IamBalSimon

I just did the test and asked my husband what he would say if it were me who, on the Titanic, suggested he get into the lifeboat first. He looked a bit puzzled at first, but them answered with a grin: "Well, if you insist. That's the price of gender equality, I suppose ." ;)

Typical tongue-in cheek comment on his part. He then said it's all so theoretical and that no one can really predict how they would react in such situations.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree that we don't know how we'll respond in an emergency. However, I have personally been in a few emergency settings, so I have some faith in my self-knowledge here. In all three that I am thinking about, I did not lose "the veneer of civility." And I did operate on the principle of "who's need is greater right now?" If I had the wherewithal to help, I did. So I think I'm on safe ground in believing I'd insist my wife get on the lifeboat, even if there's no room for me.

I think it is understandable that one would want to save one's loved wife, but would that necessarily imply letting non-related females getting a seat in the lifeboat as well, thus runnig the risk of never seeing one's loved wife again?

There is perhaps nothing external that would compel me to make room for a woman I didn't know. And, again, in these days of so-called "women's equality" (enforced by political correctness, and not practiced because of rationality), there is a part of me that wonders why I should bother with it. But I'm a creature of my times. I grew up when women were treated with great respect in my parent's home. I never knew about abusive behavior by adults until I got into high school. I certainly never saw it between people I knew. That's how sheltered I was from "the real world."

But actually, there is a principle here: namely, if I favor my wife to be on the lifeboat but not other women, why should any other man favor my wife to be on the lifeboat. It would be claw and teeth versus claw and teeth. I think humans are potentially better than that. Society works almost unconsciously on the basis of mutually agreed to customs. "Women and children first" states one such custom. I think, all told, it remains a good one because, by securing other women's places on the lifeboat, I increase the odds that my wife is one who is also on the lifeboat.

It goes deeper than this. If I was the only one with a gun, I'd like to think I'd enforce the women and children first rule against idiot, boorish men who have not an ounce of civilization coursing through their blood. Could I actually shoot such a jerk? I don't know. I do know I could threaten.

The context of this discussion offers an opportunity to check, via the role of the ship's captain, the Objectivist premises of selfishness being a "virtue" and of the "ultimate value" being "one's life". It is expected as the captain's duty that he stay on the ship.

What is the Objectivist position on this?

I assume you are asking in the sense of right and wrong, not in terms of contract. I agree - that is a very interesting question.

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? <snipped>

Imo it is empathy which drives them. Its effect being that they, at that moment, identify so much with those who suffer that the impulse to safe them overrides everything else.

For some reason I thought that Objectivists tended to scowl at the idea of "empathy." Personally, I think empathy is one of THE critical emotions behind civilization. It supports our ability to trust one another without an explicit contract or the force of the gun.

Why do I put money aside for my son to go to college instead of spending it on a frivolous entertainment or getting a new car?

The biological program to care for one's offspring is very strong.

Sure - but are strong biological programs alone a basis for rational behavior? Interesting thought. I think that biology doesn't give a rip about our philosophical discussions. And if our biology calls for empathy, we would do well to understand what THAT message is. There is promising research on the biological underpinnings of empathy in the neurological study of so-called mirror neurons. http://bit.ly/lb726G

- Bal

Interesting post there, Stephen.

I like to get at this kind of thing by looking into my own life and into the "real facts" that I see/hear about/read in the news and in historical accounts.

Let's begin with a famous custom that seems to transcend cultures and thus appears, on the surface at least, to be biological for humans: the notion of "women and children first." In a day and age where equality gets mixed in with political correctness, I sometimes get a feeling of derision toward the "women" part of that custom. After all, if women are my equal, why exactly, are they getting to go first? But then I think about the women in my life, i.e., those I care about, and my objections sort of melt away. If I'm on the Titanic, you bet that my wife and, thus other women, will be getting a seat on a lifeboat before me. (Over my wife's objections, btw - one of the few times I'd insist on overruling her preferences.)

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? Their "survival" is more assured if they don't; yet there are countless stories where they do; and it's almost a given that they will deny that they did anything heroic, though clearly their actions fit the definition of hero for many people, including me.

Why do I put money aside for my son to go to college instead of spending it on a frivolous entertainment or getting a new car?

The answer to both of these examples (and countless more) is that my self-interest extends beyond my self-preservation and my sensual gratification. It is that my self-interest extends into goals I have for my family and for society at large. I want my family to do well as I love the people in it. I want my society to do well because then I can be in a society that I like. I want societal policies to be scientifically based (if possible) because with good data you have a chance (not a guarantee) that you can make a good diagnosis and come up with decent plans. (That's the whole problem with the global warming/climate change discussion. People like me don't trust the scientists to be free of political (socialist) motivations.)

All of this - and more - is in my self-interest (including so-called altruism) because my self-interest extends far and wide.

- Bal

Doctor!

I've waited so long for the Blue Box to come into my life! How good to at least be able to write to you. How's Rose?

I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.

Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation. I am just an egg, and I'm OK with that. I'd love to be a bit more hatched (my wife tells me that I'm very hatched - but she means it differently; at least I think she does). There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance. In nature, water flows down a hill, not up it. Fire oxidizes and you can't unburn a tree. But the question emerges: wouldn't it have been simpler - less resistance - for there to be no universe at all? I have trouble understanding a situation where the universe always existed. I have equal difficulty understanding a situation where it did not. So I find myself going toward what I call "questionism" - which is a willingness to acknowledge that I don't know; that I don't currently have the means to find out; and that I should stop and "be OK" with the question remaining open - with my philosophy being less than fully integrated.

And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism. Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is. Additionally, in any philosophy more than a couple pages long, my pitiful brain can't fully integrate another person's whole philosophy wholesale. I have to do a lot of "retail processing" in the course of just living my life to understand it in the first place (if I want to) and then to adopt-modify-adapt or decline-reject the viewpoint.

Who's Rutter? If you're going to name a character Bertie, you may as well name the sidekick Jeeves.

Nah - just names I pulled out of a hat. Mabye my mind had some kind of subconscious throwback to a reference, but that was not my intent. Just wanted to create characters for the post.

Also - the dialogue was very short because I am well aware of how long my posts can be as I try to articulate my understandings.

- Bal

... that's the reason why I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy.

I've called it "eclecticism", but I like patchwork philosophy much better. Sounds a lot less pretentious. Well done.

Of course any patchwork philosophy calls into question the area of epistemology because one has to somehow know just which patch to use in a given situation. This seems more of an art (as in the phrase "medical arts") than a philosophical understanding. One feels it in the bones as it were. Sort of imagining a conversation:

Bertie: I think this is the right way to go.

Rutter: But how do you know?

Bertie: I don't know - I just - well - know it, you know?

At some point the conversation stops and you simply have to act.

- Bal

[...] I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Well, she didn't do so in her book — but she did, somewhat, in her screenplay:

Roark brings the drunken Cameron from the street into his office, who then rants, "You were going to take over when I gave up. My heir, eh?" (His emphasis.) He then points to Roark's mere half-dozen buildings thus far, pictured on the walls of the office, predicts that the world will defeat Roark, waxes wroth about a world ruled by "Gail Wynand's Banner, the foulest newspaper on Earth," and then collapses.

