Bidinotto

John Dailey writes: ~ Given that "...all of man's virtues...pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness" (*my* underline), meaning primarily, only an individual's manner of relating him/herself to existence per se (hence, not to any restrictedly-particular part/sub-group of it, as say rocks, trees, animals, weather...or...other individuals), concern about 'benevolence' and 'tolerance' just seems...irrelevent. One might as well talk about...mere etiquette. O'ist 'virtues' are not inherently/primarily/basically, 'social-ethics' oriented. Oh? What about "justice"? Are we "just" toward "existence" at large, or toward only people in particular? The fact that Rand singled out seven CARDINAL virtues of her ethics does not suggest that they exhaust the list of all rationally valid virtues. Isn't courage a virtue? ("You have a great deal of courage, Dagny." --Francisco) Persistence? Diligence? If those aren't virtues, what are they? Finally, I found no resemblance between John's description of "tolerance" and "benevolence," and the discussion of those same concepts in David Kelley's books.

Just a word about the proper use of the term "psychologizing." Rand's definition: "Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence." Several things stand out here. First, note that Rand says "specific individuals." That is not what Roger has done here. Generalizations about a group or category of people who manifest certain behavioral traits are not pretended diagnoses of "specific individuals." Second, Roger didn't either condemn or exonerate "specific individuals" for their psychological problems; he cited actual bad behaviors, which ARE subject to moral judgment, then simply offered hypotheses about a few possible psychological sources for such behaviors -- which is a very different thing. Third, Roger didn't offer even these generalized psychological speculations in the absence of "factual evidence": quite the contrary. It would have been psychologizing had he said, "Ms. X denounces people at the drop of a hat; clearly, she is motivated by some deep-seated guilt complex; and a person so motivated is to be condemned." He didn't do that. He said, in effect: "What kinds of things could possibly account for the injustices and excesses we are witnessing, repeatedly, coming from a group of people? Here are a couple of possibilities; there may be others, but these seem plausible to me." Rand herself did exactly these things, frequently. Consider her famous dissections of the psychology of mystics in Galt's Speech -- or Francisco's soliloquy on the psychology of sex -- or her discussion of the duty-bound personality in "Causality Vs. Duty." Etc. In none of these cases did Rand specify the names of particular individuals who allegedly manifested such psychologies; and in none of them did she condemn the individual for his inner psychology. All of them are psychological generalizations drawn from empirical observation, but none pretend to be a diagnosis -- let alone a condemnation -- of any given individual. So in suggesting that his post amounts to psychologizing, I think Roger is being too tough on himself. I nowhere see in his post that we should condemn certain people because of their psychologies. I see him saying that we should repudiate them for their unconscionable ACTIONS -- but also try to fathom why the hell they would so abuse a philosophy of rational individualism. I found his observations and speculations valuable, and generally consonant with my own. Why valuable? Because the potential value of these speculative exercises for any of us is chiefly self-awareness: they sensitize us to the kinds of motivations that could cause us to behave badly, too. And forewarned is fore-armed.

My all-time favorite film is "A Man for All Seasons," the 1967 version directed by Fred ("High Noon") Zinnemann. This is virtually a perfect piece of film-making. The blue chip cast stars Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, Leo McKern, Nigel Davenport, Wendy Hiller, and introduces John Hurt. A stellar cast, performing flawlessly. The cinematography, costumes, art and set direction: all immaculate. Robert Bolt's extraordinary script is even better-integrated than his own magnificent stage version, on which it is based (with the exception of one remarkable exchange between Thomas More and Cromwell in the play -- arguably the best in the whole story -- which unaccountably went missing in the film). This is perhaps the most inspiring tribute to individual integrity ever filmed...and that includes comparison with such notable films as "The Fountainhead" and the various versions of "Cyrano de Bergerac." Until you see it, your life is diminished.

Thanks, Ethan. That's exactly how I interpreted these words from Joe's announcement on RoR: "The goal is to keep this site as a haven for Objectivists to come together and promote our own ideals. Those who find benefit in engaging anti-Objectivists are free to do so without having to worry about cluttering up the rest of the forums." Sounds fine to me.

