willers' fate.

[Selene]

Michelle,

The most obvious uses for NLP that I have come across are the typical values people have pursued throughout the ages of human history when they try to control others: getting power, getting money, getting a person into bed.

On a small philosophy forum, I can only speculate what this person wants. The two things I have come up with that sound the most plausible to me are (1) to sow the seeds of doubt concerning Rand and Objectivism anywhere and everywhere possible, and (2) to practice for bigger things.

In the first (seeds of doubt Rand-wise), she has latched on to my statements about checking all premises, including ones from Rand, as the justification for doing her attacks on Rand here. My intent is to foster people thinking through issues and arriving at their own conclusions. This might be considered as manipulating others (and several fundamentalists are on record as considering this to be an attack on Rand), but I am up front about what I am doing. Nothing is hidden. (Hell, I'm even blasting the covers off this subliminal stuff.)

I have the best interests of everyone at heart. I sincerely believe there is nothing more important in a person's life than the practice of thinking for himself, especially on fundamental issues. I am selling that viewpoint, so to speak.

In her case, her intentions are masked as true interest in ideas, true interest in what folks are thinking, true interaction with others, true interest in Objectivism and Rand, etc. But the series of techniques presented in her posts are too structured (despite the ineptness) to be coincidental. This is studied stuff deployed for a specific reason.

One of the things taught in these techniques is that you have to prepare a person before your ideas can be properly implanted in his mind (mostly through embedded commands). A person who is convinced of an idea not only needs to doubt the idea, but needs to doubt the source of why he arrived at it in the first place. He needs to be totally off balance in his mind. At that moment you can zap him with a pretty high possibility of making some kind of impact.

As far as I can tell, Xray's conception of preparing folks is to get them to doubt all things regarding Objectivism, starting with the word "objective." This explains to me why she has criticized a lot, but presented very little. She's in the first stage of subliminal persuasion, which is prepare the target. But there's a lot more to this stage. I believe that any dork following the routines in a standard bestseller on how to pick up chicks would do a better job than she's done so far.

In the second case (practice—sort of like finger exercises to learn the piano), it is obvious that the ideas in Objectivism represents a major threat to established domatic institutions and even the government. Those who believe in dogma (or pursue power) feel the threat on a visceral level. And I know it must be aggravating to them that, for as much as they poke fun and sneer at Rand and Objectivism, it just won't go away. This is not due to the efforts of the "movement," either. The [dis]organized Objectivist movement is a mess.

The fact is that Rand's books sell over a half a million copies each year. Many people of influence and power are touched by Rand, one-by-one. And they say so. Just look at their stories of how they came across Rand. You will hardly ever see the finger of the "movement" in these stories. I know that this fact does not escape dogmatists and power aspirants. So they have to figure out what to do about it.

Discredit Rand is the obvious course of action. And where do you do that? I am speculating, but the core movement places like ARI and TAS is where I would start. Although these are not a primary causes in spreading Rand's ideas, they actually do perform some idea spreading and they do come with an air of authority. But before taking them on, you better get discrediting Rand to those who agree with her right, though. That means practice.

What better place to practice than a place like OL where you won't get banned like you do at the minor fundamentalist online places for exploring negative thoughts about Rand and Objectivism?

At first I fell for all this and tried to discuss ideas in depth with Xray. Once I became convinced of the patterns I was seeing unfold in her behavior in light of studies I am doing for Internet marketing (where NLP is used by the major players to sell their stuff online), I lost all interest in discussing intellectual issues with her.

Now, in my mind, she is not really a person anymore. At least not a person I want to discuss ideas with.

She is an excellent specimen for study, though.

I find her ineptness at manipulating others through subliminal techniques fascinating within this context. That's why I discuss her. It's sort of like a frog you dissect in a high-school biology class.

You can learn just as many useful things watching someone fail as you can watching others succeed.

Michael

Well, one thing is for sure: this place is exhausted soil for her. She has been deliberately confusing discussions for months, and everyone has followed the same route: they talk to her seriously, because she acts 'innocent and interested,' if you will, to discover what they believe. After a while, they start getting frustrated because she acts daft and all their discussions go in an incomprehensible circle. Eventually, they start wising up and noticing patterns to her behavior. Suspicious patterns. You don't have to know NLP techniques to realize she's just messing with you. Eventually they either end up ignoring (as I usually do now) or insulting her.