So Rand wasn't quite "appalled" enough to forego using that formulation, or something close to it, though she put it in Cameron's mouth, and Roark doesn't at all contradict him.

Still - that was fiction, and I didn't really see it as Rand explicitly legitimizing the notion of an "intellectual heir" in The Fountainhead. Also - might there be a difference between an "heir" in a commercial realm versus an "heir" in one that involves an individual's personal intellect? I can understand wanting the torch if there is an economic benefit. I can see wanting the torch if there is something to be passed on, like a secret. This is how master who own a dojo and a particular style of fighting transfer his/her (hir) imprimatur to a student. It might be how a "master" carpenter passes on hir knowledge to a favored apprentice. I can see someone being the "successor" (akin to an "heir?") in a business.

But is Objectivism like a martial art or a craft like carpentry or something with a line of succession as in a business? How can a philosophy be treated in that way? I can no more come to grips with someone wanting to be "The Poo-Bah of Objectivism" than I can with someone saying that s/he's the Lord of Godelism or Einsteinism. The mere idea of it makes me wonder about the intellectual makeup of the person who covets such a title.

Obviously, I can be totally misunderstanding what is involved in being someone's "intellectual heir." I'm open to being shown the error in my understanding. Indeed, I welcome it! But from where I sit, right now, it just seems pompous, puerile and silly.

No offense intended... just looking for clarification.

- Bal

Why would someone want to be someone else's intellectual "heir?"

Bal,

That's actually a good question. Unfortunately, Rand herself started it all by calling Nathaniel Branden her intellectual heir. Obviously, she later did not think that.

But to look at a similar example from her literature, Roark never said anything like that even though he was mentored by Henry Cameron. I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Michael

I don't know Rand like most of those on this board, but just from my reading of Atlas, I would imagine she would be both appalled and derisively amused at the pretentiousness of someone thinking that they are carrying someone else's intellectual torch. Unless of course, one is interested in pretentiousness or the affectations of it. But if that's the case, then that makes the "intellectual" aspect of it somewhat hollow. It's all well and good to acknowledge one's intellectual debt to another person. It is important to cite other people when quoting them. But to feel like one needs a public mantel of their achievement as a kind of trophy? I just can't fathom it.

I am just an egg. I have much to learn.

- Bal

I don't know much about this kind of thing, so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Why would someone want to be someone else's intellectual "heir?" That seems downright bizarre to me! It seems doubly bizarre coming in the land of Galt, Rearden and Taggert.

- Bal

... individualism, justice, hierarchy, and consciousness.

The first is acknowledgement of each person, as they come, as a single entity and context. Not making assumptions by groups -race, gender, etc - and assessing his personality, character, and morality. (Morality, being his most consistent explicitly held premises.) It will often happen, as with MEM's example, that one will appreciate a person's character while being opposed to his philosophy, and vice versa.

I agree with you for the most part in this. However, in real-life contexts, you may not have access to that person's real morality. You may not have sufficient contact and/or time may be pushing at you with some urgency. There is a reason that "rough neighborhoods" have a reputation for "being" rough. And someone like me takes such reputations quite seriously, fairly or not. And while I might be willing to put myself in harm's way by going into such a neighborhood, you can darn well bet that I will be exceptionally vigilant if I have my wife with me. Additionally, voluntary affiliation with a group does give me a first swack at understanding a person. For instance, if someone is a member of the KKK, I believe that, for the most part, s/he did not join under duress or as a part of an undercover sting. Thus such a person will likely have affinity for the group, and that tells me something - perhaps much. Similarly, if someone is part of a religion and extremists in that religion act heinously (abortion clinic bombs, beheading, stonings, etc.), I would expect the non-extremists in that religion to deny affiliation with the extremists. If they don't, again, that tells me something. In such a case it may be because the non-extremist sympathizes with the extremist or perhaps s/he is afraid that the wrath of the extremist will be directed toward him/her (hir). Either way, I feel quite comfortable in saying that non-extremists who are silent are probably NOT people I would want to deal with.

Justice, gives credit where it is due - and admits that a person is far more than meets the eye. It should prevent any easy and speedy judgment (prejudice) which would be an injustice to the person, and probably untrue. It indicates benefit of the doubt, and benevolence. Only when this has been exhausted, would one withdraw the credit.

I'm not sure of your meaning here, Tony. If someone beats up another person at a McDonald's (as happened this week), and it is caught on video tape so that we have the perp dead to rights, other than exploring for mitigating factors, what else is needed than what meets the eye? If I compose a piece of music, then I guess justice means that I acknowledge the people who influenced me and even more, those who taught be enough so that I can make a go of it.

But I'm thinking I don't have your meaning right. So please elaborate.

Hierarchy, the eventual 'placing' of another person in your esteem-structure, based on long experience, thoughts and emotions about him - his objective value, and the value you find in him.

I have to say that there are times I make a snap judgment about people, and the repeated exposures to that person tend to confirm. Once in awhile, I see that my initial impression (hierarchic positioning?) of that person was mistaken, and adjust accordingly. For example, when I first learned of Bernie Madoff, my initial impression was a swear word that I won't repeat here. It was tentatively held because I do believe in "innocent till proven guilty," and I also believe that the press often enough gets things wrong. So my initial impression could be expressed as, "what a ********* - if it's all true." But the placement was almost immediate, and sad-to-say, I was not mistaken. I often wish that I was mistaken when my assessments about a person are negative, mainly because such assessments do not bring me any pleasure. But the do tend to shield me from future pain. And that provides an understanding of their value.

Consciousness, and not denying what we know to be true, is the commonality through all this.

Quite simply: agreed.

Laid out like that, it does look like hard work.

It isn't, self-evidently: it's enjoyable as much as it is essential. Other people are rewarding, in the true, and ultimately selfish meaning of the word.

Myself, all the above is precisely how I would want to be treated - not a jot more or less. But the corollary of the Golden Rule ie., "insist on being done by, as you would do", just ain't realistic.

Which means it has been rare that I have experienced complete 'Trade' with another person

Your answers to the prior points will help me understand this one. I'll wait for your responses/clarifications.

(And, I think that conforming to social mores is fine up to a point, until they become irrational and silly.)

What's wrong with silly social mores?

- Bal

Michael,

I wasn't really trying to deal with unrequited love. I was rather dealing with the notion of "trade" in the arena of currently unmeasurable intangibles, like love. But it could just as easily be anger that is explored. If someone sneers in my general direction, what is that sneer's "value?" and what should be my quid pro quo? Sneer back? Turn the other cheek? How does Objectivism deal with these things?

It seems to me that they are dealt with informally in Atlas, but I haven't seen a good formal treatment of how respect *should* manifest. I'm thinking that such intangibles are not suceptible to the machinations of a "trade" except in a metaphorical sense.

- Bal

"Intangibles" are often of much greater worth than tangibles (cash).

Just read your Papa Heinlein and he will explain it better than I can.

