Philip Coates

Barbara,

I'm so glad you'll be at this summer's conference. It will be great to see you again. And the topic you've chosen is enormously important... I hope you are not speaking at the same time as me.

(If so, then one of us will have to bail out and go attend the others talk. ha, ha. :-)

> I think Objectivists on the internet are a bad sample to draw a conclusion about concerning Objectivists in general. [Jim]

I agree with Jim on this. If you haven't attended a summer conference, it is striking the extent to which the bitterly angry and personally condemnatory people don't show up at all. The people who come have a certain benevolence, openness, and hopefulness and have their lives well in enough in order that they can plan far enough in advance and commit the resources to do this. People are friendly and in a good, holiday mood for the week. I find it hard to remember a time when I heard a voice raised at an Objectivist summer conference and when I wasn't surrounded by laughing, happy, smiling people who want to have an enjoyable time and learn something without a lot of darkness, a lot of endless bitching and moaning.

I've been to many summer conferences across many years and, with perhaps only the exception of the 'schism' conference of 1989 when the Kelley-Peikoff thing blew up right in the middle, the above has been the case.

Phil

PS, I personally find that I am critical of the Oist movement and online and in articles I have negative things to say and improvements I want to see, but when I go out among people such as at a conference, that is not the time when I personally want to dwell on these things. I want to socialize. I want to laugh, be among old friends. And meet new ones.

And put problem areas off to the side or on a back burner for one shining summer week which has often given me a taste of Atlantis.

(That seems to also be the general attitude of other conference attendees.)

> "What I seek from literature is insight, not inspiration." [Ellen]

Hi Ellen,

Even though I get both from literature, I don't see anything wrong with this. Maybe you already get enough inspiration somewhere else from a different source. Maybe you most desperately need insight. Maybe you are where you need to be and don't need inspiration so much. Maybe you don't find the characters real or admirable. I don't think being an Objectivist is defined as that or about whether or not AR's personal life is of interest to you. It's about agreement or disagreement with the philosophy.

But having said that, I find the debates about who is or is not an O an incredibly dumb waste of time by otherwise intelligent people [i don't mean you but I mean the endless, tedious debates and pulling and tugging over who gets to wear the golden fleece of Objectivism]. (And obviously degrees of fleeciness are possible...so it can be analog not binary). I would rather see people exhaust their neurons thinking about whether they agree with philosophical ideas A, B, C rather than doing the two-step on whether O = A+B+C and a separate step of whether or not they are therefore an O or a non-O.

Complete mental masturbation.

And not even to climax.

Phil

Barbara, I love John D. Macdonald. I discovered the Travis Mc Gee series and read each one right after college. I like Travis himself ... and even his struggles and doubts, because of the -way- he deals with them. And was pleased to discover that he has many other books. I agree that JDMD is much more than a mystery writer. His insight into people's psychologies, his acute observation of situations and the ways things happen in the world, his ability to trace out the detailed steps by which something complex gets done in the business world, etc. An enormously intelligent writer with a good heart.

Phil

> trying to base one's own personality and actions on a character (or other person). But maybe you mean something less strong than that, something like getting ideas of possibilities. [Ellen]

Hi Ellen, the dictionary simply says that a role model is someone worthy of imitation, or of imitation in a particular role. So that can mean one emulates one aspect of a person's actions or spirit or behavior, but not every aspect. One doesn't feel a necessity to wear a cape or die one's hair to have the same hair coloring as Howard Roark :-). I'm giving a talk on "Heroes and Role Models" at this summer's TOC conference. --Phil

Your Marie Curie example is right on target, but that doesn't mean that a fictional portrayal can't have something worthy of emulation. Or maybe a certain movie actress in all her films portrays emotional intensity or some other characteristic you want to remind yourself to have in your life.

Well, sometimes it's an even more to be prized compliment when you are grudging in your compliments and don't like a lot of things ... and then tell somebody, this time you were brilliant or reached another level. As oppposed to if you like or praise everything they do without discrimination. (It's sort of like those public school self-esteem building exercises where everything the kids do is excellent.)

