william.scherk

Roger, Two lumps of meat interacting, of course. Nothing more. Up here we call them sweetbreads. The thought of eating all those veal thoughts is quite gruesome, I say, so I have never ever done so. Not to put too fine a point on my lancet, Michael, but if there is anything in the human corpse less like meat, it would have to be brains. The brain is actually remarkably stupid, as meat goes: no proprioception, no pain receptors, has trouble 'grasping,' eats only sugar, potassium and salt, couldn't get out of a paper bag without assistance . . . etcetera.

Another danged book recommendation, Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought." I thought I could pique your interest by noting that he posits a "language of thought," and wraps that notion up in the idea of Conceptual Semantics. Gee, Semantics and Concepts, hmmm. See review quote from Hofstadter, below**. Mind you, if you really are a Canuckistani, and you really are in New Scotland, you probably have already checked it out from your excellent local library in Antigonish. If not, Amazon.ca, and some reviews: LA Times review by Douglas Hofstadter The Guardian review by Deborah Cameron New York Times review by William Saletan **In "The Stuff of Thought," celebrated Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker sets out to explain how language reveals our inner nature. Terming us "verbivores, a species that lives on words," Pinker argues that our verbivorous, highly biased perception of reality differs radically from the findings of science yet allows us to thrive in a complex universe. The meanings of words matter profoundly, for words determine our reality, or at least a large part of it. Semantics is no arcane intellectual quibble; it lies at the core of our existence. Re: Stolen Concepts, the only reaction I have is, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and those who do not." Except for the fallacy of the excluded middle, my reasoned answer to all dichotomizers.

All very true but I was referring more to the differentiating, recognizing, etc. of structure that goes on in the cortex as a result of the neuronal activity, ie. "seeing" something Great thread. I commend the great god Ba'al and the discarnate Semanticist. Seriously, just a quick note on retina and on Thomas's differentiation interest. You might both have a gander at Oliver Sack's book "Island of the Colour Blind." The "seeing" of the subjects of the book is without colour, they have no colour receptors in the retina/brain; they are totally blind to red, blue, green, yellow, etc., via inherited achromatopsia. Highly recommended -- at a library near you See also "The Mind's Eye," a New York Times review. With regard to the 'Halle Berry' neurons, I will have to dig up the paper. "Potential applications of this discovery include the development of Neural Prosthetic devices to be used by paralysed patients or amputees," I guess these will be a more invasive means of 'thought-powered' arms. My amputee friend has one of those prostheses that is thinked into operation by a kind of re-routing of impulses sent to other muscle groups (in the stump). I wonder if there will be any great advantage to cracking open the skull and poking about if the result is similar to present prostheses.

Detention? Vacation? Huff? Howzabout dismissal?Permanent Recess. The dirt chute . . . Readers of this thread (perhaps avid silent lurkers like me) may have heard that the red button was depressed on Rick Giles today, over at the New Zealand based internet forum noted above. The stated reason by the Dowager Emperigo: "bad faith." The ostensible reason is that Rick made a recent series of argumentative assaults on reason, asking for a less doctrinaire anti-Islam rhetoric in light of the Sudanese demonstrations for the death of the Bear Moh-Moh, the evul children and the satanic British temptress. I've had several online chats with Rick, well before my plunge into serious depression. I was alarmed and charmed by his bluster, and discovered that I liked him. He set me some private challenges which I failed, and although I imagined he might land on my doorstep in Prince George (and as promised, "knock my block off") during the British Columbia leg of his North American tour, he didn't. I wish I had been less craven, spoken up and met him in the flesh (I have struggled with an attraction/repulsion to online Objectivism, especially fringes and freakshows and the extremists. I have struggled in my life with a combination of harsh, critical cynicism and wells of compassion). Rick's drop through the trapdoor underscores the ephemeral nature of some online alliances of Objectivists (and objectivishists) -- as hammered home by Robert in varied threads here and there. I don't know exactly what to make of the red button this time. The week long November operatic ruckus over Elijah Lineberry offers contrast, and I guess all I can do is climb back up the bleachers and heckle. And send Rick a belated "Welcome to the world of pro-am wressling" postcard asking if he wants to be friends with me. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In passing, best regards to my favourite folk here. Although I have backstage hectored and rampaged on even our host, I shall again strive to temper my rampages with affection and humour in 2008 -- while ephemera may be rampant and unremarkable, many slog hard, having made and making lasting impressions on this world, and on the worlds to come, whether by book, art, articles, postings or that often intangible and evanescent -- friendship. I wish happy Xmases, many festive and loving gatherings, religio-cultural joys and secular high holy days to all!