Best,

rde

Rich - I fully agree. What I'm looking for isn't affirmation of something I already believe. What I am looking for is the Objectivist treatment of intangibles given the preeminent treatment of the rubric of "trade." It seems to me that in arenas of friendship, love, family, etc., the use of the word "trade" would create a somewhat clumsy narration. My wife smiles in my direction. I like that so I smile back? If she smiles more intensely, Obviously, this is a silly rendering of the concept. Yet it seems that the formulations of Objectivism, insofar as I imperfectly understand them, could lead to just such a result. Either there is more to the notion of "trade" than I currently understand or that word is pretty much useless in such arenas.

I think Heinlein's treatment of love does seem somewhat reasonable, but he didn't codify his views into a formal philosophy like Objectivism.

Thoughts?

- Bal

In the few other posts I have made so far, I have called myself an "egg." This is an homage to Robert Heinlein's Valentine Michael Smith in his Stranger in a Strange Land. The basic idea is that I acknowledge knowing little or nothing about the formalisms of Objectivist Living and so approach this forum as one seeking information.

As a clarification: I am very adept in "balsimonism." I am undoubtedly the leading expert on this subject (except for my wife, who sometimes gets me to acknowledge that I may not even know much about that!)

One of the things I have seen so far in the OL forums are discussions about the trading of values. (I think I got the terminology right.) This being where people, through mutual respect, trade not merely the material but also what would be called the spiritual, emotional, etc. with coins of the realm which are not necessarily money. Since, outside of money, I know of no "unit" analogous to, say the dollar or a penny, I have no idea how we create an "exchange rate" for such things as love, respect, fear, anger, appropriateness, sacrament, etc. The word "enough" also would seem to figure in with the notion of a "trade." With money, I know how much is enough because the price is stated. With love? How much is enough to garner love in return? If the person you love and to whom you show respect doesn't love you back, I guess that's like going to a store and the shop keeper telling you that all the current supplies are dedicated to someone else, even if that someone else is not yet known.

Try as I may, I don't see an easy way to figure in the notion of a "trade" when it comes to these, mmm, intangibles. I'd appreciate some clarification in this.

Outside of Objectivist language, I would say that the notion of a "trade" is an approximation at best. A possible narration that I would use is that we create societal "compacts" with one another. Some (many?) compacts are quite loose and somewhat vague. They include things like "most people not cutting in a line." If one person cuts in front, we (OK - I) consider it an aberration; annoying but no big deal. If a few people do it in different venues, I start detecting a pattern, and the strength of the compact begins to weaken. If enough people start cutting up the line, then the compact agreement of "a line" dissolves and chaos begins, waiting for a the compact to either be re-instated if enough people dislike the negative consequences or for a new pattern (compact) to arise.

I have recently read a few news articles about one such possible dissolving: with the rising price of gas, some people are breaking gas tanks and siphoning gasoline. This breaks the compact of being able to trust each other to respect private property. So far, these seem to be rarely occurring events, and thus not a big deal. But they could become a big deal if enough people start doing it and/or retaliating, etc.

It seems to me that any civilized society which does not operate through the power of brute force must have these mostly unconscious, social level agreements. Being unconscious of the patterns, I just learn "what was proper." When I think about them, only then do I have a "choice" to assent or say no. Yet on the relatively few occasions where I have become conscious of one of these agreements, by and large, I have agreed to continue with them. This gives me some faith in the overall largely unconscious processes by which human beings create their agreements that underlie civilizations and cultures.

How does Objectivist literature deal with this?

- Bal

Hey Tony,

Good conversation.

The universe as such can neither be benevolent nor malevolent since it is no conscious entity.

What I meant was inhospitable. I did not mean to imply a conscious entity in the root of all things. (However, this doesn't stop me from playing a game of "as-if" the Universe is conscious. Clearly, aspects of the universe ARE conscious, if we include humans and other critters that we consider "concscious" as facets of the universe. I can make a scifi-ish leap that posits the entire universe as conscious. Doesn't seem to lead to any practical results so far, so it's just an amusement for me.)

What I find interesting in that context is the movement of the human spirit toward more empathy and benevolence. For example, we won't fall back to a stage where people are enslaved.

I sure hope you are right, Tony. As I read and watch the news, I see tendencies toward barbarism rising up anew; reaching minds (if you can call them that) that resonate with violence, degradation, and what is called in game theory The Tragedy of the Commons. I see people practice deceptions, mix it in with political correctness and hypocricy, and wonder how a civilization can flourish under such conditions. This goes mightily against my inner desire to explore with optimism, but I acknowledge this to be a growing theme in my perception of things.

I can't be certain if we are on different pages of the same book, but I sure enjoy your spirit of enquiry, and 'appreciation' of life.

Thank you - likewise. What I like is that you don't try to convince me with appeals to authority. I get the sense that you are not channeling anyone's ghost, and that I am talking directly to you.

Other People, is a gap within Objectivist ethics, I think - which is fine with me.

Please bear with me. I am not yet facile with the Objectivist terminology. Is other people an Objectivist term of art or do you are you intending to say that Objectivist ethics downplays the role of other people relative to one's own personal choices?

There must be room to decide for ourselves, and develop independently.

For competent adults (i.e., people who are ready, willing and able to accept the liabilities of their actions should they go wrong), I fully agree with you.

I do agree with you that Objectivists consider reality as the physical Universe, when it's plain that (especially in modern times), Reality is other people.

Slight correction: I don't know enough about Objectivists to have an opinion about whether they consider reality as the physical universe sans people or wehther they include other people in their models. I was answering Michael to clarify some of the things he'd said by summarizing his comments. He agreed that I'd gotten it right about his meaning.

When I go into this subject, I find that I want to speak only for myself. Other people can take what I write and generalize it to themselves if it fits. But discussions about "ultimate reality" often generate a feeling that is similar to discussions about the number of angels who can fit in a smart car.

When it comes to Reality (capital R), I know that I abstract only what my senses allow me to. I cannot hear below certain frequencies. I cannot see below or above the visible light spectrum. I wear glasses; thus my eyes are flawed and I suppose one could ask whether my eyes see "reality" when I'm wearing glasses or is that a distortion of what my senses would "naturally" produce - a distortion that I somehow find more useful.

My ability to reason depends hugely on what I already know and what I believe, as well as whether I've had a full meal recently, etc. My preferences figure into the reasoning I perform. Here's an example of what I mean.

When I'm driving about in my car, I sometimes come to an intersection where I can go one of two ways. For example, I can get on the freeway and get to my destination in 20 minutes. Or I can take a "scenic route" and get to my destination in about 30 minutes. My personal preferences at the time of decision figure into what I end up doing. Time is not always the important factor. I don't know how you would phrase this in Objectivist jargon. What I do know is that sometimes I prefer the comfort of a leisurely drive with less "traffic pressure," and other times I am eager to get where I'm going, and having a pleasant interlude fades in its importance.

I'd add, that this happens because Objectivism supplies a very strong methodology and set of principles - tools, which new (and some old) O'ists over-eagerly apply at the drop of a hat. So people and situations get instant judgment; this is a parody of reality, and often an injustice.

Tools - what do you refer to when you mention tools?

That is not Objectivism, to me. It turns people into 'floating abstractions', from where inhumanity is an easy step.

