Serapis Bey

screw this. i tried a million times to fix this mess but the damn editor is is a joke. make of it what you will. i'm done.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Samson Corwell" data-cid="178787" data-time="1362794939"><cite class="ipb" contenteditable="false">Samson Corwell, on 08 Mar 2013 - 21:13, said:</cite> <p> </p> <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Serapis Bey" data-cid="178785" data-time="1362793859"><cite class="ipb" contenteditable="false">Serapis Bey, on 08 Mar 2013 - 20:55, said:</cite> <p>Objectivist ethics starts with the premise that morality is a study of the conditions and values which allow a man to survive and flourish -- as an individual. In this respect, morality is no different if one is alone on an island or a cog in a metropolis.<br /> <br /> What virtually everyone else thinks of (when asked about the topic of "morality") are the guidelines and strictures which constrain an individual's behavior with respect to _other people_. On this view, morality is meaningless for a single individual on a deserted island<br /> <br /> <br /> This leads to most Objectivists and conventional people talking at cross purposes.</p> </blockquote> <p>Talking at cross purposes? You'll need to be more specific. Offer an analogy. I'm good with those.</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p><a href="http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13064">http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13064</a></p> <p> </p> <p>Contra MSK's assertions, the nurse in question was indeed considering her rational self-interest. What if she was a single mother? Could she afford to lose her job? Such a result would have been a direct consequence of her breaking with company policy. And what was Bayless to her? Just another customer. Who is more important: a stranger -- or the nurse's own life and livelihood? Micheal frames the issue as one of "Drooling Beasts" who slavishly obey authority, but this characterization only feeds into the Randian narrative. The fact is, most people simply look out for their own immediate interests. DGLGMUT has a good point. The nurse was well within her rights to consider her livelihood and means of survival of more importance than some old bag's life. I'm being rough in order to highlight the consequences of true dedication to rational self-interest. </p> <p> </p> <p>Of course, I feel what happened in the "Independent Living Community" to be abbhorent, but such is life when people are no longer held to """higher""" values of duty, honor or self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is verbotten in the Objectivist lexicon, remember? I don't say this to pick sides, but merely to point out the confusion which results when an ethics of egoism runs into the wall of real life.</p>

Objectivist ethics starts with the premise that morality is a study of the conditions and values which allow a man to survive and flourish -- as an individual. In this respect, morality is no different if one is alone on an island or a cog in a metropolis. What virtually everyone else thinks of (when asked about the topic of "morality") are the guidelines and strictures which constrain an individual's behavior with respect to _other people_. On this view, morality is meaningless for a single individual on a deserted island This leads to most Objectivists and conventional people talking at cross purposes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXmzcroUmdU

Good comment. This is getting off-topic, but you might find this article thought-provoking: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/the-reality-of-group-selection-and-not.html

How can "awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there" be helpful if it does not result in any change of behavior? Hyatt's focus is on the tendency to prevent "bad experiences" as such. Of course, people should use their minds to avoid truly "bad things" which stand in the way of pursuing one's goals. Again, his usage of the word "metaphysical" (i.e., the old-fashioned use of the term) is meant to refer to all the abstract mental constructs which people use to assuage themselves and feel at peace, e.g., calling other people "evil" for having thwarted one's desires, or creating personal narratives about oneself as a coping mechanism. I believe his view is that these mental phenomena act as soporific, and do not serve a person in the acquisition of their values or goals. I'm reminded in this respect of that Bidinotto essay during the "Truth and Toleration" debates wherein Bidinotto characterized the Objectivist """valuer""" as some schlub who issued forth a pronouncement of judgements about the "good" or "evil" of various aspects of his environment from the comfort of his sofa, and in so doing, imagined himself the equal of D'anconica or Rearden. As I previously mentioned, this is a good question. I believe he had an evolutionary conception of mankind, and wanted anything that would move us beyond where we are now. He was impatient. "I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve." His interest in the occult was just more of his desire to acquire "self-mastery", i.e. more freedom and "self-liberation". Is such an approach successful? Open question.