The point is objectivity requires you do both. You have to criticize and you have to praise (provided you give good reasons or have a basis in each case). Most people's work will be deserving of each at different times.

Michael, I often have not liked your writing in the past. Especially when you have tried to write on Solo on technical topics, philosophical debates in Objectivism, I have been unable to follow you.

But when you write about what you know best, your personal feelings and exultations and heartaches and experiences, your writing is clear as crystal. It is heartfelt, moving, emotional, personal...and authentic.

This was brilliant.

Everyone who has been exposed to Ayn Rand seems to think they can write like her, grand treatises in Objectivist philosophy. But, while bright, very few have that skill or have been doing that kind of thinking across their lifetime.

Don't try to be Aristotle; try to be John D. MacDonald. That you could be enormously successful at, and even get a wide popular audience...something no arcane Objectivist inside-baseball philosophizer can get.

Kat, this is great! This is publishable quality...and it's the kind of thing people will remember. It's simple, funny, clear, people can identify with it. It's the kind of writing that works.

Kat, you need to submit this various places...it will be published. It's that good!!!

Phil

Hi Kat, don't be disappointed: there are ways to increase turnout. When I jump-started a club at UCLA, I got a number of people I already knew to poster up the entire campus (and in the less obvious places). In previous years attempts to start a club got a half dozen to show up. My attempt (since I knew how to publicize better) got 35, nearly half of them graduate students since I had carefully postered up every floor of every graduate school department. When I started a club in SF, I got the initial names by putting up a sign up sheet at an IOS one day seminar in town in which Kelley and others came to town and a hundred people showed up...so, I got more than 20 names and contact info in the space of a couple hours. Objectivists are diffuse and scattered so you have to use little tricks like this rather than the usual methods...

The principle is that Oists are very thin on the ground and not often joiners, so one needs more pump-priming, to do more publicity than one might expect to get critical mass at the "start up". Only once you have some numbers and helpers can you relax.... It's hard work.

Phil

Hi Kat,

Can you give us details on how the first meeting went? How many people and their age/sex demographics? Did you try any of the ideas from my long post...or that Luke has given, and did they work? Any big pluses? Any downsides? How was the time spent?

Phil

> I don't consider myself an intellectual, just an organizer.

Good! Best of luck, Kat. I'm sure you'll do fine. The clubs run by intellectuals who are arrogant about their knowledge of Oism and every little thing and who don't let others participate (or help lead and organize) are the clubs that tend to not last across time. By the way, where are these 'discussion questions' of Luke's you mentioned?

Phil

PS, I think it's a really great idea to be up front a the first meeting and say I'm a little nervous, I'm not an Oist intllctl, I am just feeling my way here, please advise me and help me... and so on. People can understand and empathize and are more likely to pitch in and do things when you need them. You'll need their help if you want to poster up a campus, as I mentioned.

> My impression or understanding is that Rand was attracted to Branden because he represented her ideal man on the philosophic level. He was the most rational, intelligent man she knew, the man who understood the world intellectually like she did, so naturally you should have the ultimate intimacy with such a man, if you can, right? [Roger]

Oh, I see your point now! If that were actually the sum of her thinking, ignoring the other issues then that's a big mistake on her part.

(Whether one applies the imposing label MBD is less important than just saying it's a mistake...many people confuse friendship or colleagueship or intellectual harmony or admiration with romantic attraction.)

phil...itslateandimtoodamntiredtocapitalizeorpunctuate

Hi Kat,

You asked me to comment as a teacher on your lesson plan for the first club meeting, but I clicked on your link above and it took me to RoR where it seems you have to be a Florida club member to read it. That's okay, because what I want to say is as a former club leader and multiple Oist club member. This is an unedited "core dump" so forgive me:

The main thing at a first meeting is not intellectual but social and good vibes. It's not school. People have to feel welcomed, noticed, visible, not be talked at until they get to know you. People who walk in and walk out without having had a good conversation with anyone will not likely return in high percentages. A good thing to break the ice is go around the room and have each person introduce self, say something about self, etc. It's okay if that is all you accomplish in your first meeting. You are not in a foot race. More broadly, academic or discussion group formats don't last even in Oist clubs unless you are college age and really don't understand the books. Multipurpose clubs that do lots of different things at different meetings so there is something for everyone ... activism, discussion, a chance to give a talk, a chance to get to know people, listen to tapes, recite poetry, etc... those work. Just because someone is an Oist or student of Oism doesn't mean they came to study. Maybe they do that alone. Maybe they don't think the ringleader or seminar leader knows more. Maybe there is a loudmouth in the group who constantly hijacks it. You can't really crack down on the latter at the first meeting or with people you don't know. Don't do all the talking. Try to form an "executive committee" within the first couple meetings of four or five people and hand out titles like VP, Secy, Treasurer, Social Coordinator, etc. or it will be you doing all the work and being unappreciated. The last title seems a bit social metaphysical or beneath their dignity to many Objectivists, but it's not: You need someone to make a point of greeting and chatting a bit with new people who wander in from time to time in every healthy and hopefully growing club. Most people will gravitate to their existing friends and ignore the totally new people, which is ok for them but disastrous for making lonely and isolated new people feel comfortable and visible. At the end of the first meeting, make sure to ask people with ideas and suggestions to stay a few minutes and make sure to get their contact info. You need a sheet of paper ready for this before the meeting starts. Actually, you need to get everyone at the meeting's contact info (email is bes so contact is not a recurrent hassle, but ask for phone as insurance) at the first meeting so they will know about the next one. And let different EC members be in charge of differfent things, like organizing different meetings. If you have anyone who has ever run a club or seems highly grebarious and warm, latch onto that person. He or she is pure gold.

Did I mention, don't deliver an academic lesson plan at the very first meeting unless you haver already met the attendees and know that is what the overwhelmingly want, regardless of what seems correct to want. Those who are new to an Oist club at first meeting don't yet know what mix of social, intellectual, activist, etc. they want not having yet tried it out, so don't take a poll at first meeting, because they will all say yes, let's discuss every book every time...and when they try it they will just quietly not start showing up. So you have to take the initiative till they can molre clearly see (and discuss) what activities and fomat seem the most fun. Do not over-schedule. Have meetings a bit less frequently than people seem to want rather than a bit more frequently. And have the meetings run shorter than exhaustion not longer. Good idea is short meetings and then those who don't have to get up early or whatever can adjourn to a nearby coffee shop or wherever. Learn about all the free ways to publicize your club. Go around and poster up the colleges. You need young people not just middle-aged fogies (or at least for them to have campus clubs and co-sponsor stuff) because they have the most energy and time and enthusiasm. The name "Ayn Rand Club" is better for attracting people than "Objectivist Club" (unless you want to be small and 'advanced', which I certainly wouldn't, but that's just me.) Why? Because the novel admirers all recognize the name Ayn Rand, but not the jawbreaker that starts with the letter O and could mean a club for goal setting and trying to figure out your life objectives.

Meeting in someone's house, depending on layout and ability for all to hear and be together, is usually more comfortable assuming comfortable chairs and soft seating than in the back meeting room of a restaurant. For a while we had a nice house to meet in in SF and also in LA. Marsha E and Jackie H have good club articles up on the TOC website. I don't agree with everything, but many good points.

Phil C

Roger, I agree with Michael, thanks for the thoroughness and detail. I also would love to hear more and wish I could have been there to ask ten thousand questions.

On your point about Rand's liking "the rational, productive crusader..the dashing hero" as an ideal man and "the quiet, rock-steady pillar on which she leaned when things weren't going well". I don't think there is necessarily a mind/body split here...neither for her nor for other people. You can have a warrior, a pirate, an Einstein as someone you admire in fiction or on the pages of the newspaper. But what you personally need in your daily life, while not incompatible with that, can be that a certain other constellation of traits are in the ascendant. The same can apply to a man and his needs as to a woman. While I need to see geniuses and unprecedenteded original intellect out there in the world, what I personally need in a woman is that she be intelligent -enough-, but warmth, openness, benevolence, and a predominantly sunny disposition are far more important (at least to me) in person than that she be the second coming (no pun intended) of Aristotle.