I think I understand. This is what I would call the "true believer" phenonomenon. And it happens in all disciplines that I've experienced. I find it very dispiriting when I come across it among people who supposedly have "freedom of thought" and "liberty" as their touchstones.

Btw, I think you are selling the Trader Principle a little short (pun intended). The T.P. is not exclusively pertaining to material gain - it involves the very highest of respectful engagement and mutual inspiration between men. The same appreciation of the carpenter and musician you mention before.

Please tell me if this is a good summary of the trader principle:

http://bit.ly/TDFQv

If it is, then I don't dispute the role of the trader in anything other than epistemology. You almost get to my views on this in your question below.

One more thing: you must have considered the basic conundrum that the Universe and others, would not exist, as far as you are concerned, if you did not exist in the first place. The 'Primacy of Consciousness' is in every other case anathema to Objectivism, but this is the one time the PoC holds true, I believe.

Yes - I have considered this at length. THIS gets you much closer to my view of epistemology. There is nothing to be traded here. I can't trade my perception of the color red for anything you might want to give me. I can't change my reasoning on your say so. I can take what you tell me; what you show me; and what you do to me as input; but it is the factory of my being that abstracts, constructs, synthesizes and ultimately produces (sometimes in a matter of split-seconds; sometimes over the course of years) my understanding of what is going on.

My understanding of things is imbued by and infused with the messages from others (past and present), but the trader principle does not seem to be part of it.

In all reality, how is it possible not to be at the peak of our own pyramid, as each of us is? - whether it sits comfortably with many, or not.

I make a distinction between self-authority (primacy) and intellectual underderstanding of various subjects, e.g., astronomy, law, gardening, bowling, etc. where the contributed "reports from the field" provide vastly greater data than what I can accumlate on my own. Thus I do not substitute my understanding of human physiology with that of my doctor. However, I will not ever let my doctor convince me that something doesn't hurt when it does. What may happen in such a circumstance is that I will accept a statement like this: "I don't see what might be causing your pain, nor do I know of any way to find out." That would be a legitimate (if unpleasant) thing for my doctor to say. He might even be providing a trader's value when he says that the symptom I report does not indicate a pathology. That can (and has) generated relief on some (though not all) occasions.

Something similar holds in every field and discipline where my knowledge of the field is rooted in the receipt and grokking of messages from those who I consider more knowledgeable.

- Bal

Let me first paraphrase what you wrote to make sure I have it correct. You are saying that a person has it within his/her (hir) power to make the world per hir own images and values. You are further saying that many Objectivists consider the world to be a "benevolent place" and what screws it all up are people.

Bal,

LOL...

I don't think anyone would phrase it that way, but from the discussions I have had over a few years online and from the things I have read, this is precisely the meaning I get from many Objectivists--in overall practice if not so much in explicit theory.

Not all, of course. There are many great warm and kind people who are Objectivists, too.

It seems like some people are deathly afraid of being rejected, so they start off by rejecting everybody. Boom. There. It's over. I quit before you can fire me. Then they start letting some people in between the cracks. But that's always risky.

This is one of the main reasons I believe these more tribal Objectivists congregate into group-think the way they do.

This is a long topic, but one of the things I have learned about it concerns emotional competence. Emotions come in three basic varieties: (1) acute emotions (the ones that come and go quickly), (2) chronic emotions (where you hang out long term emotionally, i.e., your predominant moods), and (3) social emotions (these are both true and false emotions--but they belong to a mask you show to others).

I believe the tribal Objectivists I criticize like to be in a group because they can use social emotions a lot--and everything is well defined on that level. They have to gush over XXX and YYY, they have to sneer at AAA and BBB, and so on. This way they don't have to worry about the holy mess they normally make with their relationships and emotional incompetence.

I believe this keeps them feeling safe and wards off the loneliness.

God, I could go on and on about this. But, please, don't think I am saying this to bash them and feel all superior and everything.

I can't.

I used to be that way, myself.

Michael

Hey Michael -

As I have said a couple of times now - it's just us chickens in here. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things (where one might think in terms of billions of lightyears, and (if some of the physicists' musings are correct) trillions of years, none of this - indeed - none of the entire panoply of life on planet Earth "means" a thing. That kind of takes any pomposity out of my sails. I've said that I am an egg with much to learn? I am not even a spec of dust, where the maximum amount that I can possibly learn is squat on a cosmic scale. (I'd love to be wrong about this, but unfortunately, I'm not. Indeed - I'd like to be wrong about a great many things...)

To your main question... This gets a bit tricky - at least to me.

If we're going to talk about the universe writ large, do we really mean that? From what I know of the universe, it seems globally a very hostile place. Indeed, out of all the billions of lightyears humans have observed, only one small spec of a planet has been found to contain the hospitable conditions that generate life. And on Earth, most of the planet seems inhospitable to "mind" with only certain relatively small (but growing) bits of it being open to minds. And most of this "nooosphere" (to use Teilhard de Chardin's word) seems relatively inhospitable to civility and exploration - again with just a few small bits being open to them. With the advent of political correctness, some of the places that once may have been open to civility and exploration are now nearly as orthodox-rigid and barbaric as those found in a country run by tyrants. One super-nova in our local region (say, within 16 lightyears of Earth) is enough to wipe out all the barbarism and all the civilization that have gone on in the past 3 million years or so.

Michael Polyani made this kind of argument in his book Personal Knowledge, and he recommended that we view a more human perspective - which I tend to agree with. But as soon as we do that, we are anthropomorphizing to some extent and creating a shortcut or an intellectual "let's play pretend" so that we can focus more closely on things that matter to us.

Finally - what does it matter - even at a human level unless we take into account feedback and feedfoward loops?

After all, if the universe "really is" a wonderful place, I will stop at the next red light I come to. I will pay my mortgage. I won't kick the neighbor's cat. I will pay my taxes. If the universe "really is" a hideous evil place, none of that will change.

But if I *do* take into account feedback loops, the workshop of imagination, and the dreams of achievement, my behavior will be more goal oriented than if I don't. If all I am is a "rational animal" very little matters. But if I am an envisioning, creating, alive and kicking "agent of the future" then my life will be very different from what it would be if I see my highest achievement as being alive when the movie Thor (which I am very much looking forward to seeing) comes to theaters in May.

- Bal

Cute but stupid cartoon - or I should rather say, ignorant and bizarre.

1 - Assuming that the National Taxpayers Union presents accurate data (I have no first-hand data other than that of my own personal situation), then the top 10% of income earners pay nearly 70% of the income tax. http://bit.ly/csK6FU

2 - The cartoon starts with an assumption that the income tax is a legitimate way for the government to collect money. The 16th Amendment made this the Constitutional law of the land, but philosophically, the debate remains open, and huge numbers of people - and not all of them rich - look for ways to repeal that Amendment. But as of today, income tax is owed, and I refer you back to #1.

3 - The cartoon appears to equate "Atlas" with being middle class, and all but says that "the rich" are the parasites. Any honest brokering of ideas in this arena requires acknowledgement that "the rich" are, by and large, NOT the parasites in American society. (I am guessing even in Europe, they're not the parasite class. Just look at the student thugs who broke shop windows when their free (taxpayer-paid, parasitical) ride was threatened.