"What other creature needs holidays to remind him of what to feel and when?" - Hyatt

I posted this excerpt merely to foster discussion. I can't speak for Hyatt's views _in toto_, but I have enough of a feel to clarify some things. Xray rightly asks what can be gleaned from such a conception of human nature, and what such a conception says about social organization? Nothing, really. Hyatt was primarly concerned with "liberating" and "empowering" individuals, regardless of any moral consideration of their actions, to say nothing of whatever social order might result if everyone followed his program. I was an avid fan in my younger years, when such a message was well recieved. In this respect, Hyatt follows in the tradition of libertarianism and Objectivism with their emphasis on the primacy of the individual, irrespective of cultural norms. However, this perspective has been rightly criticized by others as an endorsement of sociopathy (and even worse, autism), and although Objectivism attempts to salvage its veneration of self-interested egoism with noises about "rational" selfishness, I feel such efforts are futile. As I have grown, I have developed an appreciation for the more time-tested and traditional conceptions of man as a social animal, and it seems to me that THE philosophical issue of the day is the conflict between the good of the individual vs. the good of society. For the record, I think the issue is irresolvable. There are some actions which, while good for the individual, if followed by everyone would mean the dissolution of social order. Nonetheless, balance in all things, and radical individualists always have something to offer, and I posted this excerpt because of the impression it left on me, and because I felt it spoke to the issue being discussed in this thread: the nature of self-esteem, or self-regard, etc. I view it as a difference of perspective, i.e., Branden focuses on the "software" of the human animal, while Hyatt focuses on the "hardware"(with some hope of making radical changes in oneself that effect real transformation vs. turning inward towards solipsistic mental self-talk.) I believe the emphasis on "metaphysical" in the quoted excerpt indicates a focus on the threats to the ego, or self-system, not anything physical. Yes, he was given to hyperbole to shake his readers awake. It was intentional. But he is not equating "lie" with "error", I believe he was equating "lie" with "less than the whole truth"

FWIW, a passage from one of my homeboys: --------------------------------- All humans interpret events in terms of metaphysical models. An unpleasant experience is compounded by an unpleasant conclusion. A pleasant experience is compounded by a pleasant conclusion. All conclusions (generalities) based on specific experiences are lies. When repeated long enough they appear true. We are all handicapped by our traditions and conclusions. The notion of a metaphysical self that is either good or evil -- defined by other people's subjective needs and desires -- tell us more about other people's needs than our own self. These conclusions about self are without independent existence, yet they deeply affect how we interpret the world and ourselves. Since bad and good things will still happen regardless of what we do, we find ourselves arranging these experiences into pre-existing models that have been implanted in our head. Our salvation, however, is at hand. We can save ourselves by saying, "I don't know." At a minimum there are two levels of experience which are confused by almost everyone: direct experience -- like a brick falling on your head -- and the interpretive conclusionof the event. The first experience is wholistic, the second is a combination of past models, attribution needs, and anxiety. The feeling component of these two experiences can become indistinguishable. Therefore, a model is difficult to remove because it has become associated with the feeling component. As feeling cannot be completely denied, the models which interpret the meaning of the feeling also cannot be denied. Not only are these models difficult to change, the model often becomes independent of further experience and "causes" the feeling. This further "proves" to the person the validity of the model. Although thoughts do not "cause" feelings they do elicit them. "Positive thinking" cannot be effective unless the underlying metaphysical "feeling" models are in accordance with the positive thoughts. Models run on automatic. Models can't be made to coincide with positive thoughts because of the simple fact that "bad" things happen no matter what thoughts a person has. The solution to this is simple -- accept bad experiences without having to have an explanation or a conclusion. If the unpleasant feelings do not disappear within a short period of time, you know that the experience is being upheld by a model which has metaphysical implications about your self-worth and your competency in the world. While all too human, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is futile. It is this desire which has led to the worst dictatorships in history. It has also led to what we now call "civilization" -- which is nothing more than organized cowardice and laziness. Model building is an exciting activity. However, the models we build as children are too personal. We generalize these models to the universe at large, disregarding context and time. This causes no end of grief. We hold on to these models even when we know cognitively that they are flawed. The very fact that we are alive is somehow seen as proof that these models are valid. As a species we have not easily learned to think contextually or probabilistically -- instead we think in discrete categories. Generalities about self and life give us an illusion of security regardless of the error and misery they cause us. For example, we have a difficult time coping with disappointment when we don't have a satisfactory model to explain it. When we have a model -- any model -- we feel better, even though the model may be in error and we still don't have what we want. Most people would rather "understand" than live. Every individual is superior to any disembodied concept used to describe him. I say superior, not superior andinferior, since I give the individual priority over any and all concepts. NO RULE IS GREATER THAN THE CONTEXT WHICH VIOLATES IT. Like justice, the metaphysics of personhood is nonsense -- serving, like justice, an illusion to quiet the souls of those who have to label themselves and others metaphysically to reduce anxiety and feel at peace. Metaphysical damnation, as well as metaphysical affirmation, are the common drugs of the masses -- they are a poor substitute for a strong stomach and a good right hand. Children are the primary victims of these lies. Not only are they told lies time and time again, they make them up. Almost everything people believe as grownups consists of lies they were told as children. Culture is nothing more than agreed upon lies. Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in this statement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different level of abstraction -- a meta-level.) Logic asserts that like cases are alike. This is fine, but in reality there are no "like cases." We only assume like cases for convenience. Logic applies to closed systems that allow us, by a process of elimination, to come up with the one right answer. In open systems logic fails -- and rightfully so. Nothing is ever over with and nothing is ever put to rest -- things linger. A strong feeling or emotion about one event can bring a whole array of other thoughts and feelings into awareness. A failure in the present can bring forth an array of failures of the past. Every event feeds one or the other metaphysical notion -- damnation or affirmation. However, things are not so simple. Some people only have damnation or non-damnation possibilities. Nothing ever affirms them. Others only have affirmation or non-affirmation possibilities. Nothing ever damns them. The latter group is frequently regarded as "normal," while the former group is frequently regarded as "pathological" This division is false, since both groups (and the mixed group) are simply Zombies of a different flavor. Other individuals flip/flop between high affirmation and high damnation. One moment they are everything, the next they are nothing. This is frequently associated with parents who used all-or-nothing metaphysical statements in a confused, alternation fashion when responding to specific behaviors --C.S. Hyatt