In the context of "What is consciousness for," your question is sharp. Although the danger in defining terms is that we can carve away all the wonderful connotations of a word and leave it like a boned fish on an empty plate . . . and while your question has a profound trap (how the hell can I know what is in the we-formation, the we-mind, besides consulting lexicons?), it is fun and can seed a hundred further discussions/tirades/obtuse idiomatic rants. I am pig-ignorant of the recently burgeoning field of consciousness studies, but cling to the speculative work of Antonio Damasio as you do to your pathfinder Korzybski, of whom I am also pig-ignorant. If you recommend to me an accessible Korzybski take on consciousness (of something), I will try to find you an accessible take from Damasio. ** But, at the risk of getting everything utterly wrong-ass, Damasio believes that consciousness in human terms is that which a normal, neurologically-sound person is aware of: the body foremost, the sensory 'images' pressing in from outside and the 'images' that flash through thought, and subsequent evolved capacities, emotions, feelings, self and conception of self in the temporal flux. His great book "The Feeling of What Happens" has a subtitle that captures for me the near-ineffable gestalt of his speculations: "Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (see this review if you are unfamiliar). If you can conceive of what it means to be "unconscious," and if you can read some of the case studies of Damasio (or Oliver Sacks, for good measure), you can sculpt your own conception of the common connotations of the word . . . In terms of "what consciousness is for," accepting that this is a metaphor like "What the Fox gene is for," I find it helps to think as Steven Pinker or Richard Dawkins suggest -- as an attribute of an evolved species, consciousness is not strictly for anything, as telos, as end, as purpose. Yet by applying a reverse engineering perspective, one can ask "what does it do?" and "what does its absence imply for its purpose?" and "are there levels of consciousness?" In my muddled understanding then, consciousness is a built-on extension of the senses that most living things have, an 'awareness-Plus,' a sophisticated homeostatic function of the organism. Consciousness of the type an amoeba does not possess is the function of the organism that says "I, me, mine, today, tomorrow, forever." And to stretch an analogy to its snapping point, consciousness is the Knowing of the Knower. Fascinating angles on consciousness come from consideration of coma, persistent vegetative states, locked-in syndrome, various agnosias and effects of brain lesions from the neurological literature. _______ ** in the meantime, a quick summary of Damasio's levels of consciousness here.

-- that's an intriguing statement. Have you read Steven Pinker's new book, "The Stuff of Thought"? It has some equally intriguing ideas, and comes close to supporting your intuition about analogy. At several points, but especially in the chapter 'The Metaphor Metaphor,' Pinker suggests that the power of analogy for science and reasoning in general is not from 'mere similarity of parts' in the two instances being compared. Rather, it is relations between the parts -- a disciplined tracing of the concept implicated in one domain can open a window to understanding in the other. Some concepts are so fresh or unfamiliar that the insight of a frame-shift/Gestalt is very useful. Because of the power of analogy to help our conceptual understanding 'snap to,' fallacious examples can be just as mentally satisfying as more appropriate ones. I twit Michael now and again for inapt analogies. As he suggests, it is my touchy elbow. The 'eureka' snap of concepts falling into place is great fun, but always needs checking. One of my favourite dumb analogies (this spouted out in the context of visionaries/crackpots/pseudoscientists like Velikovsky): "You may laugh at his theories -- they laughed at Galileo!" -- to which many wits have retailed the only proper answer: "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Maybe, maybe not. If you had actually mastered time travel, or could truly peer into the future, he might have considered you a magician or a true precognitive -- and been frightened. If you were able to give a bit more detail ('waves of what?' -- 'is this like the telegraph?') of the transmission, he might have said, "hmm, are you sure your name is not Jules Verne, are you not cribbing from his writings about tele vision?" He might have said, "I want you to talk to my friend Maxwell. This sounds like some of his work in electromagnets, by golly!" Or, he might have asked, "And did you know, Mr Kelly, that in less than two hundred years, the earth will warm, the seas will rise, and humankind will escape to Mars? And that orbiting satellites will first send tele vision in 1962?" The problem with analogy, as with hindsight, is that it is either almost exactly wrong, or nearly exactly right. It very much depends on the use to which it is put.

I look forward to that -- when I was hobbyhorsing 80s/90s therapy madness, one of the craziest cases was Paul Ingram. Does she mention that false confession case? I like how she lets us know that 'everyone' has the bias in-built: we tend to ignore things that clash with our self-concept. We all self-deceive, the more important the deception/belief is to our self-worth, the harder it is to remove. In Canada over the last ten years, the Crown has reversed several longstanding murder convictions. What made it so hard and take so long was the institutional dissonance -- once the suspect was in police hands, the die in some cases was set: "we don't make mistakes" . . . makes me wonder how may innocents were hanged before we did away with capital punishment.