4 - Wealth is not the same thing as income. There are plenty of "rich people" who don't need any additional money; they need no income. The only way to tax them if they stop earning income is through other taxes (e.g., sales and use taxes, fees, property taxes (including real and personal property), etc. So far, I have not seen anyone proposing a "wealth tax." I'm not sure what "the rich" would do if someone tried to institute a wealth tax. This was done when the czars in Russia were overthrown by the far worse Communists (I say far worse, even while being of Jewish heritage, with my grandparents being forced out of Russia by the czarist pogroms).

5 - I'll say this: if I saw a wealth tax or confiscation coming, I'd be very seriously rethinking whether the meaning of being an American citizen was being "fundamentally transformed" (to use Obama's hackneyed phrase) to the point that I'd seriously consider if it was now time for a new Revolutionary War against a new tyrant. Since there are more than 100,000,000 American adults and since we almost all draw the limiting lines differently, I think it reasonable to suspect that there are thousands, if not millions of Americans who are already past the point of questioning.

6 - I've saved the best for last: we pay enormous levels of taxes already. We are not $14 TRILLION dollars in debt. The Government has not proven that it knows what it's doing with our tax dollars. What I see is a huge effort to pay off the parasite class so that dependencies on government (taxpayer) largess can be strengthened. I see no effort by the Federal government to make people stronger and less dependent on it. It's always more more more. No bang for the buck. My money is not being used wisely. I'm supposed to pay into such a system without griping about it? Without looking for every possible legal means by which I can reduce my "contribution" to such an evil, maniacal, run amok system? I don't think so.

Lastly, though not directly on point: Of late, I've been seeing a number of Leftist billionaires suggesting that millionaires should pay more taxes and that they'd be willing to pay more too. I despise these people because there is nothing stopping any of them from going to http://1.usa.gov/RfKyy and paying more on their own. You want to be fools and give money to an out-of-control Government? Go right ahead.

Of course, as Dennis Miller used to say at the end of his standup routine: I could be wrong. (But I'm not.)

- Bal

Hey Tony,

I just re-read your post and realized I didn't adequately respond. Apologies. Let me try again...

... but essentially I take the angle that every person who existed and exists, aimed for some goal, modest or lofty, and mostly fell short of it, but achieved something of value to themselves at least. Perhaps their implied intention was the betterment of fellow man, but I am certain they were always acting in their self-interest, by dint of pushing their minds and energy to limits, towards some ideal.

Whether they knew it or not.

Simply, a morality of egoism makes explicit this concept: that one can only and best, fulfill himself by acting as close to the independent 'rational animal', that Man is. All without any undefined debt or 'due' to some vague and unspecified entity - the tribe or nation, the past, or future.

I think we should accept what already exists, and run with it - not forgetting to sometimes look back in respect and admiration at those who went before us.

Sure, there will always be consensual interaction with other people - what O'ists call 'the trader principle'; in this sense, no man is an island. But it only takes a monment's reflection to see the practical self-interest at work here.

While the "de facto starting point" of one's life does appear to be 'the collective', and as you infer, there is indeed a hierarchy here - but, I ask in all sincerity, don't you have the hierarchy inverted?

[my emphasis added]

I don't see it this way. I am open to being convinced.

What I write about in terms of standing on the shoulders of others or with them as I generate (hopefully) greater understandings deals with epistemology. The trader principle does not seem to be involved with epistemology at all, except in such specific instances where I might trade coin for mentoring or coaching.

When it comes to participation - with generating the "best values" (is that a correct usage in Objectivist language?) that I can, then yes - I act "as if" I am an independent agent (I prefer not to use the phrase "rational animal.") because my brain/mind isn't fast enough or powerful enough to deal with all of the relational aspects of the world while I navigate and do the work and play of the day.

When I dance with my wife, I am paying attention to the beat of the music; to the location of other people on the dance floor so as to avoid collisions with them. I am wrapped in the music, and there is no "bandwidth" in the moment for me to be thanking Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller. There is little time or mental energy available in me to thank those who taught me how to dance the Swing. There is no mental bandwidth - during the dance - for me to thank the carpenters and craftsfolk who made a building strong enough to withstand high-wind, deep cold and earthquakes. There is no bandwidth to thank the Founding Fathers, to be appreciative of Beethoven who might very well have influenced Benny Goodman or Glen Miller. I have no bandwidth in that moment to thank the people who produce the food I eat so that I don't have to spend life on a farm tilling soil or hunting prey. I just enjoy the dance and applaud at the end and maybe leave a tip in the jar at the door for a "job well done."

But in THIS MOMENT, in my slower moments, where I have time to consider all that MUST BE INVOLVED for me to enjoy the dance, and the myriad other things that I do and enjoy - well then I do have time to enjoy exploration of the epistemological. And repeatedly, without even the tiniest reservation beyond acknowledging "I too am fallible", I come to see that all that I enjoy; all that I can even think involves so many shortcuts I've been enabled to take by all that came before me and that surrounds me now. The notion of "independent agent" becomes much more complex and a much richer concept.

Does this make any kind of sense?

- Bal

I excerpted this because you show a greater understanding of epistemology than many people I have read who can quote Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology chapter and verse.

I appreciate that, but really - I am just an egg. There is much for me to learn, even as I directly assert my *current* understanding.

Are you familiar with recent advances in neuroscience (from, say, the last 15 years to the present)?

Some of the stuff I have read in the past two years, which is when I started, barbecues a lot of sacred cows.

I'm afraid there have been far too many advances for me to keep up with. But I understand what you say about sacred cows. I would suggest that it is the nature of human enterprise to oust the old understandings when more accurate, more workable understandings emerge. (I was going to say "better understandings," but "better" seems to form a mischief word as it allows for such monstrosities as political correctness - with the advocates saying that "xyz" is better than "abc" even though it makes understanding less accurate and participation between people less workable.) I would submit that this is part of the natural human condition and has been going on - in fits and starts - for as long as there have been people.

One area of study that I have found quite fascinating is that of "mirror neurons," which appear to be the basis for being able to put yourself in another's shoes. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if the theory is born out, it would seem to provide evidence for a "hard wiring" of empathy as part of human neurology.

This meaning is more evident when she talks about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket (it's always the fault of other people), but if you read carefully, this meaning is there when she talks about how an individual can make the world in his or her image and values.

This is a concept Rand treated with a bit of ambivalence, so you have to think this one through. And that makes it tricky. Some of her followers vest themselves in what they insinuate, not in what can be logically deduced from her concepts. I know I have read an/or heard several Objectivists refer to the world as a good place ("benevolent universe" and things like that) when they basically mean non-human reality except for the specific individual human under discussion, but when they say the world is rotten under certain conditions, or being destroyed. etc., they mean a place full of people.

I believe it is critically important to think about this and what it means

Let me first paraphrase what you wrote to make sure I have it correct. You are saying that a person has it within his/her (hir) power to make the world per hir own images and values. You are further saying that many Objectivists consider the world to be a "benevolent place" and what screws it all up are people.

Do I have this correct? Please confirm or clarify before I continue. Thanks!

