Roger Bissell

Ideas and Addiction How Religion and Philosophy Hurt and Help Letters by Roger Bissell To Reason magazine, August 9, 1990 [bracked material deleted by editor] Dear People: Bruce Alexander's review of Stanton Peele's Diseasing of America ("Beware the Cure," Aug/Sep 1990) continues your welcome recent focus on the issue of whether addiction or excessive behavioir is sick, bad, crazy, or whatever. In examining Peele's candidates for the cause of such widespread behavior, however, he overlooks a couple of vital points. Alexander correctly observes that the ideas that addiction is a disease (which Peele rejects) and that addiction is a failure of will (which Peele entertains) are both "dangerous." However, this danger is not based on the incorrectness of either idea -- indeed, I see each of them as expressing an aspect of the full picture -- but on the likelihood that powers-that-be (or that-would-like-to-be) will try to use them to rationalize their desires to intervene into other people's lives with coercive treatment methods and programs. And he fails to note that, in its own way, the third view (which Alexander and Peele seem to entertain) suggests its own coercive governmental solutions. If "excessive people are coping as well as they can with impossibly difficult circumstances, given the limitation of their personalities and abilities," then perhaps we need higher taxes and spending to reduce poverty and joblessness among the underclasses and to rebuild our shattered communities. To be fair, Alexander may have noted this possibility, too, but regarded it as less coercive and dangerous, seeming to involve only people's property and not their personal freedom. This is a false dichotomy, of course. Also to his credit, Alexander allows that the seemingly more humane solutions he favors "may be out of reach without some further analysis of the forces that made American society so harsh in the first place." As I see it, those forces stem from bad ideas. As Leonard Peikoff argued in his controversial book The Ominous Parallels [-- that ideas (in the form of various mutations and applications of Kant's philosophy) were the root cause of the horrors of Nazi Germany -- I would follow John Bradshaw (in Healing the Shame that Binds You) in arguing that the cause of widespread excessive or addictive behavior is the "poisonous pedagogy": a set of ideas in the form of dysfunctional family rules based on centuries-old beliefs about absolute parental power. Even in diluted, partially accepted form -- as the vast majority of parents practice them -- these rules justify various highly abusive parenting methods, such as "physical beatings, lying, duplicity, manipulation, scare tactics, withdrawal of love, isolation and coercion to the point of torture." (p. 41) Even in families not troubled by drug or alcohol abuse, incest, workaholism, etc., these methods almost universally cause children to freeze their emotions and thus to bias and impair their perception, judgment, and reasoning, "which are crucial to the will in its choicemaking duties." (p. 107) The poisonous pedagogy is a setup for addiction! I hope it is clear that this analysis points to the fundamental -- and only workable -- remedy to the problem of addiction. Just as] we need a "paradigm" change" from Kant's philosophy to save our culture from further descent into barbarism and totalitarianism, we also need to eradicate the poisonous pedagogy and replace it with functional family rules, if we ever hope to heal our sick society. Wars on drugs, alcohol, cigarette smoking, overeating, oversexing, overworking, etc.; coercive treatment programs; domestic welfare spending -- none of these will work. A battle of ideas can, if enough of us are willing to arm ourselves properly and fight it. The continuing spread of various Twelve-Step recovery programs is one very encouraging sign that the tide of battle may actually be turning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Orange County Register, April 9, 1991 Dear People: You seem to have touched a raw nerve with your article on "Religious addiction" (March 17), which dealt with a very real fact and problem in America. In his letter, "Someone 'hooked' on God needs no cure" (March 31), Harry Dumskey, clearly a very religious person himself, tries every way he can to deny that religious addiction is "a sickness comparable to drug and alcohol abuse." Dumskey tries to characterize deprogrammer Stephen Arterburn as an enemy of the worldwide revival movement. He claims that Arterburn refers to those who believe in "faith healing" and "regularly speaking to God in an audible voice" as "addicts." In truth, Arterburn said merely that these were two of a number of possible signs that a person is using religion as a form of addiction. To me, it is an obvious truth that some of the people "who have taken refuge in their religion because circumstances in their personal lives have become more than they can handle alone" are indeed religiously ill. And by this, I mean not that their religion is making them ill, but that they are misusing their religion in a way that disguises and perpetuates, rather than heals, the emotional illness they had before turning to religion. I have my own list of telltale signs that newly super-devout worshippers are engaging in religious addiction. Here are just a few of them: Although they have been "healed by God" of their abuse of alcohol or drugs or sex or whatever, they are still locked in the grip of other addictions, such as nicotine or compulsive spending. Under the guise of religious righteousness and missionary zeal, they still engage in the same hateful and abusive actions toward friends and loved ones that they did before "finding God." They speak of being forgiven of their sins by God, yet make no effort to acknowledge the exact nature of those wrongs to the people they have hurt and make no effort to make amends for their wrongdoing. For these people -- and believe me, they do exist, in the Calvary Chapel and elsewhere -- religion is a "refuge." It is a hideaway, not unlike the bottle, where they can continue to deny responsibility for their mistakes and to avoid facing up to their problems in dealing with life and with other people. For these people, it is a very small step from "How Dry I Am" to "How Great Thou Art." In recognizing and helping to treat this form of addiction, Arterburn is performing an extremely valuable service to our society. The emotionally healthy members of the "bright young churches" Dumskey refers to would do well to encourage the religious addicts in their midst to patronize this man's center -- or to set up a center of their own.