While every single one of the characteristics you listed would enhance the value to you of either a mate or a fictional or distant hero, you need some of them more and some of them less in each of these cases. There is an objectively valid difference of stress or emphasis in what you need to focus on somewhere out in the world from time to time and what you need to have by your side and constantly interacting with you.

Not the slightest degree of mind/body dichotomy involved.

Phil

Hi Kat,

I would like to see balance in the work of ARI, TOC, etc. between Politics, Ethics, Esthetics, Epistemology...etc. The problem is a lot of Oists are politicoeconomic junkies...and it's easier to write about those topics and there is a large audience for them.

Phil

Barbara,

I knew nothing about her (her life and her integrity) prior to this, but this makes me want to learn more. Thank you.

Phil

(By the way the vodka-chocolate-ice cream recipes were a joke: do not try them at home)

> there is very little one can create out of ice cream, vodka, and chocolate bars

Barbara, I don't know how you can display such ignorance. Here is what you do:

Step 1. Pour a glassful of vodka. Use a chocolate bar to vigorously stir the vodka and drink it.

Step 2. Use a chocolate bar as a spoon to scoop out and eat some of the ice cream. Eat the spoon.

Step 3a. Lightly heat a skillet. Melt another chocolate bar. Everyone knows melted chocolate is delicious on....

Step 3b. ...vodka. Pour another glass of vodka. Stir in melted chocolare. Enjoy your first chocolate vodka as you continue to cook.

Step 4. By now the ice cream may be starting to melt. Scoop out the remainder and add it to the now sizzling chocolate remnants in youir skillet. Add remaining chocolate bars and use a professional quality wire whisk to stir the smoldering mixture very thoroughly.

Step 5. If your smoke detector goes off, pour another glass of vodka and ignore. If it does not go off, or in either case, pour the rest of the vodka into the skillet.

Step 6. Turn off the skillet and allow the ICCV mixture to cool. When it is cool, pour some into a glass and enjoy. Pour the rest into ice cube trays for future use as a drink freshener.

"If the characters are taken literally, are they healthy humans?" [Ellen]

This is an extremely important question because it applies not only to reading a novel but to living.

Rand's characters differ in regard to their realism and/or role model status. Regarding Eddie Willers, Ellen asks whether "whatever is right" is a good answer for a ten-year old or whether it shows a lack of adventurousness. Part of the answer is Barbara's point that there is a distinction between taking something literally and literarily. Ayn Rand is not writing realistic fiction but stylized fiction. Eddie's quote is put in the book to stress his unbending nature where ethics is concerned. But Eddie is not an innovator, not on the mental level of the main heroes, so it would be a mistake to portray him as a leader or innovator, rather than a follower. Also, a good novelist has secondary characters who we only catch glimpses of. They are more one-dimensional, written to stress a trait or a characteristic. And so you can't really ask whether this single quote of Eddie's shows lack of independence if he were real, unless you know whether in another mood or situation he expressed an independent streak. What one is supposed to do in reading literature or in absorbing or trying to emulate Eddie (as opposed to doing psychology--a different context) is to abstract out that attitude of always doing what is right, forgetting whether it would be said at that age, and use it as inspiration to do so in one's own life.

This leads to a very important point: Ayn Rand not only did not fully flesh out all of her characters, but she did not sketch her good characters as -perfect-. We can see that in the confusions and mistakes made by Rearden and Dagny in regard to, in the one case, not understanding himself, his moral code, his sexual preferences fully. And in the other case, some degree of tunnel-visioned focus on the job, saving the railroad to the exclusion of doing other things, thinking through other things.

"Some exemplar if it takes her two years to realize that she's burning with desire for a man. Where's her awareness of her own signals?" [Ellen]

Without these mistakes or conflicts or short-sightedness there would be no story and thus no novel. Certainly, the other or primary heroes (Francisco, Galt) are shown making fewer of these mistakes across the entire novel. But there is another point: To be too critical or disillusioned with Dagny or not to view her as a role model because she is not fully aware of even important things about herself is to deny human nature and the degree to which even towering, admirable people make silly mistakes or have huge blind spots. But the important point is that they are no less admirable because they are not perfect. I'm going to come up with a new, original thought now, and remember that you heard it here for the very first time:

Nobody's perfect. (Not even you.)