That's okay. It's a mistake, and someone must choose: 1. "Um, mistakes were made, maybe (but not by me!)." 2. "You got me. I was not attentive in January. I stupidly thought this was a new summary." 3. "I was golfing on Venus; I remember mumbling 'Neil could have sent me a Telex.'" 4. "Carol Tavris says you are right to take things personally. I am an idiot." 5. "I am not gay wrong. I have never been gay wrong. I blame Senator Craig and the Airport." 6. "Oops. I laid a trap, and you fell in. Took you four minutes and forty-three seconds. Now what will you do?" 7. "How am I going to learn anything if you don't slap me around?" 8. "It's a matter of proportion. I usually tie my shoes before I tie the witch to the gibbet." 9. "That depends on measurement omission, or the principle of charity. Or something." 10. "I was in a shared coma with some other people at the hospitce" Depending on which choice, I may melt. I'll go with 2. As they say in the big comic books, Quasi Eat Daemonsrandum. I am just not as smart or even-handed as I think I am. WSS

I am wondering if anyone has picked up Carol Tavris's recent book "Mistakes were Made (but not by Me)." What makes me bring it up in this thread is not only her topic, but that Center for Inqury** has a great downloadable audio discussion (podcast) with her -- a possible answer to those of us who wonder at Valliant's non-response to criticism. I also think Michael and Jame H-N would like it ("Sure, mistakes were made, a lot, and all were made by YOU!" seems to be the subtext). Tavris is a great psychologist. Great speaker, good writer, cracker-jack brain. Here's a excerpt of the blurb on the CFI page: In this wide-ranging discussion with D.J. Grothe, Carol Tavris explains “cognitive dissonance,” and how it can lead to self-deception and self- justification. She talks about the ways that reducing dissonance leads to real-world negative effects in the areas of politics, the legal system, and in interpersonal relationships. She also explores what dissonance theory says about confronting those who hold discredited beliefs, what it may say about religious and paranormal belief, what implications the theory may have for scientists communicating with the public, and the role of the scientific temper in avoiding the pitfalls of cognitive dissonance. I haven't yet bought the book, but have been a fan of her writings (in relation to crazy 80s therapy cults, which were my hobbyhorse at the time). Tavris's explicit backbone to discussion is 'cogniitive dissonance,' and I can't be the only one who wonders if this is what afflicts James Valliant's thinking and behaviour. I don't generally comment on books that I haven't read (neither of the Branden books on their time with Rand, nor The Passion of yadda yadda Creeticks), but Neil's Valliant critique at IFeminist is superb, and got me to scratching an intellectual itch that I didn't really have time for. The podcast is found at Point of Inguiry, a 'digital media' arm of CFI/CSI**, devoted to rational thought, albeit non-Randian. There are too many good lines from the audio (it's a 49 minutes), but one about Lincoln made stuck out, something like: "He was wise enough to surround himself with people who disagreed with him." At bottom, a note I sent to Neil on his article appearance at IFeminist.com. WSS ** CFI is associated with the contemporary skeptic orgs of CSI. CSI = Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, until this year CSICOP, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Main base in Amherst, New York, but spreading its evul tentacles all over the world, and publisher of Skeptical Inguirer and Free Inquiry . . . Neil should be working with CFI/CSI. _________________________________________ Snar Par carp Brilliant work on SNARC, on ifeminist. Solid, impressive, Neil. Tops all your notes and posts so far, with its precision and rational tone. You can now retire to a sunny Italian villa . . . I know you will garner a lot of praise. I would not be surprised if some of the stupidest people (perhaps Val hisself) react, "just because Wendy McElroy calls 'the author' a 'fiend' and a 'de'-mented liar in her latest 'conspiracy of allegiance' . . . " and when someone else says, "James, that wasn't Wendy, that was Neil Parille," he can say, "I never 'implied' that 'it' was not the latest in a long line of 'Puerille' work" -- and then SOLO can decline to two or three regular posters instead of nine. Or maybe I give them too much credit. --Valliant is at home with English as a fish is with rational inquiry, or vice versa. Why some Objectivists cling to this person and his work I cannot fathom (me, not at all an O-ist, large O or small). The psychology fascinates me. The ick factor exponential. The sloppiness of people who claim to be fenced in by Reason, glorious Reason . . . If he was a fish and not a writer, he long since would have been clubbed to death and eaten with french fries. My mind has always staggered at the idea that someone so close to real disorder as Valliant has fans . . . anywhere outside of a psychiatric clinic, and even there, the friends have simply got to be the staff and not the inmates. Sorry for the hasty ramble -- I never comment on his book on lists, not having read it or the other two AR memorials. I would have said "the book? Make me read it, please. The man? Has been left in the sun much too long." But, should I break my 'delusional silent conspiratory': "Kudos, Kudos, Kudos, Mr P.