Barbara -- on my good days, maybe. But thanks for the kind words. I'm sure you noticed that that letter to Schwartz was written 20 years ago. Since then, I have tangled with a number of other "loyalists" (?) who cannot conceive that Objectivism is a (more consistent) form of Aristotelianism, or that the Objectivist ethics is a species of ethical egoism, or that the Objectivist politics is a species of libertarianism. The same kind of thinking denies that human beings are animals. Wacky folks out there. (I hope they're all out there! But if the shoe fits, wear it! ) And you may recall my losing my patience at times with some of those folks over on the original Atlantis list. Now, that was a loony bin! :roll: However, I notice that my off-kilter days are fewer and further between, while some of my previous nemeses (no names) are still indulging in scathing, vitriolic denunciations and put-downs of their opponents. It must be bitter torment to be so intelligent and to have to put up with people who are so darned dumb, in order to have a forum on which to share one's ideas. These days, if I run into such folks (the nasty ones), I remind myself that I am trying to clarify my thoughts for myself and whoever else might be reading along quietly, and that they (not my harsh or oily interlocutors) are my real audience. Happy holidays! REB

[i wrote Ayn Rand twice about what she might be planning to write on music and theoretical esthetics...] April 20, 1969 Dear Miss Rand [lengthy comments on various issues]...The other general matter I wanted to talk to you about is my career. Presently I'm in my third year in college at Iowa State U., and am a rather ambitious senior in music...My strongest point in music is performance, specifically, I play trombone. I also am a budding composer-arranger, however, and here is where my long-range goal comes in. I have decided to spend much time working on an integrated view of music, aesthetics, psychology, psycho-epistemology based on your philosophy Objectivism. I have been anticipating an article (or series) on music by one of the Objectivists for quite some time--in vain, however. Although I have done some speculation on these subjects for quite some time, and the articles by you Objectivists on art in general and on literature, theater, movies, painting, and sculpture have provided me with some important leads, I am certainly in no position yet to write a full-blown philosophical treatise on them. Perhaps you or one of the Objectivists are working along these lines now. If so, fine; if not, be assured that I am. If you have any suggestions or comments to make, and can spare the time, I would love to hear from you. I remain Your student and admirer and my own man, Roger E. Bissell [i received no substantive reply to this letter; there may have been a form letter, but I have no record of it. I then wrote more briefly and pointedly a second time...] April 20, 1970 Dear Miss Rand: I'm now a graduate student in music here at the University of Iowa, having received my B.M. (minors in mathematics and philosophy) from Iowa State University (Ames) on February 20. For some time now I have been deeply concerned with several problems: 1. an objective definition of esthetics (esthetics as it is, has been, and will be) 2. a definition of the concept of an Objectivist esthetics (subsumed under the general concept esthetics, but based upon objectively valid principles derived from man's nature and needs)(i.e., esthetics as it should be) 3. a definition of the concept beauty (should there not be two definitions at least? one a socially objective definition and the other a philosophically objective definiton?) 4. an application of the concepts sense-of-life and psycho-epistemology to music (in similar manner to your application of them to other areas of art) 5. an explanation of how music can be considered Romantic (or "Classical," or Naturalistic, or Fatalistic??) If you or another of the Objectivists is working along these lines and would care to correspond on this matter--or if you could recommend relevant books or articles on the subject--please contact me at the address below. Thank you. Sincerely, Roger E. Bissell [Here is the reply I received...] The Objectivist Inc. 201 East 34th Street New York, N.Y. 10016 (212)532-4820 June 30, 1970 Dear Mr. Bissell: Thank you for your letter of April 20. Miss Rand cannot engage in philosophical correspondence. However, many of the issues you raise are discussed in Miss Rand's latest book, THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO. [!!??] The enclosed brochure contains an order form, for your convenience. Sincerely yours, Barbara Weiss [Even a year later, when Rand published her three-parter, "Art and Cognition," in The Objectivist, she did not deal with any of the above five questions except #4, and not even that to my satisfaction. Little did she know, but my frustration with this form reply provoked me into securing a commission to work on an esthetics project, which I began in January of 1971 and finally finished in 1991. Portions of the project have been published in Objectivity, ART Ideas, and Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, including especially my essay "Music and Perceptual Cognition" (JARS, vol. 1, no. 1, fall 1999), which was based on my original essay, "Music and Cognition," written in 1971 and delivered at a conference in Williamsburg, Iowa in December of that year. Anyway, this is what got me started!]