- Bal

Hi Tony,

Let me preface what I write here by saying that I sense you and I would both agree that "it's just us chickens here" and that neither one of us is trying to pompously assert a position of authority. I certainly have no legitimate claim to any throne other than that of "balsimonism." (My wife, however, sometimes wonders about my reign on even *that* throne.)

I will begin my reply by quoting your question: "IS that the end point? It's a question I've wrestled with myself. Isn't the question really how much do we owe to our parents, our society, and other circumstances of birth, - and definitely not forgetting the giants who went before us - and how much do we NOT owe them?"

I believe this was in direct response to my statement: "I stand on the "mental shoulders" of those many people who came before me, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with many of those with whom I communicate now (such as you). This "changes" my thinking in such a way that I can't easily tell, if I can tell at all, where your views end and my views begin. There's a kind of "bleed-over" between me and all with whom I communicate. I don't see any way around this, and I don't really see it as a "negative."

I have a difficulty with your word-choice: owe.

Let me choose a word to help me out here: appreciate. Appreciation would seem to involve both "intellectual" and "feeling" components. One cannot fully appreciate what one does not understand. Once can easily find himself/herself (hirself) in awe of something not fully understood. But appreciation would seem to require something deeper and more abiding. Does this makes sense to you?

When I wrote that I stand on the shoulders and also shoulder to shoulder, this could have been otherwise stated thus: I can only begin to appreciate the many people who came before me and the many people who walk with me now, who have helped me form my understandings (plural) of the world in which I participate. This includes all the folks that you mentioned. It includes the institutions that have allowed people around the world to flourish. It includes all the hardships endured and overcome by ancestors, both direct and off-line, but who have nevertheless brought the world and me to the current configuration.

A far simpler way of saying this would be to simply state that there is no way, no how, that I could have arrived at my understanding of things without all that has served as a platform from which I currently experience, think, and participate.

I do indeed "feel" a sense of gratitude for this; and I usually pair the word "gratitude" with the word "debt." But this feeling is a very personal reaction, and I can concede that someone else might say s/he experiences all of this as a burden and thus feels anger rather than gratitude. That would seem very odd to me, but I acknowledge it to be a viable possibility.

This kind of "debt" however is not of a transactional kind. It is rather of the kind that generates a "salute" or a tip of one's hat. It stands as an assertion of thanks rather than a desire to compensate someone for a job well done. Does this makes sense? For there is no way that I can compensate Plato and Socrates for a sense of the Socratic method. There is no way I can thank Alfred Korzybski for helping me to understand that "the word is not the thing and that the map is not the territory." There is nothing I can offer to Alan Watts (or his estate, for that matter) in return for helping me see that boundaries also serve as bridges, that where you end and where I begin, where the sound waves end and the appreciation of music begins is not at all easy for me to ascertain.

I can, and do, *imagine* a debt that is "paid" by my continuing a "longitudinal wave" - a future-oriented effort - that can inspire others who might resonate with me. But really, there is no one who can receive my payment and call it "paid in full."

The way you phrased your query places too stark a differentiation between "you" and "me;" between the messages I have "received" and my "processing" and "generation" of thoughts that emerges over time. I cannot even begin to tell you what I owe or don't because that would require an accounting that I simply don't have the wherewithal to make.

This is a matter of epistemology - as I see it. It is NOT a matter of bargaining for goods and services (for what I guess objectivists call a "transfer of values?").

For me, epistemology deals with the largely unconscious platform upon which all policies, procedures, methods, tools, institutions, and transactions can take place. It is that which helps one makes sense of all of these and nothing more.

- Bal

Hi Tony,

For me the important thing about "the collective" isn't that it's prized. It's that it's our de facto starting point.

I have no choice but that my native language is English. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't change that.

I could, of course, learn a second language. But my verbal thinking happens in English. That alone generates certain "collective" facts. On top of this, I stand on the "mental shoulders" of those many people who came before me, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with many of those with whom I communicate now (such as you). This "changes" my thinking in such a way that I can't easily tell, if I can tell at all, where your views end and my views begin. There's a kind of "bleed-over" between me and all with whom I communicate. I don't see any way around this, and I don't really see it as a "negative."

This is part of my epistemology. It is has nothing to do with "prizing" the collective over the individual or vice versa. It stands as a way of thinking about how I know what I know; how I am capable of communicating with you and others and the constraints that I face in doing so.

From the above, we at some point arrive at the issue of "self-interest." What do I have a right to? What, if anything, do others have a right to expect of me? These are very different questions than those that deal with the structure and processes of knowledge.

From the above overly long, yet too sketchy presentation of epistemology, I know that I am similarly situated in this world as pretty much everyone else. We rely on each other to get things done that we could not get done on our own. Moreover, we do so much unconsciously with one another (approaching intersections on highways, for instance) that we find ourselves "surprised" when someone doesn't honor a stop sign or runs a red light, etc. We have no person-to-person "contract" with our fellow drivers; but we do have a collective compact with them - that they are licensed; that they are insured; that they will honor the rules of the road. I might "choose" to go against traffic, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a cop to stop me and to say, "I don't care that you are a self-determined individual. When you are on a public road, you will obey the public laws regarding it. Here's your ticket for $175; payable in two weeks. Have a good day."

- Bal

It would be interesting to see what an alternative structure in a national-size company that was more to your ideal would look like. Do you know of any? - Bal

I don't know of any or what that would look like. I enjoy the freedom and flexibility of contract work. But I ran into that resentment of contractors more than once. I even had my work sabotaged. Usually, especially among engineers, the relationship is smooth, flexible, supportive and beneficial to all.

Interesting - I can't even imagine the people I worked with at this company trying something like that. I would find myself almost as surprised as if I saw a waterfall flowing uphill.

I note (and perhaps didn't make clear) that the people in my group were not the ones complaining. There was just a general perception from those who would see a contractor's badge among a sea of direct hire badges that something was "odd." And when they found out why, they wondered about it aloud, often enough to concern management. I have nothing disparaging to say about them, either, because of all what I described in my previous post.

I am quite insistent in maintaining: "no bad guys" in what I experienced.

- Bal

In terms of that philosophy of action, I have to condemn the culture of the enterprise you worked for and warn you against sanctioning it. From my studies in sociology, it is too easy to say that group identifications are "human nature." I have to ask: Which humans? and: What nature? In my world, it does not matter how you get paid - contract, hourly, salaried, commission, wage plus bonus, etc., etc. One nice thing about Honda America and the Japanese in general: everyone wears the same uniform. No one can tell up front how you get paid. We are all team members.

Hi Michael...

I believe I understand what you are saying. However I can't fully agree with you. Not because you are mistaken; you're not. But because sometimes there simply are no bad guys. Sometimes things are just the way they are and you roll with them rather than fight them.

Let me see if I can explain...

First let me begin with certain premises that I hold. They are not necessarily "true;" they are, however, mine. Does this make sense?

Premise #1: I am a huge fan of the ability and right to create and execute per contracts arranged by adults under straight-up business conditions. That is, no duress; no fraud; no over-reaching; no sharp practices. Just straightforward negotiations with each side going for the best bargain s/he can arrive at. (Side story: I once had a head hunter ask me what my "salary range" was. I said, "I have a minimum: no maximum. If you want to pay me more, start shoveling - I'll let you know when it's enough.")