Are there any fans of this filmmaker here? (I'm a neophyte, but I like what I've seen)

Brant, I don't quite see the connection between your foreign policy post and the preceding discussion, but no matter - I agree with nearly all of it. (Although I do make some allowances for the oil angle to it all -- not because I'm against oil companies but because I have been swayed by the Peak Oilers, and if what they say is true I'm tempted to be a little more forgiving of our involvement in ensuring the spice continues to flow). "Nation-building" is folly. I certainly have no love for the bloodthirsty warmongers we often see in certain parts of O-Land. I would hope my "tribute" to Kolker is not construed as a total endorsement of all his views. Far far from it. As I matured and put some distance between myself and Orthodox Objectivism, it became hard to avoid the suspicion that all the ARI position papers and editorials I read endorsing complete involvment in the Middle East was due to the heavily jewish staff there. For the record, I condemn neocon nuttery. BTW, thanks for answering the question. You're OK in my book. p.s. I've seen this "KASS" acronym before, but I don't know what it means. Care to fill me in?

Apropos of nothing (I think), but since i'm well inebriated at this point and feeling sentimental, I wanted to give a shout out to Robert Kolker. Mr. Kolker, I was but a wee lad in 1995 when I first logged on to the information superhighway as it existed at the time. One of my first stops was at a.p.o. I can recall being hunched over the green phosphorescent screen in the school library as all of us online entities interacted with such luminaries as Jimbo Wales. Good times. But your name stood out to me because of your intransigence in all the debates. I will never forget your staunch defense of infanticide. To this day my thoughts on the abortion issue are still in flux, but that's not the point. The point is, you were the first person who blew my mind with your unassailable logic. Sure, I had read Rand by that point, and of course she was something of a rebel, but for whatever reason her rebelliousness still felt...comfortable...right...somehow. It never really challenged my ethos. But your writings did. I was shocked...appalled...and fascinated. I didnt know what to think, but you left an impression on me. More than Rand ever did, you fried my circuits with your near sociopathic devotion to FACT. I ascribe no moral valence to this characterization. I bring it up only to say that it awakened me to TRUE independent thinking of the sort that gets people into trouble. And I thank you for that. I'm not sure how muchc this counts as a tribute, but regardless... Bob...this Bud's for YOU http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=261416&bbat=28767&inline