[i sent the following correspondence to Peter Schwartz regarding his essay "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty."] June 26, 1985 Peter Schwartz, editor and publisher The Intellectual Activist 131 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 New York, NY 10003 Dear Mr. Schwartz: As a faithful reader of your newsletter--and a long-time-subscriber to the philosophy of Objectivism--I would like to register a complaint about your May 10, 1985 issue. If I had written a piece like your "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty," I would by now have received a deluge of criticism containing phrases such as "whim-worshipping, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment psycho-epistemology." Or: "Mr. Bissell, your views on libertarianism are a perfect example of what happens when Objectivism loses its reason--i.e., its reasoner, Miss Rand." Perhaps your mailbox has already been graced with such spleen-venting. In any case, I don't find that terribly productive or just. You have written what would be a sound critique of various irrational and dangerous trends within the libertarian movement, except for one thing: your frequent reference to libertarians and libertarian ideology. Every time you do this, almost without exception, you are committing an egregious inductive fallacy. In other words, you are making faulty generalizations--lots of them. Rather than insulting you by recommending an intensive round of tutoring sessions with Dr. Peikoff in remedial Aristotelian logic, I would suggest that you read or re-read (as I did) Lionel Ruby's The Art of Making Sense. Especially note the chapters on "How Not to Argue" and "Are All Generalizations False?" And in particular, the following passage: I hope that in the second (and following?) installments of this essay, you will direct your emphasis away from all libertarians and libertarian ideology per se and onto the specific culprits that you and I both abhor. Thank you. Sincerely, Roger Bissell [i received no response to this letter, though in fairness, my subscription was not cancelled.]

July 28, 1992 Dear Dr. Branden...I was startled and at a loss for words at one point in our conversation, so here are my two-cents' worth now: yes, you caused Ayn Rand pain, but so what? We've all--"even" Ayn Rand--caused someone pain. What's important is that people admit their mistakes and try to make amends to those they have wronged. You have done so, which is more than I can say for some of the others involved. ("Denial is not just a river in Egypt.") I probably wouldn't feel comfortable (as I do) socializing with you, if you hadn't--but even that would not stop me from admiring and benefiting from your work. I admire you all the more for being man enough to admit you were wrong--and to go on and have a happy, productive life. You have been a wonderful role model in more ways than one. And for that, I thank you, too...Sincerely, Roger Bissell

As a sort of addendum to this essay, here is the relevant portion of a Snail-Mail exchange between Nathaniel Branden and myself: April 3, 1992 Dear Dr. Branden...Knowing that you have recently hooked into the Recovery movement, I have also enclosed a copy of the "Higher Power" paper I wrote recently. It is an attempt on my part to put the concept of a Higher Power in a more naturalistic context. (I used to attend Al-Anon and had some problem with the covert religiosity of it.) Eventually I will revise it to include the "sage self" you discussed in How to Raise Your Self-Esteem. Please feel free to send me any comments and suggestions, if you are so moved...Sincerely, Roger Bissell April 20, 1992 Dear Roger...With regard to your other paper and the "higher power" issue, what you say is very interesting, and yet I doubt if it really adequately addresses the misgivings of those who like me have with the notion of "surrender to a higher power" or the A.A. doctrine of their individual powerlessness. I wonder if you are aware of the highly effective alternative approaches that exist. Since this subject is obviously high on your priorities, I urge you to read a book I read recetnly that impressed me very much. The book is called The Truth About Addiction and Recovery, and one of the authors is Stanton Peale. The book is available in trade paperback. I think it would mean a lot to you. Best, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. [Note: I did read the Peale book, but I have not yet incorporated any of its ideas nor Dr. Branden's "sage self" into my essay. We did not correspond further on this issue, but we did get together in person shortly after our correspondence and discussed a number of issues.] Best to all, REB