I don't like speculating about motives, because I feel it is none of my business, but I think you're probably right about *why* she's doing this. She's not a troll, since she's not trying to just rile shit up. She's obviously not interested in serious discussion. She can't be here for pleasure: she shares no common values with the people here, and she is constantly being insulted.

Michael and Michelle: damn an O ist dance team...would it be break dancing?

I am sure "she", if she is a she, gets off on the attention. Negative attention is better than no attention at all. Just the fact that I am typing this and we are discussing it is stimulating for her.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Learn to read plain English. -- (Brant's hostile and defensive post ignored.)

Still looking if anyone has any actual answers, beyond just gossip or guesses based on nothing about Barbara's absence. Or if she's bailed out from the list?

> the cavalier attitude of Dagny and the other heroes ...We may feel sad at reading the fate of Cherryl Brooks or the Wet Nurse, but we don't have the feeling of betrayal that we experience with Willers' fate.

Dragonfly, are you just winging it from recollection? I'd have to reread quite a large number of parts of the book involving Eddie pretty carefully to see if our impressions are true. And I'm sure you would as well. I'm certainly not going to accept all your points on your say so.

As for why the book didn't include Dagny having sex with him [Are you sure she didn't? Is that an example of treating someone cavalierly? Isn't attraction a factor?], there's a lot the book doesn't include. Are you suggesting that is a -literary- flaw or are you confusing this with what might have happened in real life?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michelle]

As for why the book didn't include Dagny having sex with him [are you sure she didn't?}

She didn't.

As to her perhaps having sex with him but this not being included in the book, don't you think that, with the degree of importance attached to sex by the characters, that it would be manifestly obvious in Dagny's attitude toward Eddie?

Also, there is a scene where she mentions to Rearden that she had one other love besides him. The reader knows that it is Francisco. Why would she lie about it?

Dragonfly: isn't your insinuation that Dagny should have slept with Eddie on occasion... well, somewhat insulting? Dagny treats sexual intercourse as something noble and life-affirming. She doesn't degrade herself by allowing a man she doesn't love to have sex with her out of pity. If she had occasionally slept with Eddie Willers, she would have degraded herself, Eddie, and their relationship.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Barbara read one of your diatribes about how poorly people behave on online forums. You showed her something she never noticed before. You convinced her. So under the impact of this epiphany, she left for good.

Just joking...

Don't worry, she'll be back soon.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

> the cavalier attitude of Dagny and the other heroes ...We may feel sad at reading the fate of Cherryl Brooks or the Wet Nurse, but we don't have the feeling of betrayal that we experience with Willers' fate.

Dragonfly, are you just winging it from recollection? I'd have to reread quite a large number of parts of the book involving Eddie pretty carefully to see if our impressions are true. And I'm sure you would as well. I'm certainly not going to accept all your points on your say so.

As I said, I think I know the book quite well. And as far as I can remember I've never anyone heard complain about the tragic fate of the Wet Nurse (a scene that is well written and admired by many) or that of Cherryl, accepting it as a part of the story. On the other hand I've seen many threads on Objectivist forums where people said that they were not comfortable with Willers' fate (which is in fact somewhat ambiguous), and as I said before, I think that this is not because he may be destroyed, but because nobody really cares.

As for why the book didn't include Dagny having sex with him [Are you sure she didn't? Is that an example of treating someone cavalierly? Isn't attraction a factor?], there's a lot the book doesn't include. Are you suggesting that is a -literary- flaw or are you confusing this with what might have happened in real life?

I'm sure she didn't (see also Michelle R.'s post). I'm not saying that this would have been necessary, but it could have improved the story somewhat, as it would have shown that at least one of the heroes did care more for him than only as a very efficient, loyal servant with the "right" philosophy. The implied message is here: Eddie loves Dagny, but of course she can't love such a lower breed of animal as a mere Personal Assistant, no matter how capable and efficient he is (I cannot help thinking of Rand and Frank O'Connor here, where the latter was hardly some kind of Galt either). And that is in my opinion a literary flaw, as it seems to go against the message of the book that the heroes do care about people with whom they share their ideas. Another view could be that it is a realistic rendering of the cruel character of Rand's philosophy in practice, not unlike the gloating description of the people who died in the tunnel in chapter VIII or the already much discussed episode of Dagny shooting the guard.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Low level internet behavior as a symptom of low level of living a life of reason

> one of your diatribes about how poorly people behave on online forums

Michael, they're not "diatribes", but accurate assessments generally offering evidence. I give reasons or explanations why they are destructive to conversations.