Let me begin by saying that I don't really have a dog in this race. There is no single, absolutely right kind of a forum: the rules for each depend entirely on the purposes of their respective hosts, and what they wish to accomplish. An "introductory" forum trying to attract newbies and non-Objectivists might invite their fundamental challenges to Objectivism about the basics of the philosophy. There's definitely a value in that kind of forum. By contrast, though, a forum intended for committed Objectivists, who prefer to probe and debate the nuances of the system, might well wish to exclude opponents and newbies, who sidetrack such discussions with questions and comments about matters that most Objectivists regard as "settled." There's value in that kind of forum, too. I read Joe Rowlands's announcement of the new RoR policy as an attempt to make his site more of a forum for discussion and development of Objectivist ideas by self-identified Objectivists, rather than as a place where non-Objectivists or anti-Objectivists may weigh in at every turn, demanding justification for basic premises that most Objectivists have already worked through. Now, if that interpretation is accurate, I don't see anything wrong with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with a more inclusive kind of forum, such as OL appears to be. So I have to disagree with those who read some kind of Orwellian mind control into Joe's agenda of providing a forum for committed Objectivists, rather than for Unitarians, Christians, Buddhists, or others who wish to challenge Objectivism at every turn. I also sense from the remarks by Joe and Ethan that there is an additional concern for the tone and manner of some critics -- not just for disagreeing with Objectivism, but in a disagreeable manner. Rather than simply ban such people, which they'd have every right to do, I think it's a mature alternative to provide a separate place for them to say whatever they want, and to allow those who find value in their comments to engage them there...while sparing participants in the main forums all such distractions. If that's a roughly accurate description of what the folks at RoR are trying to do -- and perhaps Joe or Ethan can clarify if it is or isn't -- then what, exactly, is "wrong" with it?

I always thought he was one of the more reasonable and non-dogmatic Objectivists. Oh well, one learns. Dragonfly...what makes you think I was specifically singling YOU out? I have seen a lot of acrimony and anti-Objectivist trolling on the boards, including RoR, and simply thought that Joe had a great solution to it, in principle: don't necessarily ban the stuff, just quarantine it. But since he provided no names of anyone sent to "Siberia," how could I possibly know that you were included? I honestly haven't followed your posts closely enough to have an opinion of you, one way or the other.

"Armando." Heh. Eeet eees pronounce "Arrrrrmmmmaannndo." You weeeemen like Arrrrrmmmmaannndo, no?

That "current plot summary" has been a placeholder on the Baldwin site for about a year. There's nothing "current" about it, and since it was first posted, there's been a lot of additional writing and editorial input. My take: somebody needed to post something on the Baldwin site about a year ago; and someone dashed something off based on preliminary discussions. This is not the shooting script, folks. If it gets to shooting script stage with this sort of stuff in it, THEN is when we have to worry. But at this stage, even the first draft of Jim Hart's Part I script is little more than modeling clay. Relax, already.

Gary, yes -- she was lovely and absolutely charming. But more importantly, her talk, "Rage and Objectivism," was absolutely stellar. Analytically brilliant, rhetorically elegant, calmly delivered, and completely spellbinding. It was -- in content, style, and Barbara's own demeanor -- a withering refutation of her critics, whom she was far too classy even to name. The Summer Seminar audience is a tough crowd, but she got a long standing ovation for her masterful dissection of those who have hijacked and vandalized Objectivism. I simply can't wait for my colleagues at TAS to publish and post this talk, and for interested individuals to then compare it "side-by-side" against the "rage"-driven attack against her that occurred the same week. The direct comparison will be utterly devastating to the credibility of her critics.

Amen, Roger!

In answer to Roger Bissell's request above, David Kelley's 1994 essay, "Better Things to Do," is posted online here: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--3-Be..._Things_Do.aspx One of the things that has occurred to me recently is just how parasitical is the anger/"passion" of the emotionalist-Objectivists. Observe that the focus of their "passion" is wholly other-directed. As Rand wrote in a letter to Nathaniel Branden on Sept. 1, 1950, "Anger is a form of recognition. It amounts to admitting that those people are important to you and that they have the power to hurt you. Actually, they haven't." To dwell on such anger—to nurture it, to encourage it in others, and then to blame those who rise above it as being unconcerned with values—is a sad confession of psychological dependency. Consider the degree of obsessive dependency required to draw someone from half a world away simply to fulminate in the shadows of those who make him angry, in the pathetic hope of being noticed by them, and cheered on by a tiny claque. Of course, this juvenile petulance is bolstered by an "argument." But methodologically, the "case" for anger and rage rests entirely on rationalism. The basis for this rationalism rests in the very definition of "anger" that was apparently offered at the parasitical counter-event to the TAS Seminar in Orange, CA, last week. Michael (above) brilliantly exposes what is wrong with that definition: To be fair, Perigo did define anger in general, but it is so limited in the context of his speech—or anywhere else for that matter—that it is useless as a definition. He stated: "Anger is an intense emotion reflecting strongly held convictions and values." Actually, this applies to love, fear, delight and many emotions, not just anger. Try it. “Love is an intense emotion reflecting strongly held convictions and values;” or “fear is an intense emotion reflecting strongly held convictions and values.” Any of the basic emotions fit. Indeed. In fact, every emotion is a psycho-physiological "response to values." But what values? "Convictions and values" can be valid, or not—life-affirming, or life-denying—positive, or negative. Killers and sociopaths can also become angry and enraged when thwarted, when something occurs contrary to their expectations and hopes. So, does their anger reflect "strongly held convictions and values"—and are we thus supposed to praise them for it? Rand said, "Don't bother to examine a folly—ask yourself what it accomplishes." In that vein, note what this completely bogus "definition" of anger accomplishes. The equation of anger with strong commitment to "convictions and values" is an attempt to smuggle into the very definition of anger the seeds of the subsequent argument, allowing it to become "true"...by definition! All one need to do is to deduce away, rationalistically, from the definition, and—voila!—one's anger becomes a moral badge of honor. But suppose one incorporates into the definition any of the other, familiar, but less savory characteristics of anger. Such as frustration. Such as a sense of social impotence. Or, following Rand: such as the sense of the profound importance of others, and of their power over you. Try deducing the character implications of "anger" and "rage" from any of that. Is the emerging portrait of the angry man an admirable one? As Barbara Branden was absolutely careful to indicate in her speech, there is such a thing as justifiable anger. But anger is not always justified. And like all emotions, the emotion of anger itself betokens neither virtue nor vice—merely a strong response based on thwarted expectations or other frustrations. To harbor this sense of outrage, of hurt, of frustration; to wear it as a badge of honor; to make it central to one's psychological and ethical outlook...this is not an emblem of morality. It is a sign of gross immaturity, of a state of frozen emotional adolescence or even emotional infancy. It is certainly not a sign of that serenity of spirit celebrated by Ayn Rand in the characters of her two ultimate fictional heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt. How should we respond to the purveyors of rage? Well, an adult does not deal with unruly, unreasoning adolescents and spoiled, fulminating children by futile argument and persuasion. When kids throw irrational temper tantrums, a mature adult knows that it's time to send them to their rooms. Metaphorically speaking, I suggest the same treatment to this latest clique of raging adolescents. Send them to their rooms. Or, rather, let them stew and fuss and spit and fume in their tiny online enclaves. Let them rage until such time as they begin to remember their birthdates, and the fact that they are no longer kids—and that if they expect to ever keep the company of mature adults, they must begin to behave with the civility and dignity that their ages, and adult society, expect and demand.