A Higher Power for Atheists and Agnostics By Roger E. Bissell January 23, 1989 (Revised Oct.-Nov. 1989) Like millions of people in our society, I have seen my life become unmanageable because of alcoholism and chemical dependency. Am I an alcoholic? Or a drug addict? No, but because of the way I tried to cope with the effects of drugs and alcohol on the character and behavior of people close to me, I gradually found myself feeling less and less in control of my own life and happiness. This growing sense of powerlessness gave me and many other “straight” folks like me a basic kinship with alcoholics and drug addicts. In time, we came to accept this kinship by realizing that a “12-Step” program was as important for our emotional and spiritual recovery as it was for the “users.” [by spiritual recovery, I mean the return to a more healthy state of one’s mental functioning and values.—REB, 12/05] Like those in Alcoholics Anonymous, Pills Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, etc., we members of Al-Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, Co-Dependents Anonymous, etc., were persuaded to begin our recovery by admitting that we are powerless over alcohol and drugs—and, in general, over “persons, places, and things.” As important as this was, however, it was just the first step on the road to spiritual and emotional health and “the priceless gift of serenity.” To proceed any further, we somehow had to come to terms with the need for a “Higher Power” in our lives. A Higher Power as a Tool of Emotional Recovery We were then encouraged to believe that “a Power greater than ourselves” could restore us to sanity. That reliance on our selves or egos and our hedonistic or willful impulses—rather than higher principles—was the main source of the emotional turmoil and chaos in our lives. That focusing on trying to change someone else’s character or behavior—rather than doing what is right for ourselves—was the cause of our continuing feelings of misery and helplessness. We were further invited to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of God” as we understood Him—to admit “to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs”—to be “entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character”—to “humbly ask Him to remove our shortcomings”—and to seek “through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God” as we understood Him, “praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. (Except for the phrase “persons, places and things,” the above quotes are all from the Twelve Steps of AA.) For these purposes, many people find that the traditional Judeo-Christian God works perfectly well as a Higher Power. Indeed, some of them (especially newcomers) are more than a little nervous or upset to hear the term “Higher Power.” Why not simply call God “God”! In time, however, most of them come to accept the fact that the 12-Step programs, while not religious per se, are very spiritual—and that in order to offer spiritual and emotional recovery for the greatest number, these programs should scrupulously avoid reference to any specific religious point of view. (These points are made in the 12 Traditions and Three Obstacles to Progress. It’s interesting to note that, if taken consistently, they would seem to rule out the common practice of closing 12-Step meetings with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.) The relative few, usually Fundamentalists, who cannot get comfortable with the unaffiliated nature of such programs, are free to gravitate toward Christian recovery programs. What about those who have trouble relating to an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, All-Good Creator of the Universe? How are they to relate to a Higher Power? Most of these people begin the process with something more easily grasped or believed in, such as their own conscience—or the “Group Conscience” (i.e., the collective spirit of the assembled recovery group)—or the 12-Step program itself (including the 12 Steps, 12 Traditions, slogans, Do’s and Don’ts, Serenity Prayer, etc.—or some power in Nature greater than themselves (such as the ocean)—or even a radiator or some other concrete object they can focus on in order to “transcend” or get outside of their own selves and wills. (This last technique is similar to what pregnant women train themselves to do in a La Maze childbirth class, which helps them to detach from or dissociate from the pains of labor and delivery.) In all cases, your Higher Power is supposed to be the focus of your prayer and your requests for serenity, courage and wisdom. And in all cases, you are encouraged to think of your Higher Power as higher than your self-will, and desires, a source of wisdom and guidance superior to your own thinking and judging. Even though it seems reasonable that you could consult your own conscience on a temporary basis—if you weren’t in too chaotic an emotional state at the time—you are usually encouraged to get in the habit of being in touch with a Higher Power outside of yourself. Even your recovery group or your personal sponsor is generally considered to be more reliable than your own inner sense of right and wrong, or your own reasoning powers, particularly in times of stress. (Presumably, your conscience and your intellect are too closely tied in to the ego or self-will and are tainted by its influence—and too easily influenced by strong emotions to remain objective.) Problems—and Solutions You might conclude from all of this that atheists and agnostics have more of a problem than others in discovering and using a suitable Higher Power. And you would be right. But it’s not because we have an especially difficult time letting go of judgmental impulses to “shoot from the hip” or pragmatic impulses to “fly by the seat of our pants” or hedonistic impulses to “do it, if it feels good.” Our problem has to do with the fact that