Apparently Lindsay Perigo is an experienced radio 'open mouth' host. I suspect that this longtime vocation -- of being host and button-man on radio -- inevitably shapes online persona and behaviour. To be both a host/enforcer AND participant is built-in to the radio format. All online forums are not built on the exact same scaffolding, but share foundations, if they feature the opinions of a master and have the master in the thick of debate: when a list owner is a regular participant, it mirrors the radio show . . . I think problems of this structure face anyone hosting an forum: rare that an Emperor keeps out of the 'Parliament.' I don't know how it is finessed elsewhere in the O-online world in detail, but it might not be possible to square the circle. No Emperor likes to give up either the power of the red button or the ability to enter discussion threads. How is it done to satisfaction at OO, THE FORUM, Binswanger's, Noodlefood, Meta-whatever, and so on? Much depends on the character of the Emperor/Empress, then. If you are Diana/B-swanger, you say "my place, my rules, don't associate with or give off the smell of a bad Objectivist." This might seem arbitrary to the mind of the person so banned or pre-banned, but completely justified in the mind of the big cheese. The old SOLO had the same problem, of course, and its somewhat shared ownership complicated it further. -- Lindsay there was "Principal Emperor" and so could behead or order headless whomever, for whatever reason. So could Joe Rowlands, the "Prime Minister." Sometimes they concurred in the beheadings, sometimes not, but there was a relatively large readership, so fresh verbal outfall tended to flow over the corpses, and many factions to feed meant that everyone should expect corpses to be tossed from the ramparts from time to time. In the O-online world, most of the participants and honchos are assumed to already possess The Truth (whereas the outside world cannot), so all are enured to a few innocents being beheaded on average. When Joe banned Lindsay, I think it was a horrid shock, whatever the ostensible reasons. Lindsay could not see himself being demoted, and could not see why (nowhere was the why ever spelled out, anyhow), and he could not forgive. And he could not change his own MO. My house, my rules. So the collected Lindsayite party clobbered up a new Palace and installed the old regime. Over time, on came a few 'parade-pissers,' 'pomowankers,' 'scumbarras' and 'jerk/idiots.' The fat finger trembled over the red button and pushed down heavily from time to time, no matter the 'guidelines' or 'credo' or whatever. Over at Joe's Imperial Hotel, the host continued to act more or less like Lindsay -- wrote up imperial edicts and entered threads on patrol against heresy -- and red-buttoned and hectored and saw to it that he had a nice party. Here at Objectivist Living, though the details, scope and ethos are entirely different, the same basic setup tends to apply. Michael is both Emperor and Parliamentarian. He reserves the right, as owner, to set the laws of the land . . . as with the other empires, he must keep the enforcement option close to hand. It could be no other -- the patrol function is a function of ownership. _________________________ No less a staggering intellect than Joe Maurone spelled out one aspect of this conundrum for Lindsay (gaining the epithet 'menstrual man'): When lapsed objectivist Bill Tingley was invited to rant about Jeebuz Lawd and inveigh against silly, blind, non-catholic Objects, dissent with the invite emerged like bed-bugs on a Throne. Ultimately, Maurone pointed out the oddity -- if Emperor can rant the party line in every thread, and seek to maintain his Prime among primos no matter the topic, how can he chastise those who find the invitation to Tingley to be stupid and unnecessary? Well, because he is Supreme. And there is no answer back. What is the answer to the apparent built-in unfairness of an emperor cum parliamentarian? I don't know. If the industry and excellent qualities of the proto-emperor attract readership . . . how can he or she maintain the empire? Which empire has ever had Absolute Ruler stripped of crown only to stand for election in the court of public opinion (Romania does not count)? How many objectivists are there, and what is their influence? can one who holds to objectivist virtues make common cause with the Non-O? EDIT: immured | enured, condundrum | conundrum, then gave up . . . NB to HillBill Barlow: the 'ramparts and corpses' are prossed from Wm Shnerck's 2006 posting 'Universe of Evil,' in which the Empress was portrayed by La Diana Diabolico . . . See GrandGuignol.com for additional non-prossed images

You will recover, Phil. Perhaps, when the SOLO readership dwindles even further, you will be invited back . Hypocrisy (of the SOLO type) does not demand consistency of itself. What I find interesting about the shrinking-readership SOLO is: how low can it go? How demented and shrill can it get? How unceasingly rabid-dog extreme can it become, before "1 members, 4 guests" is the solid core. How long before it fails to pay its fee and disappears into ephemera? I find the last three months to actually be a vindication of those who predicted its demise -- demise due to in-fighting and corrupt leadership. In any case, America (and its wonderful ideals/peoples) will survive for a while longer, either due to the principles of its founding, or to inertia . . . I find our human lives are too short to be a good measure of history (as in "the end" of this or that) and its ultimate import. If you have a lot to be pessimistic about, consider the alternatives . . . you could be Canada.

(contented sigh) Now, here I am thinking this should be moved over the Food subforum. I can't get all the pies straight . . . . . . on another note, what do you call (in Randianese) someone who does not face up to an opposing argument?

I don't . . . but the folks here do. [image from thomhackett.com, click to read another recipe]

I heard a radio interview with the medical director. The Daily Mail story both sensationalizes and distorts what really happens on the ward. The doctor mentioned that Oscar 'likes to be in on the action." As the stages of dying approach the end, the signs (for a cat) are as obvious as to a human. In the geriatric ward, of course, there is a change in activity, as the staff prepare for the final days and hours. Oscar, who seems to like the action, goes to the centre of the action. In a sense, Oscar has been 'trained' to be a 'hospice' worker. When the time comes, Oscar realizes the signs (some more obviously obvious to someone who has watched the death progression) and does his job. Since he is rewarded for this behaviour, it continues. So called science reporting just can't help but add such inapt phrases as 'predict,' divination, etc . . . this is crap. Nowhere in the interview did the Med Director note such notions. Still, a quirky, valuable story. End times with a 'trained pet'? It is no longer rare in hospice and geriatric units. In this case, Oscar is one of several 'resident' ward cats . . .