Not only that, my points are not peculiar to me, but are generally observed about the low level of internet behavior, snarkiness, ad hominems, "keyboard courage", personal vendettas, and grudge holding and the like.

To go even further, my points have a wider implication. One of the failures of the Objectivist movement is the failure to practice the philosophy. Lack of civility, benevolence, writing skills, lack of careful reasoning, personal attacks - these are all examples of that.

Nothing could be more serious or destructive than the failure of Objectivists to fully become men of reason, benevolence, and good will in everyday contexts as well as across the arc of their lives.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Dragonfly,

I can't discuss the literary merits of Atlas Shrugged on two different threads. Since that topic has long been going on on the 'Dagny..Hank...and the motor' thread, I'm going to stay on that thread with this topic (as long as my endurance holds out!) - especially since the original title indicates a purely literary topic. [by contrast, this thread has gone more into the nature of what constitutes a hero and the somewhat overloaded 'great literature' thread has been about all sorts of other writers from Shakespeare to Joyce to many, many others.

'Dagny..Hank...and the motor' has the most extensive discussion and has been going of for a long time on issues related to Atlas as literature.

(By the way, I want to say that I've enjoyed the posts and counter-posts, debates and disagreements, on these largely literary matters with you, Ted, Jeffrey, and others who have wanted to really explore those subjects. And also on the Linguistics thread a could months ago, which included Xray, Jeff R and others - esp. when non-snarky.)

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand wasn't very civil. Is that the root of the problem of getting Objectivism out into the culture? Maybe Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, isn't ready for primetime. Maybe that boat don't float.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

. Ayn Rand wasn't very civil. Is that the root of the problem of getting Objectivism out into the culture? Maybe Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, isn't ready for primetime. Maybe that boat don't float.

Brant, I think you name a very important point. I wouldn't say she wasn't civil, but a number of Rand's personal attitudes, her non-benevolent perspectives, her view that she was surrounded by evil and evasion and dishonesty pervasively were picked up by her followers. And this - not the philosophy which is true, but the psychology and cultural/societal implications, views of people if you will - in many cases isn't ready for primetime because some of those perspectives are FALSE.

Just as one example, I can't count the number of times an Oist when he gets really, really upset plays the dishonesty card.

MEEP, yes.

Psychological views and passing judgement, not always.

[Philip Coates]

> Is that the root of the problem of getting Objectivism out into the culture?

It's a big part. I gave a talk on "Heroes and Role Models" at TAS. People will follow or want to learn the ideas of role models. Seeing how someone acts is a lot easier to identify than abstract ideas. Then one says I want to learn this and be like this and see what's underneath it and study it.

If Rand (or Objectivists out there in the world) are viewed as bad role models, it will kill a lot of interest in the ideas.

That's why enemies of Oism know what they're doing when they try to drag her down personally, or anyone who they don't like who is viewed with admiration by large numbers.

Take religion: people became interested in Christianity because they thought Jesus to be admirable and courageous.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, they're not "diatribes", but accurate assessments generally offering evidence.

Phil,

Interesting.

How come they sound like diatribes then? And sound like diatribes to so many people?

On your "evidence" (God, how I dislike the Objectivist way of using that term to mean "example"!), I have caught you in inaccuracies and misunderstandings many times. My own opinion is that you have an autopilot you go on when you see something you don't like and neither read, nor write very carefully at those moments.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Take religion: people became interested in Christianity because they thought Jesus to be admirable and courageous.

I don't think Christianity took off until it became the state religion of Rome.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Take religion: people became interested in Christianity because they thought Jesus to be admirable and courageous.

I don't think Christianity took off until it became the state religion of Rome.

--Brant

Christianity became the state religion in part because it was taking off: probably 10% of the population at the time of the Edict of Toleration. While far from a majority, this wasn't chickenfeed.

On the larger point of Rand's personality:

Under her own definition of "spiritual", Rand was a spiritual leader.

People have a tendency to think of spiritual leaders as people who are better than they are: people who have overcome their own flaws--and think worse of those spiritual leaders when they don't prove to be better.

Jeffrey S.

[Xray]

You said that you taught "empathy" and "independent thinking," then fingered me and someone else as needing to "learn" these things. You did not just spout the obvious generality that "everyone needs to learn something." As I don't see how I am lacking in either empathy or independent judgment, I found this puzzling.