we, more than most, have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that smacks of organized religion’s big-G god. It’s all too easy to feel that you are in the midst of a religious group (rather than a spiritual recovery group), when you hear people sharing about God, their Higher Power, as if He were a person—or reciting the Lord’s Prayer, which is out-and-out trappings of Christianity. And for most of us, it does not help to suggest that we act “as if” we believed in God as our Higher Power, simply in order to get the benefits of a 12-Step program. We agnostics and atheists question or reject the notion of a supernatural, spiritual entity per se. We are comfortable, at most, with the belief that only natural living creatures have spirits—and furthermore, that those spirits perish with the creatures when they die. [Again, note, my own personal view is that the “spirit” or “soul” is simply one’s mind and values…REB, 12/05] Most of us have no problem with the concept of natural powers residing within various things such as persons, groups of people, elements of nature, or even sets of principles. But we find that the notion of a disembodied spirit, hovering around, waiting to be consulted on personal matters is alien and repugnant to use. A second problem we have is that whatever natural power we might select for our Higher Power, at least some of the time it seems inappropriate and not very useful. For instance, the recovery group’s collective conscience is unavailable when one is jogging. And while the 12-Step principles themselves are OK to use while one jogs, one is not so much staying aware of them meditatively as one is tuning in to one’s body and the indications it gives of one’s physical condition while jogging. The ocean, as yet another example, would seem inappropriate for either recovery meetings or jogging—unless you’re meeting or jogging at the seashore! But there is a solution to these dilemmas: instead of choosing just one Higher Power, we can choose many! The world is full of natural powers that are better sources of important, useful information and wisdom than our own willful, stubborn, critical selves. These natural powers all “know” better than we do just what we should do in regard to our body’s weight and metabolism and nutrition, our relationships with other people, our careers, etc. All we have to do is pay attention to the appropriate Higher Power, do what it “wants,” what is right for us, rather than what we want or desire per se. All we have to do is progress according to the rate and in the way that is indicated by what our Higher Power “tells” us—to progress one step at a time, rather than according to some arbitrary timetable we feel (or someone else feels) we “ought” to keep. In this completely natural way, atheists and agnostics can have a clear understanding and acceptance of what religious people mean when they say, “Not my will, but Thine,” or, “It will happen in God’s time, and not necessarily when I want it to.” For the remainder of this essay, I will sketch out several examples of completely natural Higher Powers. I will try to describe how they operate to one’s benefit when one stops trying to make things happen and instead just lets them happen—when one stops trying to control outcomes and expectations and instead gets involved here and now in the process—when one gets away from being critical and judgmental and instead uses a process of non-judgmental awareness to guide one’s actions. Naturally, I hope and expect that these observations will help to raise the comfort level of atheist and agnostic members of 12-Step groups. They, too, deserve to be able to take full advantage of their recovery group without feeling that they are betraying their ideas or being hypocritical. But I certainly do not intend or expect for my words to antagonize the religious members of such groups. If they are able to accept the reality and value of some or all of the Higher Powers I discuss—as natural creations of their God—then more (Higher) power to them! If not, then as we say in the Program, “Take what you like and leave the rest.” And may the God-of-your-understanding (another 12-Step term) bless you! Example 1: A Higher Power for Sports In The Inner Game of Tennis (and subsequent books), Tim Gallwey discusses how Self 1—the critical, judgmental aspect of our personalities—keeps us from doing our best when we are practicing or performing some skill. Self 1, which is the same thing as AA’s and Al-Anon’s “ego” or “self-will,” is the part of us that likes to take charge, to “make things happen,” by force or unnatural means, if necessary. When we can get Self 1 to be quiet, to still its criticism and meddling, our natural, pure, non-judgmental awareness—which he calls Self 2—can help us to learn and perform sports and other skills far better, simply by “letting it happen.” Our body-awareness or Self 2 “knows” the process, the “how” of learning, and we need to accept its “superior wisdom,” rather than allowing the process to be ruled by the ego, Self 1, which is hung up on results and insists on having everything its own way. Our progress will be disappointing and less than it could be, until we get the ego to turn over the outcome of our learning process to our body-awareness and let it do the learning. It