I have two, both from my genteel poverty days. Pea Soup and Veggie Chili. The pea soup uses split yellow peas, bay leaves, garlic, onion, carrot and . . . low-sodium chicken stock. Into the cooker in the morning goes two bay leaves, a whole head of garlic-pressed, chopped onions (white onions best), and peas/stock to a ration of five stock/one water. I a nutshell you bring it to high and leave in on high, and add pepper and a dollop of sour cream when you give it a final stir. Serve with nothing but a glass of water. MMM mmm good. If you have any points left on your card, you put in a cup(!) of full-fat whipping cream. Chili start similarly with a 60 ounce can of stewed tonatoes, basil, oregano, scads of Paprika, a cup of salsa of your choice, cumin, coriander, bulb of garlic (pressed or whole cloves), chopped red onions, and a mix of pinto/black/kidney(red) beans. You might want to soak the bean mixture in the fridge in cold water overnight to speed things up. The beans to liquid ratio is again about 1 to 4 or 5. Add sweet corn (frozen) . . . and let that baby bubble. (if you are a carnivore, you may add ground meat (chuck) to the mix at the very beginning. You can do this with a block of frozen meat if you like. I use ground turkey. On the meat side of things I have also experimented with a few of scary/good things. Pot roast in harsh wine. Just like it sounds, some cheap gristly roast, tomato juice (or a combo: Clamato or V-8 or Garden Cocktail [all VERY salty]), baby onions whole, carrots in sticks, turnips (if you like them), and a hint of fresh sauerkraut. Untie the roast before bubbling. Cover the meat and veggies with the lliguid, and top off with a harsh-ish red wine (dry) like a Chianti. Let er rip on high for a long long time. At the last half hour, tranfer to another pot (or if you are skilled, do in the same pot, but be careful with clumping) and let the liguid cool a bit; dip out a cup or two of liquid and mix in a garlic roux (crushed garlic, butter/Becel, flour) or a low-cal alternative, cornstarch (mix two tablespoons into cool water, add a bit of liquid), stif, pour back in the main pot and mix like a fiend until the liguid thickens to where you like it. If you have done the gravy separately, return the whole reeking garlicky, boozy mess to the slow cooker and keep the lid off while it does another half hour on high. By the time you pull out the meat, it will have dissolved into chunks and shards of transcendent tenderness. An option we use sometimes is to add baby corn, zuchinni chunks, pineapple chunks -- and a touch of black bean/garlic (Chinese style) sauce. Generally speaking, a crock pot/slow cooker is a cook's best friend (next to a Pressure Cooker). One last recipe might make you a bit icky if you don't like Oriental style food. Pork Malacanang Chunks of pork stew meat, loads of shredded (red)cabbage, pink lemonade (or apple juice, orange juice, juice mix (mango/papaya), whatever), whole garlic cloves in abundance, low sodium black soy sauce, sliced onions, ketchup (or tomato puree), dijon mustard (with grains), black demerera sugar, a touch of vinegar (sweek Japanes, or cider) or a pound of wet sauerkraut. Put a top on the cooker, and let it rock for SIX hours. It comes out kind of like a Filipino dish. Good with crisp veggie platter . . . or rice if you have the points. Hope that doesn't disgust you. We canuckis are multicultural in our food tastes . . .

-- why, you nasty, nasty man. How now can I sound less like Lord Peter Wimsey and more like a Dashiel Hammett hero? Seriously, good to har your news.