Kacy: "Blacks aren't more violent. Thugs are more violent. And before you start telling me that blacks are more likely to be thugs, I'd suggest you look around the world and not just in Detroit." Oh, but I have. The 8x violent crime rate is a national statistic, not state. Look around the world further than the U.S.? See Africa. Need I say more? "Dude, just come out and say it - you believe that blacks possess some inherant more destitution. Don't be afraid - just own it. Don't softball us. You believe there's something in their genetic makeup that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime. Come on, you can say it." Don't put words in my mouth. If the black community can't get their house in order, I'm tempted to blame it on them, but that says nothing about ultimate causes. A genetic makeup is certainly a possibility, but it's equally plausible that fatherless homes have as much to do with young black males growing up without discipline. My intention in this thread is not to pinpoint the ultimate causes of black dysfunction, but to eviscerate the bullshit excuses which implicate whites as the boogeyman and whatever else that places the blame on anything other than the black community themselves. What are YOUR thoughts on the matter? gill doni

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!!! <iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://youtube.com/watch?v=5dA3DePirsE?version=3" frameborder="0"/></iframe>

&nbsp; &nbsp;I promise to to do my best, but I can't in good faith make any guarantees. Once I get my blood up (as I did re-reading the Amanda Kijera story), that steam naturally fills the sails which power my speech which flows through my fingers to the keyboard. I suspect this is a character flaw I share with Rand. Btw, who was it that pointed out the reason for Rand's behavior was due to her mind understanding the implications of the most seemingly innocuous comment? Something like: when asked about "Communism", she didn't just consider the concept in some antiseptic mental space, but rather was flooded with memories of her time in Russia, and mentally saw the BLOOD flowing and the lives lost due to such policies. She understandably responded to such queries with something more than an academic's remove. I'm reminded of that quote now. Nevertheless, I'll strike my previous comment and please let me put it to you nice: Do you think Amanda Kijera's explanation for the real cause of her rape is valid?

By the way, I appreciate your "serious" reply to me. I like Rushkoff and the book looks interesting. I've told you before I admire your work in understanding human persuasion -- for the sake of making Objectivism more palatable I assume. As far as your other progressive author -- well, duh. The reason Progressives have won the war is because they DON'T play nice, and they DON'T use logic. They are intelligent enough to understand human psychology and they work it for all it's worth. It's high time those on the Right (or Objectivists) stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. If we hope to win hearts and minds we need to start playing "dirty". In my defense once again, I cut my teeth in the unmoderated anarchic environment of the internet ca. 1995. I realized long ago that logic and niceness are impotent against the snark and sarcasm of the Left. They only understand power and social influence. So I adapted. I suppose my time there has thickened my skin and sharpened my claws. And honestly, I recognize the truth that you can't really change someone's opinion without those weapons, hence my "smear" of Brant. (Rather tame, all things considered)

Mein Gott, what have I done?? Me? A preacher? No. Not in this life, anyway. Fair enough Michael. I have to admit that I did get a little too big for my britches for a moment there. Still getting my sea legs, I guess. But intimidation? Little old me? Hardly. I am but a babe in the woods here. You accuse me of "baiting", but I wonder how this "baiting" differs from calling someone out on the carpet to defend their views. As far as hypocrisy, you probably won't find another individual who has more antipathy to hyprocrisy than I. But I see no hypocrisy here. I occasionally see some problematic premises that I wish to challenge. As far as me lecturing the little sheep here at OL, you couldn't be more wrong. You may not believe it, but the reason I post here so infrequently is because the discussions I read are often made by folks who are either more intelligent than I, or more informed than I, and my contributions would not add much. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen. Nevertheless, like most people, there are slices of life which are intimately familiar to me, or which I have extensive knowledge of, or simply have more passion about. When these topics eventually roll around the wheel to land on a thread, I am compelled beyond reason to assert my experience. Can I be forgiven for assuming this forum is a place to hash out ideas? My impression is that this place is something like a pot-luck, where every guest brings their own unique concoction to add to the growing body of Objectivish knowledge. It occurrs to me that perhaps my mistake was in taking off the gloves in the "Objectivist Living Room". I honestly don't know -- is this subforum meant for folks who want to relax and not be so intense? I would never act this way in your Humor or Music subforums...I'm not that dumb. But in my mind, an intellectual forum is where people disassociate from their personal lives and hash out ideas in the Thunderdome. It's a place where you roll up your sleeves and get down to brass tacks to hopefully learn something new and perhaps expand your perspective. That can't happen when personal feelings act as a brake on any and all discussions. So if I have overstepped my boundaries, I sincerely apologize. I feel horrible when I make such social faux pas. As for Brant, I have no doubt he has the capacity to either clarify/defend his point of view or point out the flaws in mine. Or refuse to dignify my comment with any response at all. It's all good.