is clear that our body-awareness is a Higher Power than our self-will or ego. For example, by letting go of the goal of making ourselves have a sizzling tennis serve, we are free to be aware of the ball, the racket, and our body in minute detail, letting our body make alternations in posture, serving angle, velocity of swing, etc. By feeding pure, non-judgmental awareness to the body, we find that it will do the rest. If, on the other hand, we allow our ego to dominate the learning or playing process, we will lose the fine-tuning that pure awareness can give us. We will tend to try to hard, to “make it happen” rather than “letting it happen.” We will do things like over-tighten our muscles, playing with less clear concentration and relaxation than is possible, and with more effort and fatigue than is necessary. Clearly, the Higher Power of non-judgmental body-awareness is preferable to the ego or self-will. Example 2: A Higher Power for Dieting I recently set a personal goal to lost 50 pounds. [i have subsequently met this goal twice and am working on my third time! <sigh> …REB, 12/05] The specific method I used was the Herbalife nutrition plan—but it could have been any one of a number of similar systems. The “hook” that sold Herbalife to me (and to most of its customers, I imagine) is the promise of weight loss, but the actual foundation of the plan is the superb nutrition it provides. If you put the right things in your body, your body will respond by “taking your weight to where the nutrition dictates” for your present level of metabolism. Metabolism is an important factor here. The weight level you achieve will be different, depending upon whether you are sedentary or mildly active or vigorously active. In all cases, the weight loss you do obtain is a natural consequence of the improved nutrition, as opposed to being the forced consequence of “crash dieting.” You are “letting it happen,” rather than “making it happen,” in Tim Gallwey’s words. If you “let go” of the weight-loss goal—i.e., don’t become obsessed with it or fixated on it—you can then let your body’s internal awareness and regulating powers take you to the weight that your nutrition and metabolism dictate. If you exercise, too, your body will probably take you to a lower weight than if you remain sedentary. But in either case, your body will take you to the weight you need to be for that level of nutrition and activity. Don’t be afraid to experiment. Better nutrition will improve your mood and help eliminate cravings, both of which can cause problems with appetite and weight control. Experiment! And pay attention to your body. If you hit a plateau and are stuck 20 pounds above your desired goal, there is a reason for it, and your body “knows” the reason better than you. Often there is a need for the body to adjust to the changes produced by a certain amount of fat burn-off—to stabilize for a while before seeking a new, lower weight level. Again, the internal awareness of your body is a Higher Power than your own self-will. Allowing self-will to rule your nutrition is the same issue, with the same disastrous kind of outcome, as trying for minute, deliberate control over every muscle while bike-riding—as opposed to simply riding the bike. (My favorite example is the centipede who focuses in minute detail on what each of its legs is doing, instead of simply walking!) Example 3: A Higher Power for Joggers In a similar manner, one’s bodily awareness can serve as a Higher Power in the activites of walking, jogging, or working toward fitness in general. It is a common tendency for beginners to go “whole hog” on exercise, to be impatient and overdo it the first time out, trying to “make it happen” right from the start. A much more sensible approach is to begin by walking a moderate amount, and only gradually introducing bits of jogging and running. This allows one to “listen to” or feel one’s body, to pay attention to what it “wants”—and to be able to back off if you start feeling pain. (On this subject, I recommend Walk, Don’t Die by Fred Stutman.) Instead of “No pain, no gain,” it’s much more sensible to follow the maxim: “Stretching without strain—pushing without pain.” Your body, not you, is the best authority on how hard you should push yourself at any given time. Progress at your own pace—not at what you think it should be, but at what seems right for you as a result of staying in touch with your body’s inner signals during exercise. Don’t force progress prematurely merely in order to meet arbitrary goals. Goals are best used for reference, for orienting your efforts in a specific, measurable direction—not for achievement of an ego-victory. And not for heaping abuse upon yourself in striving toward them. Nor for heaping condemnation upon yourself when not achieving them. Not being able to reach a goal is not losing. Reaching a goal by means of an unnatural, unhealthy, abuse course of action is losing. And so is putting yourself down for not reaching the goal. Whatever you can do in a given day, week, year, or lifetime is OK—not as an opportunity for “triumph” or “victory,” but simply fro the enjoyment of where you are, the fulfillment of having allowed your body to take you where you need to be. Again, goal-setting and standards of value are fine, even necessary, but