A cunning lead in to what is actually quite old, my first online clang! on Objectivish subjects, in which I compare Atlas Shrugged to Battlefield Earth [from freedomofmind, at yahoogroups, post number 23918, posted Wed Jun 8, 2005 -- I think I may have killed the thread. Note that Monica Pignotti is known as an apostate of two totalistic systems, The Callahan Technique and Scientology, and is a recent convert to a healthy, normal skepticism, though still touchy it seems on the subject of Rand] Snippet: Is Objectivism a cult? In my opinion, no, not really. Is it attractive to those who are vulnerable to the 'cult embrace'? Worth a thought, I would say. I close with a few selections from Branden, a couple of sharp quotes from a 1999 Lingua Franca essay, two abstracts on current science from 'official' Objectivism, and a tag from a radio interview with Objectivist educators Tara Smith and Betsy Speicher. Thanks to those who developed this thread -- and to Monica for opening the door to my comments! Freedom-of-mind is an excellent list that helps sharpen my mind. Re: new member posting re Rand Like Monica Pignotti I disagree with aspects of Michael Shermer's "The Unlikeliest Cult in History" (www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html), yet I would advise those interested in the Rand/Cult donnybrook to read and consider his complete essay. I wager that Shermer has a devotee's ability to be utterly enthralled by succeeding enthusiasms: fundamentalist christianity, objectivist philosophy, skepticism -- I note the wisdom of his central observation that the most "rational" of enterprises, science, may also be the object of cult-ish veneration. Objectivism a cult? No, probably not, in my opinion. But maybe another way of looking at the Cult/Rand meme: could we find cult-ish tendencies within the present body of Objectivists? Maybe yes. Maybe Shermer simply found a ready-made fit for his devotional tendencies after he gave up god . . . Maybe the observation of total immersion in and acceptance of Randian tenets by its more extreme adherents means less that Objectivism is a cult, more that Objectivism may tend to attract people who themselves behave, at times, like cult followers -- followers who venerate an ideal being holding final truth, who shows the only true and correct way to live life. Those who do interpret Rand this way frighten and appall me. I hope that not too many of them live in my town, although I do understand the appeal: a total system of thought and value can be very attractive to those who welcome the enveloping embrace of something that explains *everything*. (of note also is the cultish take-up and elaboration of Objectivist jargon: Altruism. Evaders. Evil. Sanction. Check your premises. Etc.) With regard to Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, in which she laid out concrete examples of her philosophy in action: Oi. Fantasy. Rant. Haranguing dialogue. Characters with the depth and realism of Skeletor, Lex Luthor, Bizarro Superman, She-Ra and Wonder Woman. So far I have only read the first 650,000 of its 800,000 pages. At the moment, as I struggle through the chapter "The Utopia of Greed," it reminds me most of L Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth," with Rand's monsters slightly more horrid and evil than Hubbard's nightmarish slavedrivers, the titanic struggle between good and evil only slightly more titanic . . . mind you, Hubbard's book is also slightly longer, at 1,000,000 pages of turgid, pulpy, entertaining hooey. WRT Tara Smith, you can buy her book and audio CDs at the Ayn Rand bookstore: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/products.asp?dept=45 (you can also listen to a radio interview with her here: http://www.prodos.com/archive032artscienceselfishness.html -- of note is the same stubborn neologism pointed out by Robert Bass in his The Misuse of Language: "Selfishness" and "Altruism," cited below -- why torture the word selfish, with its negative load of undue attention to self, when a more precise term like 'self-interest' exists?). . . but see also Smith's 'Why a Teleological Defense of Rights Needn't Yield Welfare Rights' in The Journal of Social Philosophy, and 'Rights, Friends, and Egoism' in The Journal of Philosophy. Considering that the utmost aim of the 'official' Ayn Rand Institute is to seed higher education with Rand . . . I might be forgiven for likening the success of Rand thought on campus to the success of Phillip Johnson's 'Wedge,' and the Discovery Institute: "Wow, scientists are taking Intelligent Design seriously!!! It's being discussed in books and journals and in lecture theatres . . . " Right. Is Smith an unprincipled huckster? No. Is she an independent scholar discovering the lost wisdom of Rand? Perhaps. But in the age of Madonna Studies and the opaque goo of Judith Butler. . . give me Patricia Churchland (Philosophy in the Age of Neuroscience) or Susan Haack (Defending Science - Within Reason) rather than Smith's party line. I tend to disagree with the practical implications of Monica's notes about science vis a vis Objectivism. For example -- Rand was not a fan of Darwin. She was not able to make natural selection jibe with her ironclad views about human nature, so she mostly ignored its implications for her philosophy. Same with psychology, physics, history, economics. For someone who styled herself reason incarnate, she was eqivocal about the fruits of empirical inquiry. Moreover, my recent reading of Randian disciples and subgroups indicates very little overlap with fresh scientific findings at all. Instead there is disengagement, disconnect, and heated harangues against 'environmentalists.' Check any website associated with 'official' Objectivism, and there is almost nothing about real scientific discourse, little to reflect the burgeoning literature of psychology. For example, altruism research -- on the too-numerous-to-mention Rand-influenced lists, there is no discussion whatsoever about what cognitive neuroscience suggests about altruism. Nothing of evolutionary psychology. Altruism is evil, so any attempt to find its roots in nature, human nature are flawed -- this seems to be the general reaction. In any case, to illustrate, consider what Rand herself proclaims about altruism. I am left wondering where on earth she dug up these definitions (from Robert Bass, cited below): On altruism (All quotes from the entry on "altruism" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon): "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (Lexicon, p. 4) "The irreducible primary of altruism ... is self- sacrifice – ... which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." (Lexicon, p. 5) "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value – and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." (Lexicon, p. 5, emphasis on "any," "only" and "anything" added) "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value." (Lexicon, p. 7) http://personal.bgsu.ed u/~roberth/misuse.html Oi. Consider also Randian thought's complete disdain and disengagment from 'emotion.' You simply don't find discussion of current research, let alone classics from Damasio, Plutchik, Ekman. Zip. Nada (for a full evocation of Rand's equivocation, read Nathanial Branden's notes on 'Hazards of Objectivism,' cited below). Search up 'Steven Pinker' 'Human Nature' & 'Ayn Rand' -- find things like this, from 'THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans,' topic 'Hardwired "trust?"' "Don't bother to examine a folly: ask only what it accomplishes. I have to wonder if these "scientists" understand on some level that altruism is irrational, yet seek to "I couldn't help it" their way past that bothersome fact by "proving" that it is "hardwired" into us. " - and - Havent you ever been tempted to ask these quacks if theres a gene for scientific fraud? http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/lofiversion...x.php/t916.html Oi again. Is Objectivism a cult? In my opinion, no, not really. Is it attractive to those who are vulnerable to the 'cult embrace'? Worth a thought, I would say. I close with a few selections from Branden, a couple of sharp quotes from a 1999 Lingua Franca essay, two abstracts on current science from 'official' Objectivism, and a tag from a radio interview with Objectivist educators Tara Smith and Betsy Speicher. Thanks to those who developed this thread -- and to Monica for opening the door to my comments! Freedom-of-mind is an excellent list that helps sharpen my mind. WSS ____ The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand "It's always important to remember that reason or rationality, on the one hand, and what people may regard as "the reasonable," on the other hand, don't mean the same thing. The consequence of failing to make this distinction, and this is markedly apparent in the case of Ayn Rand, is that if someone disagrees with your notion of "the reasonable," it can feel very appropriate to accuse him or her of being 'irrational' or 'against reason.'" "She used to say to me, 'I don't know anything about psychology, Nathaniel.' I wish I had taken her more seriously. She was right; she knew next to nothing about psychology. What neither of us understood, however, was how disastrous an omission that is in a philosopher in general and a moralist in particular. The most devastating single omission in her system and the one that causes most of the trouble for her followers is the absence of any real appreciation of human psychology and, more specifically, of developmental psychology, of how human beings evolve and become what they are and of how they can change." "I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, 'After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.' I asked her, 'You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms -- including humans -- evolved from less complex life forms?' She shrugged and responded, 'I'm really not prepared to say,' or words to that effect." http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...AndHazards.html Lingua franca -- September 1999 "Rand's feelings about academia did not mellow with age, as Mimi Reisel Gladstein of the University of Texas at El Paso learned while working on a critical study, The Ayn Rand Companion. Toward the end of Rand's life, Gladstein wrote to her, informing Rand of the project. Rand warned that, if the study appeared, she would sue. When Douglas J. Den Uyl of Bellarmine College and Douglas Rasmussen of St. John's University were putting together a collection titled The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, they faced similar discouragement from the author. (Both volumes finally appeared in 1984, unlitigated.)" http://web.archive.org/web/20020124040704 /http://www.linguafranca.com/9909/rand.html Lingua franca -- September 1999 "Objectivism itself was a piece of property, and her concepts were not available for unlicensed use. 'If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others,' she warned readers, 'do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship for the parts you agree with--and then indulge any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.' An unauthorized interpretation of an Objectivist concept was, ipso facto, a violation of her proprietary interest" http://web.archive.org/web/20020124040704/http://w ww.linguafranca.com/9909/rand.html The Ayn Rand Institute: Science "The Scientist Trap Monday, June 18, 2001 By: Robert Tracinski Honest scientists who think they are staying out of politics--are trapped into giving their stamp of approval to the global-warming hysteria." The Ayn Rand Institute: Science "The National Academy of Dubious Science Monday, June 11, 2001 By: Robert Tracinski The NAS panel told the president that the globe might be warming and that the results might be bad." http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...a_topic_science PRODOS.COM internet radio - THE ART AND SCIENCE OF SELFISHNESS Betsy Speicher: "Persuing my self-interest does NOT mean harming other people ... Altruism creates victims and oppressors!" Tara Smith: Putting others first (altruism) poisons relationships ... It makes every person out there a walking I.O.U. Topics covered include: Why is the concept of selfishness so misunderstood and misrepresented? Isn't everyone selfish? If only! Selfishness is not the same as gratifying your every desire. The morality of selfLESSness creates irreconilable conflicts within us. How the Ancient Greeks were accepting of self-interest. How ALTRUISM painted self-interest as harming others. Who gave selfishness a bad name and how they did it. Tricks used by advocates of selflessness - For instance: The benevolence trap." http://www.prodos.com/archive032artscienceselfishness.html