[There, I've said it. I've been dying to find a context to say that to an audience of Objectivists :-)]

Nonetheless, it is also quite important to consciously remind oneself when the characters' attributes are ones that should -not- be literally emulated, without translation. Roark's indifference to people and unwillingness to grant a single word more than necessary dramatizes his independence in a novel, but one does not literally manifest independence in that extreme a form in everyday life, nor are the members of the architecture profession literally quite so much of a mindless herd as they are required to be in the novel, nor are so many people at the top of professions mediocrities, nor as far as I know is a Toohey literally possible.

There are two opposite kinds of mistakes those who are basically admirers (Objectivists...and ordinary fans) have made over the years encountering Ayn Rand's towering heroic characters ... and the world of her novels more widely. Both of these mistakes are very widespread and highly damaging. Both are mistakes in how to read, use, or gain sustenance from literature (and the other arts) and mistakes in what degree of embrace or distance to take with powerful role models.

One is to absorb everything about the heroes or the book too uncritically into your soul, becoming a Dagny workaholic or a Dominique alienation-and-contempt-atrice or a Roarkian impervious anti-social monosyllabist...or someone who thinks himself surrounded by evil in a vicious, verge-of-the-Dark-Ages world.

The other is to turn away from that (from the characters or from Rand or from the novels) when one finds an imperfection or a one-dimensionality or a mistake, rejecting the character or viewing him as not fully admirable, and not implementing him as a role model for how one should live one's life in -any- form.

Phil

> "hope you'll stay, at least long enough to see the overall thrust...this board here is still very, very young...try to be bit more tolerant inside yourself (to yourself) of the meanderings of some members"

Guys, I overreacted in my first post. And was too negative too quickly.

> Still like to see more of you however.

When I get a "put down" or an instantly hostile or defensive reaction to what were honest criticisms (accompanied by one compliment), rather than having them addressed, it doesn't make me eager to post again.

Phil

(It's an old Objectivist story: no matter how valid your case, when you criticize a student of Objectivism, too often you've simply caused resentment or made an enemy, not caused him to stop and ponder or carefully, thoughfully, unemotionally address what you said, point by point.)

Kevin, your "Super Persons Anonymous" story is clever, funny and satirical, delightful, and well-written. You have a great deal of talent and potential as a writer!

I just joined this website today.

A major lure was that I was very interested in the original purpose of this thread which was to discuss Ayn Rand's characters as models to follow - in the original post raised by Ellen and replied to by Barbara on whether Rand's characters are emulatable, to be taken literally as opposed to literarily. And I was formulating some points on this as concretely applied to Dagny, Rearden, Eddie.

That in itself could be grist for hundreds of posts.

Unfortunately, as I continued to read the thread, before much time had even been allowed, it seems to have veered off subject or gotten hijacked by two or three people into any other sort of issues related to Rand's writing style, where people lived, personal history with each of the novels, etc., and so on. So by the time I am ready to post, people are immersed in conversations on new subjects. From experience, this means that several topics tend to interleave. And posters may tend to get long-winded or post many times in a row because they try to address several different topics at once.

That's okay if the hosts and members on thist site like to have that sort of threads and those sorts of discussions. Doesn't work for me, though, so I think I'll go back to the several other websites I look at. Maybe I'll check back on the site in the future....

...Also on this site, looking at some of the more philosophical threads which would otherwise interest me, there are a few -extremely- long-winded or post-every-half-hour or post-on-every-topic people. As a matter of personal preference, I much prefer "less is more". Personally, I like non-repetitious posts. And I don't enjoy hearing the same people on every topic since - even if they have good ideas - I end up hearing them many times. I like Barbara's essentialized style of posting. This is simply a matter of personal preference...and due to having limited time.

[To conclude on a positive note, I think the intention of this site, however, to focus on producing new work, on esthetics, creativity is a great one.]

Philip Coates