only as means to the end of having a happy, fulfilling life—not as means for punishing yourself for not achieving or living up to them. Now, if you follow this recipe for a good life, you may not get to where you want to go or “should” go. But you will get to where you need to be, if only you are willing to supply non-judgmental awareness and energy and let your body do the rest. Trust the Higher Power inside of you! Example 4: A Higher Power for 12-Steppers The AA or Al-Anon program itself can be your Higher Power in a way that is perfectly in keeping with the spirit and letter of the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions. It also allows 12-Steppers to avoid the contradiction, seldom noticed, in using God or some other spiritual personality as one’s Higher Power. Clearly, the 12th Tradition tells us to always place “principles over personalities.” Note that it doesn’t just say earthly or moral personalities, but personalities in general. If one is to apply this Tradition in a consistent and unbiased manner, it seems to urge that we turn our lives over to the guidance of the power in principles, rather than turning it over to any personalities. It does not say “except for an external Supreme Being or one’s own personal Savior,” or whatever. It says “principles over personalities,” period. Now, an atheist or agnostic can wholeheartedly embrace the 12th Tradition and turn his life over to the Higher Power that resides in the principles of the 12-Step program. The reason is that the principles of the 12-Step programs are based on the facts of reality and human nature, on the factual requirements of human spiritual and emotional health—rather than on anyone’s say-so, supernatural or otherwise. It might be thought that those facts themselves, or Reality itself, can be one’s Higher Power. And in truth, they do operate, to one’s advantage or disadvantage, depending on whether one acts in accordance with them or against them. But as a point of reference for a 12-Step recovery program, it is not the facts themselves that serve as one’s Higher Power, but the facts as acknowledged or recognized in the form of principles. To have a “conscious contact” with the facts of reality as one’s Higher Power—and not merely being constrained by those facts—one must deal with them in the form of principles. Agnostics and atheists can do everything that their program brothers and sisters do—things like staying in touch with their Higher Power, “letting go and letting God,” being willing to have their Higher Power remove their character defects, etc.—but they do it in relation to the Higher Power in the principles of the program, a fully natural Higher Power, rather than a Higher Power residing in some other dimension. Before going any further, I want to make one thing very clear to my religious friends: I am not arguing that Christians, Jews, etc. should abandon their faith in God. Their faith is none of my business. But the integrity and effectiveness of 12-Step programs is my business—and it should be the concern of everyone who wants to make sure that religion never becomes one of the Three Obstacles to Progress in Al-Anon, as one of our pieces of program literature refers to it. The issue is: is it proper to set up a personality—albeit, a supernatural one—as one’s Higher Power in a 12-Step program? Is it proper to turn one’s life over to someone else, even if that Someone is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and All-Good? I believe that there is much danger in setting up God as one’s Higher Power as there is in allowing one’s sponsor or some other 12-Step program friend to serve in that way. The human weakness this plays into is the natural tendency for people who are emotionally and spiritually unhealthy to turn over responsibility for their lives to someone else. This is a very harmful policy. It encourages passivity, the attitude that you don’t have to do anything; someone else (in this case, your Higher Power) will take care of it for you. In response to this, Christians and others in the Program point out that when you turn your life over to your Higher Power, you still have to provide the energy, the “footwork,” as it were. This is true, but they don’t follow it to its logical conclusion: what they really mean is that you are turning your life over to the guidance of “God’s will”—i.e., becoming willing to act according to (God’s) principles as expressed in the 12 Steps, 12 Traditions, etc. So, here we are once again, back to the need to live according to principles, rather than self-will, hedonism, etc. Back to: “Principles over personalities.” Can Christians and others accept the need to leave God at the doorstep, so to speak? Can they let go of the religious elements which now compromise the effectiveness of 12-Step programs? (Giving up the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer at the close of 12-Step meetings would be a good start.) Even if they can’t go this far, surely they can agree with agnostics and atheists that the principles of the 12-Step recovery programs are a Higher Power than their own self-will. If promoting such a mutual understanding is all I am able to accomplish with this essay, I will have been very successful indeed. Let’s talk. Example 5: Another Higher Power for 