Premise #2: I also am a huge fan of the American 1st Amendment freedom of association. Again - amongst competent adults under straight-up business conditions. That would include the right of people to create a union and negotiate collectively.

Modulation of #2: At some point, unions have become quintessential bullies and barbarians (you can see it on TV nearly every day). This makes the modern union something other than a straight-up business negotiator. It creates the duress and over-reaching components and these remove many modern-day unions from the role of legitimate negotiators under Premise #2 - at least in some instances.

Back to my situation at the time...

When I hired on at the company, I was told the conditions of my contract. I was informed about how employees and contractors were generally retained during the low-points in business cycles. And I was told that contractors were on the low end of the totem pole. I did ask about this, saying, why wouldn't the company want to hold on to its most talented and best contributors, irrespective of the contractor/direct hire status? The answers were quite rational, IMO.

First - The retention system gave some of the most powerful minds and best contributors something that they dearly wanted: job security. They had families that they wanted to protect from financial difficulty. They wanted to make long-range plans that could be disrupted if they didn't have the job security. With this sense of security their creativity on behalf of the company, their loyalty to the company, etc. demonstrably increased. Sure there were some who became dead wood, but I personally know some of the people who reached "Technical Fellow" status, and can tell you that they worked hard and enjoyed it. I would say their sense of security and place had a great deal to do with it.

The company gave every direct hire a pathway to gain this vaunted status: Stay with the company long enough, produce high quality and high quantity in the areas that were of true value to the company, and you would achieve a more protected status. This generalized to all direct hires to a lesser extent, and those who were with the company for 25 years were postulated to be more loyal to the company, to be of greater value to the company.

Side note: After 911, the company revisited this policy a little bit, saying that it was going to stick with the retention policy - to the extent that it made sense. If someone had achieved a protected status but was no longer pulling his or her weight, the company would feel free to let that person go. I believe that this remains the policy today, though I haven't been there in more than 3 years, so don't know for sure.

Second - the contractor class was explicitly hired to reduce the peaks and valleys in the labor roles in terms of the benefits that the company would be on the hook for. Contractors didn't receive company benefits. Thus we cost the company less and their commitment to the contractors was less. It became a premium value to hire on directly. But some contractors who were offered, declined. Thus they knowingly chose to remain in the contractor class. Others, like me, were never offered the opportunity (there were times when an offer was all but made, but for whatever reason, the company never went through with it). Does not a company have a right to set the terms of employment? I think it does.

Out of all of this, a culture emerged. I think this is reasonable. When you have conditions that persist over decades, people become accustomed to them. They (and I) believe it reasonable to rely on them unless a new negotiation happens. (This is where the unions potentially get it wrong when they start thuggery and over-reaching.) So a culture had formed at the company wherein people reasonably believed that direct hires would be protected from economic hardship before the contractors. Everyone knew this to be part of the terms of the contracts between the company and direct hires and between the company and contractors.

Again - I don't see any bad guys in this. I don't even see a bad culture in this.

Could the culture be better? Perhaps. It would be interesting to see what an alternative structure in a national-size company that was more to your ideal would look like.

Do you know of any?

- Bal

There is a lot that has been said here. I cannot possibly respond to every point, so I will simply make my own.

For me this is a very simple thing to answer - *IF* we take out the word "necessarily" from the opening question. I don't believe that there is a "necessity" about any kind of "reason" (objectivist included) that MUST lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism. Unlike something like geometry, in real life there are very few supremely simple, straightforward axioms that lead to theorem that lead to postulates, etc. We are free to start from whatever premises we want and construct all kinds of widely divergent "philosophies" and "epistemologies." So much of this kind of material seems like talking about angels singing above the Titanic, deciding on which people will get lifeboats. Not very useful, and certainly nothing to get worked up about.

That said, let me make my case by beginning with something that Xray said: "I'm now interested in knowing to what degree the Objectivist morality includes empathy toward e. g. workers in the Third World who work in sweatshops run by capitalist firms who pay them a mere pittance in wages, or who are being paid way to little for their produce (like e.g. coffee)."

I think that there is a rule that makes a lot of sense: The Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Meaning of course: You don't want your kid to be be put in a sweat shop; you shouldn't be willing for someone else's kid to be put in a sweat shop. Especially since children do not have the power to avoid the force of adults nor the wisdom to navigate the harshness of Nature. When we moved from Los Angeles to Seattle, our son had zero choice, let alone an ability to exercise a choice if he had one, to stay in L.A.

I think that the Golden Rule is a wonderful rule - if viewed properly as a rule of self-interest - what might be called "enlightened self-interest."

I know the kind of society I want to live in. I want one that tends toward civility and courtesy. I want one where I don't have to look over my shoulder to see if someone is gunning for me. I want a society where I don't have to lock my front door (the way it was in the 1950s according to my parents - in Los Angeles! Can we even IMAGINE not locking our doors today?).

There are people who say that illegals should not get medical treatment paid for by taxpayers. I agree they should not get anything elective. But what if they have whooping cough. Do we really want them to walk the streets with that dread disease? I don't think so. So out of my own self-interest, I want them healthy enough to not have communicable diseases. One might say "it's also the humane thing to do" - but whether or not you think there's anything to there being a "humane thing," your own self-interest should have you saying that as long as they are here, they shouldn't be kept from getting health treatment.

A similar, though lesser case can be made for educating them. Do we really want to live in a society filled with the children of illegals who have zero vision of how to live in a more civilized way all because we didn't want our tax dollars to be "wasted" on supporting people who ought not be here in the first place? As long as they are here, I'd like them to be educated to the point that they don't see gang banging, mugging me and mine as their only intellectual alternatives. So out of that self-interest, I'd like them educated to a point - even if I have to pay for it - even if I find it galling that I have no real choice as long as the Federal government remains derelict in its function, etc.

The point is that my self-interest goes out into the universe and rebounds toward me in ways both anticipated and not. It collides with everyone else's self-interest too. I choose to not be a hermit (and even then, if I am using the English language, I'm not totally a hermit either). It is in my self-interest that society be as robust, alive, AND pleasant as possible. These go beyond mere transactional events. They help formulate policies and procedures. They help for overall ethics of what kind of person I have to be in order to get the kind of society that I want.

If this is true, then epistemology - the structure of my knowledge/beliefs/orientations/etc. - forces me to acknowledge that I do not have the power of omniscience; that I am not omnipotent; and that we have social compacts into which we were born and that we did not construct ourselves, and now have ongoing opportunities to bend per our vision of things. We will always do this in what we believe to be our self-interest. The question arises: how broadly do you define "self-interest?"

- Bal

Hey Michael...

I definitely need to re-read Atlas. It's not surprising that I might forget some of the detail that you have mentioned.

Regarding the customer of a business... In a very real sense, the customer is the business owner's "boss." The customer sets the specifications for the products or services s/he will buy. In a mass production situation, the business owner sort of reverses this by trying to guess what the masses will want to buy, but ultimately the customer is the boss of the transaction and decides whether a particular company (through it's products and services) will be hired for the transaction or not.

Regarding the rest of the story...