Kacy: There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody White and feel relieved. -- Jesse Jackson

Honest question, Brant, albeit spiced with frustration. Amanda excused her rapist with leftist boilerplate about the white patriarchy. In her mind, her rapist can't be held responsible, since he was acting out his anger due to being held down by The Man. If such thoughts stayed in her mind, I would have no problem with it. If that's her way of coping with the trauma, hey, more power to her. But I have a problem when such nonsense filters out from intellectuals and spreads through the culture to become The Narrative that everyone "just knows" is true, particularly when it informs public policy. It's this narrative I have a beef with, and I don't dislike it any less when I encounter it among Objectivists. The reason I called you out is because your statements up thread were not entirely dissimilar to the excuses made by Amanda, I.e., blacks are more violent because of the legacy of slavery, or because they are poor, etc. Was just trying to smoke you out.

MSK: "I do know that Progressives constantly talk about the dog whistle of racism embedded in certain statements and images. It's very easy to see it in a statement like "White women are being raped in mass by blacks...." Notwithstanding the allusion to Catholicism, that statement is not far from the truth. Blacks commit crime at something like 8 times the white rate. Yet the media focuses solely on white on black crime, while giving short shrift to phenomena like the black "flash mobs" of late. If it weren't for the internet, all of it would be swept down the memory hole. As far as rape, the same lopsided proportions are seen there as well: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm I don't know about "Uncontrollable Oversexed Black Studs" but stereotypes do not arise mysteriously out of thin air -- there is usually a grain or two of truth to their origin. Look, we can debate the relative merits of publicizing these factoids. My beef with Objectivism in particular, Libertarianism in general, and Progressives even more generally, is the utopianism and idealism which often blinds people to reality. That should be an indictment of a philosophy which espouses the value of reality and reason. It is throwing out good old fashioned horsesense in favor of High Minded Principle. An overemphasis on assuming all people are potential Rational Actors is utterly naive. There are patterns in nature, and disregarding such patterns for the sake of philosophical purity only serves one's ego. I'm thinking here of the Progressive/Objectivist who figures that because not ALL blacks are criminals, he won't be like those REDNECK BIGOTS, and therefore feels blissfully free to stroll through downtown at night, thinking nothing of the three "youths" in hooded sweatshirts approaching him and his date. The result of such smug naivete often speaks for itself. No different than the feminists at "Slut Walks" who think getting shitfaced drunk and dressing like a hooker should have no bearing on their being sexually assaulted. Yeah, in an ideal world maybe. Shit in one hand, Should in the other, and see which one fills up first. Anyone familiar with the Amanda Kijera rape? This is what fidelity to atomistic individualism and hopeful idealism leads you to: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/23/amanda-kijera-liberal-human-rights-activist-raped-in-haiti/ http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/anti-racist-idiot-goes-to-haiti-gets-raped-and-is-thankful-for-the-experience/ I have to wonder if any of the mental contortions Amanda extruded from her brain resonate with Brant on some level?

Ba'al Chatzaf: "For me that is is the only part. I can't do invisible." Hehe. I like the cut of your jib, Robert.

MSK: "This is where churches have ratioinal philosophies beat hands down. I'm not talking about correctness, but instead about effectiveness. They not only do this stuff with regularity, they do it in colorful, emotional and interesting ways. Hell, they even get everyone singing. And the stories that carry the morality! Great stories... This is why religions have such influence in politics and I believe they will have it for a long, long time to come." Excellent comment Michael. I've had similar thoughts for some time now. You do realize of course this casts you beyond the realms of Approved Objectivism, I take it? Objectivism's lopsided focus on the individual is to the detriment of our evolved social nature, and therefore has a blindspot regarding community and social cohesion. The extreme lengths Objectivism goes to in venerating individualism makes it a great philosophy for autists...and sociopaths. Not so much for well-adjusted people. Of course, balance in all things, yadda yadda yadda. With the coming disintegration of this country, the economic implosion, etc., I predict people will find themselves in need of some organizing principle to control the social chaos. Among the competing factions, I despair that the Objectivist contingent preaching the Good Word of Reason will be nothing more than a reed in the howling winds. Appeals to a Higher Authority will hold more sway over the masses. We can only hope that should it come to that, the religious rituals involved have been informed to some extent by Objectivisms influence in the culture, producing perhaps a more *refined* Christianity rather than a devolution to reactionary Islam for instance...