I noted, rather stupidly it turns out, in a thread called Shyness at Objectivism Online, that "evidence-based" psycholtherapy, such as CBT, DBT etc, was a testament to some of Rand's prescience (i.e., her insistence that the emotive-rational hinge was key to mental strength and moral compass). In the back of my mind (on the old grey chesterfield with the aging fellow who does my research, watching Trailer Park Boys and eating Cheetos) was the voice saying, "Who was that guy that kinda agreed with Rand in the early days, but took a poke at her later on? Huh? Oh well. He he he. Bubbles. He He He." Albert Ellis, the news tells us today, dead, the guy who grooved with and later pilloried Rand. I'm glad the old guy on the chesterfield didn't remember the name or I would have seemed pompous and ill-informed, instead of merely pompous. I had no idea. I had no idea he was so SCATHING in his criticism of Rand's latter excesses, I had no idea he had debated Nathaniel Branden on stage regarding Objectivist psychology, nor that he had published a freely available 248 page clang!er against the 'religion' of Rand -- "Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!"** How can I have missed the Ellis connection and its deeper ironies? In any case, I seem to have killed the thread over there at our sister site OO, not least because one of the self-identified shies there seemed to be saying that actually being with other human beings was necessitated but once a year, with the phrase, "So the question is rather: should I spend huge amounts of time and trouble so that I can enjoy a situation that confronts me maybe once a year? It's like curing your fear of bugs so that you can enjoy eating live spiders. What the heck for?" Now, how can I answer that. Hard enough to post inoffensively at OO anyways. Fans of Randiana will download the Ellis book, as I did, after registering at Lulu.com Here's two brief snips from his introduction. When I first read The Fountainhead in the early 1940’s I thought there was something compelling about the philosophy of Ayn Randor what is now called objectivism. Not that I didn’t have misgivings; I did. [ . . . ] But her individualistic outlook made some real sense to me; and it influenced me somewhat as I developed my method of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Frankly, I enjoy polemics. Pitting my thinking against that of other bright people is challenging and rewarding. I trust that I do not like this kind of thing for socalled egotistical reasons: to knock my opponents down and impress others with what a “worthwhile” person I am. But I do enjoy a good, noholdsbarred discussion. I think that people such as Ayn Rand and the Nathaniel Branden are worthy, enjoyable opponents. So lets zestfully get on to the fray! . . . and on that cheery note, who else died of Randian note? Great friend of gays, old whatsername . . . WSS +++++++++++ ** his chapter titles are, ahem, revealing: Chapter 5: Assorted Evils of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism Chapter 6: Why Objectivism is a Fanatical Religion Chapter 7: Ayn Rand’s Religious Absolutism and Need for Certainty Chapter 8: Definitional and Fanatically Religious Thinking Chapter 9: Ayn Rand’s Intolerance of Opposing Philosophies Chapter 10: Ayn Rand’s Deification and Hero Worhsip Chapter 11: Objectivism’s Unrealism and AntiEmpiricism Chapter 12: Ayn Rand’s Condemning and Damning Attitudes Chapter 13: Other Fanatically Religious Characteristics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism Chapter 14: The Religiosity of Ayn Rand and Objectivists