Michelle,

Please quote where I allegedly "fingered you and someone else as needing to learn empathy". (?)

I had written that I consider empathy (as well as becoming independent thinkers) as essential in my work with children, since they will be the adults of the future. You must have misunderstood something there.

Your verbatim question to me had been:

Michelle: You said I needed to "learn" something. What do I need to learn? Moral relativism? How to permanently retard my rational faculties?

I answered, as quoted by you in # 148.

I don't know if you have also read my # 86 post. In case you have missed it, here are quotes from it again:

You had asked me:

Michelle: How is Galt's Gulch "rigid" and "collectivist?"

Wasn't it you who commented that the denizens of Galt's Gulch acted "like a bunch of cloned mini-Galts"?

I have the same impression.

Michelle: What do I need to learn? Moral relativism?

Do you really believe there exists anything like objective morality?

Will such claim stand up to the scrutiny of checking its premises? It won't, Michelle.

I just went through past discussions we've had on this, and I see you have come to the same conclusion. (bolding mine)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4486&st=60 (quoted in post # 69):

Michelle: I wouldn't say that morality is objective.

Indeed it is isn't. Where do we take it from there? For now we are getting to the core of things.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle: I wouldn't say that morality is objective.

Indeed it is isn't. Where do we take it from there? For now we are getting to the core of things.

Michelle,

This is a fairly good example of the technique of reframing. I vastly prefer the term "presupposition" that I learned with another school. It's one of the few techniques Xray uses with bit of competence in terms of prompting response. In terms of using it to implant ideas, though, she is inept.

I don't know what your context was for that quote, but I am sure that it was not to embark on a journey of self-discovery with Xray by agreeing with (and adopting) her position on objective values.

The presuppostion is that you are in cahoots with her. The effect of this technique is that it goads you into wanting to respond to clarify that you are not. The idea (objective morality) used in this manner is merely the means to convey the real message and thus prompt your action. The real message is the false presupposition of pre-established agreement.

What payoff does she get? At the worst, with each response from you, she gets a new opportunity to try to manipulate you. That's at the worst. At the best, she trips you up and makes your doubt yourself.

Do as you please, though. I like things out in the open. That's why I am commenting.

So I'm just sayin'...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I don't think Christianity took off until it became the state religion of Rome. [brant]

Yes. Was that intended as a rebuttal or a disagreement to this?--> "People became interested in Christianity because they thought Jesus to be admirable and courageous."

If so, my point was not about the single point in time when C. became a state religion, but about people becoming interested in C. at all times -- before that, after that, across two millenia, all across the world, and even today. (Notice also that Christianity and Jesus were not the topic at hand.)

> People have a tendency to think of spiritual leaders as people who are better than they are: people who have overcome their own flaws--and think worse of those spiritual leaders when they don't prove to be better. [Jeffrey]

Exactly. That's why it is so important - and effective - for enemies of Oism to dismiss Rand personally, to paint her as vile or hypocritical or odious. If Jesus, Buddha, etc. had not been admired personally, there would have been zero chance for Christianity to spread or even reach the point of popularity and influence that the rulers would make it a state religion.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Michelle,

This is a fairly good example of the technique of reframing. I vastly prefer the term "presupposition" that I learned with another school. It's one of the few techniques Xray uses with bit of competence in terms of prompting response. In terms of using it to implant ideas, though, she is inept.

Michael,

I think my poist is a fairly good example of being precise by quoting what has been said together with links to the thread so the reader can also see in which context it has been said. That's what 'entity identity' is about.

I just went through this and other threads and am amused at the recent ballyhoo about NLP associated with wild speculations which seem to cast me as a "practitioner".

I know next to nothing about NLP (or any other similar techniqes), nor do I have the slightest interest in them.

What I do have interest in is formulating my thoughts in a clear manner so that the discussion partner can see my points and address them.

MSK: The presuppostion is that you are in cahoots with her. The effect of this technique is that it goads you into wanting to respond to clarify that you are not. The idea (objective morality) used in this manner is merely the means to convey the real message and thus prompt your action. The real message is the false presupposition of pre-established agreement.

What payoff does she get? At the worst, with each response from you, she gets a new opportunity to try to manipulate you.

The mere thought of manipulating anybody is completely contrary to my personal values.

The issue is about checking premises, which involves pointing out contradictions and addressing them so they can be discussed. Sine ira et studio. For getting emotionally worked up only blinds clear thinking.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Xray