I was kind of unique at this company insofar as I could tell. I had no axe to grind save one: how to make sure that there was as little disruption to the company caused by my absence as possible. At the time, I had not yet read Atlas - so I knew nothing of the objectivist language. All I knew was that people I respected and cared about were in deep trouble and I had a unique opportunity to alleviate some of it. That was it.

The result was that my manager, 2 days before I was set to leave, came to me and said, "Well - you have two more days here." Glumly, I smiled, putting on the bravest face I could. I honestly had no idea what I and my family were going to do about our finances. I was grateful to have worked at this company, to have worked with some of the finest people I'd ever worked with, but my own personal and family situation - financially speaking - was looking somewhat chancy if not bleak.

My boss continued... "There is no way that I can let you go without a fight. It's not my decision, you understand, but I want to fight for you." I smiled and said I was game, what did we have to do?

He said something that I think was very wise: "The company is not in a position to care about what you have done for it. Lots of people here are being let go who have done more for the company than you; people who have been loyal employees for more than 20 years." I nodded in full agreement, as it was certainly the truth.

He continued: "What we need to do is to tell upper management what you will do for the company in the next two weeks. I can't see a way to fight for you in a long term, but I can for a short window. So we need to you to come up with a document that shows what you're doing for the company right now and why others can't do it instead of you."

I was pretty much able to come up with a list of my projects, and I was able to articulate that I was uniquely situated, as the tech writer, to bring the necessary people together to make new critically important decisions. The real challenge was to answer the question, why me? instead of another on-staff tech writer. I chose to not answer that question directly. What I said is that other technical writers were already having their hands filled with emergency tasks and that their bandwidth was tapped. The project I was on had a near-deadline and there was no way any of them could step into the project quickly enough to meet the short deadline.

This was enough for my manager to go to bat with, which he did. The result was that I was given two more weeks. We repeated this process 3 more times as I recall, and finally, they said that I could stay on till my manager no longer could justify it.

About 6 months later, I was told that there was resentment building against me because staffers were still being let go while I, a mere contractor, was being kept on board. Even though none of the staffers was a tech writer, the mentality was that you take care of "your own" before you take care of a visitor, which as a contractor, I was. Again, I fully understood this and respected it. I asked what could be done. My manager said that there was another group that was not affected by 911 the same way that his group was and, as it happened, they they had need of a tech writer. He suggested that I apply and he put in a good word for me.

That kept me on for another 18 months. By then I got tired of working for that group and called a buddy of mine from the first group and asked if it would be OK for me to come back. Timing is everything, and once again - someone upstairs must have been looking out for me - I was told that their current tech writer found another gig and I would be welcomed back. I stayed on with that group for another 4 years till I decided to quit and do other things in 2007.

So there you have it. I think what I did was a kind of "pay it forward," and not for the money, but out of respect and caring. I did this without believing I could save my job. I feel fortunate indeed that things worked out the way they did because upper management could have very easily said, "Sorry - but out you go."

Now - how would you construct this story in Objectivist language?

- Bal

Hey Tony and Michael,

Thanks for the clarifications, guys.

Tony - yes - I think we're on the same page - or at least in the same chapter of the book when it comes to the labeling. A token serving as a shorthand way of communicating a general sense of how we orient ourselves. For me, I have not yet fully digested Rand's philosophy as articulated in Atlas Shrugged, and I have more reading - mainly of her non-fiction works to flesh out what she tried to communicate. At some point that will happen.

In the meantime, the best way to describe "balsimonism" would be to point to the well-known personalities (authors) who have influenced me. I haven't adopted any of their views whole-cloth, but there are great and varying degrees of overlap. I love Alfred Korzybski, J. Samuel Bois, Gregory Bateson, and Alan Watts. Maslow, Eric Berne, N. R. Hanson have a seat at the "Simon Round Table" as well. All of these dealt with the way we use and are affected by symbols and meanings. Rand comprises a recent member of this august group. What would "Whynotism" broaden out as?

Michael - I believe I understand. And certainly, in the limited exposure that I have had here and to you, I have seen little in the way of a "clamp" mentality. I especially liked this by you: "So all "Objectivist" means here is that folks are familiar with Rand's work and like discussing ideas within a loose framework of her ideas. But each person speaks for himself or herself--and OL is not part of any formal Objectivist movement."

That suits my preferences very well indeed. If I can participate within an OL framework without insisting that it is THE definitive way of looking at things, and if those who read my words understand that I write within an Objectivist arena about Objectivist subjects without feeling the least need to classify myself as an Objectivist or to orient myself "as an Objectivist would," discussions can proceed swimmingly.

Big world; I am just an egg. There is much to learn.

- Bal

Hi Michael,

I appreciate your response. And indeed, I understand that people will have differing opinions and come to different interpretations and conclusions, even if they start from "the same" articulated premises and foundations.

I like what you said about the label serving as a convenience and not a clamp.

My opening post refers to people who seem to use these labels as a clamp. That's what I don't get. Especially in an arena where "the individual" is celebrated as is the "freedom of thought."

I have no problem at all with someone challenging the morality of the US entering into WWII. I know for a fact that I would not be alive today had America not done so, so I feel biased in a big way about that. Of course, if I weren't here, perhaps someone else would be - and that other person might contribute more to the evolution of humanity than I do. (But how many angels do dance on the pathways surrounding the Lincoln Monument?)

What I have a problem with is people saying, "Oh, you're mistaken *because* that's not xyz-ist doctrine." That sort of "logic" has never made any sense to me. A proposition stands or falls on its own merits; and not because it conforms or doesn't to some formal doctrine.

Does this make sense?

- Bal

I frequently find myself puzzled by those who claim independence of thought, participate with philosophical groups that claim said independence as a primary value, and then say things like, "Well, that's not true xyz-ism," as if that's supposed to carry any weight with someone who truly is independent in his/her (hir) thinking.

Long ago, I used to participate in some General Semantics forums, and while many there *did* practice the independence of thought (they'd put that word in quotes, as in "thought"), many acted like true believers.

I have seen some comments here where people say, "I know this isn't true objectivism, but..." as though they are making an apology. Why the need for that baggage? I don't get it.

I am NOT an objectivist any more than I am a general semanticist. If there is a label that I would use, it's "balsimonist." That my views correspond to yours or anyone else's is a matter of happy coincidence. My only beef comes when the practical results are ones that I don't like, e.g., taxpayer money being spent on parasites, or people being stoned or beheaded because they don't believe in some specific deity. I don't mind if someone tells me that I'm going to burn in hell. Just don't burn down my house or make it difficult for me to earn a living. I don't much care if you're a thesit, a polytheist, an atheist, or (like me) an agnostic. How you act - how your actions impact me and mine - that's what matters to me.

And "me and mine" covers a lot of territory. 911 comprised an attack on *my* country. You'd better believe that I got pissed. And I wouldn't have cared if the attack had come from little green men who believe that the deity is covered with chocolate frosting or if it had been from some idiot in the environmental movement who believes skyscrapers are an abomination to the goddess Gaia. What mattered was the attack; the loss of life; the mayhem and maimings, the disruption of people's lives and the loss of and damage to property.

Does this make sense to anyone besides me?

What is in a label - other than a shorthand way of communicating?

- Bal