Don't come near me. Look, here's me on a little screen. Neat. "insanely unjust treatment" -- that's the felicitous phrase that jumped out at me. Now, a few days later (and a few outrages denounced), DMH is back at the barricades, as noted by OL's Robert Campbell, with two denunications and one blanket pre-ban, and one extensively footnoted cease-and-desist order. -- is this the beginning of megalomania, or the beginning of the steep downward slide into Princess of Objectivism? Her footnoted order snapshot here. Her blanket pre-ban,** Here the commentariat at Gulag DMH: Noodlefood comments, WSS +++++++++++++++++++ ** My devoted anti-fans are meeting yet again on The So- Called Forum for Ayn Rand Fans. They are quite upset at me for questioning and doubting Phil Oliver's claims of irrationality and ludditism on the part of Dr. Peikoff. The claims are too absurd for comment ... but nonetheless depressing. So, I have a new policy: If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then however honest and nice you are, please do not post comments on NoodleFood. Do not e-mail me with or for information -- or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with the fleas who attack me on that forum -- or the people who sanction such attacks by participating in the pointless bull sessions with the fleas on that forum. I do, after all, prefer to maintain some shred of self-respect.

Our inimitable Robert Campbell has set the stage upscreen. Thanks! But can we find the Stats == Ignorance cite without torturing Larry Budd?

Thanks for the note, Neil. What struck me was this, "Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India¸" Larry Budd moment, only if this is all truly believed by Larry Budd. Otherwise, LP is off the hook. So, where did he get this "[Ayn Rand held that statistics] may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge."? Is this true? If so, where did she hold forth on the topic? That would make interesting reading today in light of squabbles over climate change.

Has at it here in a post taken from the http://www.peikoff.com/ site, front page, in response to a question about Ayn Rand and smoking. I will search diligently to find out what the heck this snippet means. Q: If Ayn Rand were still alive, would she smoke? A: No. As a matter of fact, she stopped smoking in 1975. When the Surgeon General in the 50s claimed that smoking was dangerous, he offered nothing to defend this view but statistical correlations. Ayn Rand, of course, dismissed any alleged “science” hawked by Floyd Ferris, nor did she accept statistics as a means of establishing cause and effect. Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India. In due course, when scientists had studied the question, she and all of us came to grasp the mechanism by which smoking produces its effects—and we stopped. Doesn’t this prove, you might ask, that she was wrong to mistrust the government? My answer: even pathological liars sometimes tell the truth. Should you therefore heed their advice?

Oh, who am I kidding? I will restrain comment on this fascinating bit of self-promotion by Diana Mertz Hsieh on Objectivism Online: By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Source: On Ashland University - Objectivism Online Forum Address : <http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...ic=9972&hl=> http://www.objectivismonline.net/archives/002667.html

You are correct, dang! -- and I can't go back to put the phrase to rights in the now week-old post. Accept my apologies, please, or I will call you Reasonable and Intelligent and a Good Guy to Have Around in a Discussion, and then I will give your name and dossier to the Monks of Mount Ari. Then you will be in trouble with the Law of Identity, young feller.