You missed one, under "books": THE CONTESTED LEGACY OF AYN RAND, at http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-62-17...gacyonline.aspx

Though not pre-planned to do so, a number of stellar TAS/TOC Summer Seminar talks tackled the issue of problems within the Objectivist movement. TAS is in the process of compiling the following talks, and will issue them in several formats, and post them online as well: "Rage and Objectivism" by Barbara Branden. "Mature Objectivism" (excerpts) by Ed Hudgins "Who Is An Objectivist?" by Will Thomas "The Anatomy of Cooperation" by me (Robert Bidinotto) Each of these talks address different aspects of the ugly schisms, denunciations, and emotionalism that has marred the Objectivist movement since NBI days. They supplement and update the case in David Kelley's Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. But because they focus on the timeless principles involved, they make that case without giving the latest tiny gang of rage-gorged moral poseurs any of the personal attention they so desperately crave. The combined impact of all these talks is simply extraordinary in its depth, insight, and persuasiveness. I am confident that they constitute what will be seen as the definitive case against the sort of nonsense that has become an obsession of too many -- both of the perpetrators, and of those equally obsessed opponents, whose pointless debates with the perpetrators continue to add fuel to the fires. You will see this material on our website very soon, and published soon thereafter in audio and perhaps print formats, as well.

If only 7-10 people attended this "event," while scores attended Barbara's, why give these people the time of day? Do you not see how you are playing into their hands? They LOVE this sort of attack. Attack is ATTENTION. I've said it before. The best gift you can give to these parasites and guttersnipes is attention. They crave it. Why else do they go all the way to Orange, California -- in one case, from New Zealand -- if not to leech from the TAS audience? The Roarkian lesson is: Don't think of them. Do your positive work. Don't give these people the sanction and gift of notice.

Thanks, Michael. Besides your own letter, you didn't mention other letters by George Cordero, Jason Pappas, and Tibor Machan. Also, I ended the issue with an editorial, "High Noon for Free Speech," that attacks the corporations (e.g., Borders Books, Comedy Central, etc.) which fearfully capitulated to the hypothetical threat of radical Islamists during the recent "Muhammad cartoons" controversy. If I had to single out one feature in this stellar issue, the long interview with Walter Williams is probably the most thorough and provocative backgrounder on this wonderful economist ever to appear in print. I'm sure that some of his colorful opinions will have readers buzzing for months. Finally, besides the stunning cover, I also want to point out that the interior graphics, layout, and design continue to set new standards for Objectivist publications. People who wait to read the articles online just don't know what they're missing. And at over 40 pages, this is also the biggest issue of The New Individualist yet to appear in print. Those of you who have not yet subscribed are invited to visit the magazine's Web pages at http://www.newindividualist.com.

See the cover of the latest issue of The New Individualist by clicking here: http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=380

I very much appreciate the kind words, gentlemen. As you might guess, a hell of a lot of work went into this issue, and I'm very proud of it. And if you've liked this cover and the previous one, you'll love the next one!