Kacy: I started out replying to your latest post but soon realized the convo was starting to go off the rails, so I took the liberty of going back to your earlier posts to focus on your main point. It seems to me part of the confusion lies in your repeated insistence (whether talking about Rand in particular or self-respect in general) that the hypothetical individual is putting up with crap for the sake of APPROVAL. This is how you have repeatedly framed the discussion. Since this is an objectivism forum, it should come as no surprise that your condemnation of doing _ANYTHING_ for the sake of "approval" would be met by the commentariat with the same response as if you had said "water is wet." The problem is that you invoked Rand and her circle as examples. As I noted in a previous post, the individuals in question were not seeking Rand's approval -- they were seeking their *own values*, and looked to Rand for assistance. Does this fact completely alter the thrust of your contention? It seems to me it does, but other comments of yours seem to indicate otherwise: "Respect is such a valuable thing... that to relinquish it for the off-chance that someone may sprinkle you bits of social pittance, or not to respond in kind when such social injuries are incurred, seems like a psychological self-martyrdom worse than any I can imagine." "And what I'm asserting is that there is no one alive who *gaining favor with* is objectively a higher value than *ones own self respect*. This is my contention." I think this is where the confusion lies. It's obvious you place a high value on self-respect. Yet at the same time you give the impression that the actions of others have near complete control over your self-respect. As Kyle and I have stated, self-respect is not something that can be given or taken away by anyone else. It's an estimation of your own worth based on your actions, not the actions of others. You give the impression that self-respect is this delicate, fragile thing which can be shattered in an instant by an offhand remark or throwaway comment. That doesn't strike me as a true representation of authentic self-respect. Since we are talking about Rand's colleagues and the slings and arrows they put up with, let me ask you: If these individuals were pursuing the goal of happiness through adherence to Objectivism, or were wanting to spread the influence of Objectivism to the culture at large, do you really think Rand's abrasive behavior diminished their self-respect? Enough to where they ought to abandon their goals? Seems to me that would be sacrificing a higher value for the sake of pettiness. Remember, they weren't seeking Rand's approval. What if my goal is to become a great painter, and I apprentice myself to an established artist in order to learn the trade? Let's assume the artist is a genius, but who is bipolar and an alcoholic. His behavior is erratic and he often has emotional outbursts which he takes out on me, in between genuinely valuable moments of tutelage. After several years I move on and become a successful painter. I have achieved my life's goal. Are you proposing that I have sacrificed my self-respect? I look at it as merely the cost of doing business. Hell, now that I think about it, what would you say about Howard Roark and his association with the alcoholic Henry Cameron? Should Roark have proudly walked away, even though Cameron had much to teach? The problem with placing too much emphasis on a (misguided) self-respect is that it can lead to an inflated self-regard and a sense of entitlement. I'm thinking here of those kids in the ghetto with no money who would rather deal drugs than deal with the shame of getting an honest job at McDonald's in order to start saving money. When asked why they don't do so, the answer invariably boils down to "the job is beneath me", "I don't want to be someone's bitch", "I don't want someone telling me what to do." Fair enough. But that thug attitude severly constrains one's opportunities. What it boils down to, I think, is that self-respect is ultimately a RESULT, an EFFECT, of achieving one's goals. You accomplish your goals, you feel proud, you feel worthy. I do not see self-respect as an end in itself. Do you? If self-respect was more important than pride or happiness, I could simply go to work, pay my taxes and sit in my house luxuriating over how respectable I am for not having put up with any crap and "doing my own thing." Not much different than navel-gazing if you ask me. "but I am also proposing that self-respect is a value objectively greater than any value gained by the approval of anyone else...." Could you expand on this? Perhaps establish this proposition logically? "...And I'm using Rand as an example of someone who exemplified that." Rand was more likely than not autistic. I would not hold her up as an example of healthy interpersonal dynamics in any way. "Objectivists believe (and I agree) that physical force in justified in retalion to and in order to protect onesself from physical force (or injury). I hold that the same applies to the forceful breach of what ought to be among the most cherished values - one's self respect." This proposition has some superficial plausibility, but is ultimately dangerous, IMO. One could say that Progressives/Leftists have taken the non-initiation of force principle and run with it to its logical conclusions: if force or harm against another is wrong, then the same should be said of *emotional* "force" or harm. The flaw though is that physical force prevents a person from excercising his freedom. Emotional "assault" does not. The problem as I see it is that there is no objective standard to determine what *legitimate* "emotional assault" consists of. You can't go by how a person feels, because for one, feelings are subjective, but more importantly, people vary in their tolerance for frustration. This dynamic plays out in the Politically Correct madness of this country right now, where language is policed ruthlessly, institutions bend over backwards and walk on eggshells to avoid hurting anyone's feelings (lawsuits), and ever more victim groups rally around the cry of "insensitivity" to the point where the country resembles a maternity ward of mewling babies. The racket is so effective that people are now using their vulnerability as a *weapon* to control the behavior of others. The oppressed become the oppressors, in other words. Shades of Nietzsche. "For example, when Machan was hung up on by Rand, would he have been justified in proclaiming "I'll never lift another finger to further the Objectivist cause, I'll never advocate for Rand again, I'll never spend a dime on her materials, and I'll never say another good thing about Objectivism in spite of the fact that he may recognize the value of Objectivism and still intend to live his life by those principles for his own sake?)" He would be justified because ultimately the only authority determining what is and is not tolerable is the person himself. But I think such behavior would be viewed as "butthurtness", as the kids these days say: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butt%20hurt p.s. what's your beef with Jaco?

Brant: "Nietzsche's self esteem ideas are like someone with no moral moral agency, for power without right actions is power dictating "right actions" which is both circular and ultimately destructive with denial of free will too boot." Not necessarily. IMO, power does not *dictate* "right-actions". Rather, power is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effecting right actions in the world. The problem is when an overwrought emphasis is placed on the "right" of "right action", over and above the "action." Put two objectivists who are both dedicated to "reason" in a room together and ask them to discuss things like the legitimacy of homosexuality, or women presidents, or even the value of the music of Bach. Do we see a dawning of the age of Reason? Not likely. Communication is frought with competing wills. When those who pledge fidelity to reality and reason can't agree on such mundane topics, what can we conclude? Any issue can be "reasoned" and argued about forever and ever, eventually extinguishing the subject of its attention into irrelevancy. Who among us here have not been a victim of the Paralysis of Analysis? Nietzsche has this to say: "Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic. In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong." Brant: "Humans have moral agency denied thereby by him and as a contradiction comes back to eat up this "TRUE self-esteem," which is as phony as anything you'll find in So. Cal." I think the recent discussion here concerning free will and the factors which condition the "acceptance of belief" have something to say about "moral agency."

Brant: "Thinking you are great is not self esteem which is an unconscious, positive evaluation of competence and lack of self-denigration--that is, a bad or wrong act is not the same as being a bad actor. Thinking you are (a) bad (actor) is just the other side of the coin as thinking you are great." I agree. Perhaps "great" was a poor choice of words. I was merely using it as a shorthand for the phenomenon of "positive self-regard". I also agree that both self-loathing and narcissistic grandiosity are different sides of the same coin. But this goes to my point that ultimately, much of what we think of ourselves is simply mental epiphenomena... This need to have a personal narrative, a mythology about ourselves is the root of the problem. Unfortunately, my impression of the Oist/Branden conception of self-esteem is that it seems to feed into this problematic dynamic. There is no god. We are not all equal in the eyes of the Lord. Some are weaker, some are stronger. Some are smarter, some are dumber. How to live with this reality? Branden proposes that we trust in the competency of our mind. But not all minds are equally competent, even assuming best practices are followed. This notion of everyone having the potential to have equal self-esteem is a chimera. I prefer Nietzsche's succinct proposal which I quoted upthread: that ultimately, Life -- that phenomenon which Branden himself said is a process of moving forward (for after all, stillness is death) depends on...moving outward...reaching out...expanding...absorbing more of one's environment...in essence, acquiring more power, no matter one's station in life. Casuistry about one's own self-talk and personal narrative is merely a soporific. We need to become more like animals in this respect. Watch your dog or cat when they get injured. They feel pain but ascribe no moral judgement to it. They just keep going...