12-Steppers Some people say the “God-of-your-understanding” can be the collective conscience of the recovery group, the group-as-a-relationship. The premise here is that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” that a principle of “synergy” operates that produces more healing and growth for everyone than they could have had apart form the group. It is a common temptation for some group members, when seeing a group going “off course” in some way, to want to take over the group and try to make it better. But the group doesn’t need us to focus on it and try to cure its shortcomings or control it in some way, any more than any of its members need us to do this. You are not anyone else’s or anything else’s Higher Power. The only one you need to control and fix—the only one you really can control and fix—is yourself. It’s true that a group conscience is a more complex Higher Power than any of the other examples presented so far. It depends upon the interaction of a number of individual people’s awareness, rather than the simple operation of one’s own internal awareness. Also, the general grasp of the 12-Step principles may be better or worse than your own individual grasp of them. Nevertheless, the overall pattern of relating to the group as one’s Higher Power is the same as in the other examples. If you do what’s right for you, the group-as-a-relationship will carry you to where you need to be. If, of course, the group doesn’t have enough healthy parts—i.e., enough people who are actively fixing themselves or keeping themselves healthy—that fact will eventually become apparent to you. But in such a case, rather than trying to take over and fix the ailing group, acting as its Higher Power, so to speak, you are far better off simply to find another, healthier group. Example 6: A Higher Power for Marriages and Families The same is true for family or marital units. The family, or marriage, as a relationship, is your Higher Power in that context. Don’t dwell on how to fix your spouse, children, siblings, parents, or lover—or any of the relationships involved. “Working on the relationship” is code for shifting attention away from doing what you need to do and toward fixing someone else. Fix yourself, and all of the relationships will adjust accordingly. Whatever happens, whether or not it fits your desires or plans, will be for the best. Do what’s right for you, and the family or marriage will carry you as far as it can. Try to fix the family or marriage in any other way, and I guarantee you that you will raise your level of anxiety and helplessness. It may feel uncomfortable at first to take your focus off other people’s shortcomings, but you won’t have much serenity until you do. And if at some point, it becomes clear that the family or marriage is keeping you from doing what is right for your own happiness and serenity, from being what you need to be, you are free to change that situation, too. It may be less convenient or simple than shopping for a new AA or Al-Anon meeting, but the pattern is the same. Example 7: A Higher Power for Your Career In regard to one’s career, the Higher Power involved is one’s talent or ability. If you do what is right in regard to your talent—i.e., if you practice, take care of your health, learn how to market your skills or creations effectively, etc.—your talent will carry you as far as it can. Don’t be passive. Don’t turn the responsibility over to your talent. Don’t assume that people will beat a path to your door because of how wonderful you are in your mind. Have the courage to change what you can—your knowledge and skills (including communication and marketing skills), be serene about things you can’t change (such as, your age, your past, other people’s attitudes toward you). And be wise enough to know the difference between what you can and can’t do anything about. A Higher Power as a “Vehicle” To summarize the above seven examples: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” The great thinker, Francis Bacon, said this several hundred years ago, and it’s just as true today. There are many vehicles with which we can travel on our journey through life—cars and bicycles being but two examples. Less obvious ones include: our bodies, our minds, an Al-Anon group, a marital or family unit, a career, a hobby. Just to name a few. Each of these vehicles can take us where we need to be, if we are willing to obey the nature of the vehicle we are using and concentrate on doing what is right. The vehicle “knows” better than we do where we need to be and what we need to do to get there. If we open ourselves up and become aware of the vehicle’s nature and accept what that requires, then all we have to do is what’s right. If we supply the decision and the awareness and the energy—the willingness, in other words—the vehicle will take care of the rest. If we become willing instead of willful, our Higher Power will take us where we need to be. What’s more, if the vehicle is broken or malfunctioning, the only way we can help it get fixed is by concentrating on doing what is right. Then, if at all possible, the vehicle can fix itself. We can’t make it fix itself. We will only get in the way, if we try. We must “let go and let God”—i.e., let the Higher Power in the vehicle take us where it “wants” us to go. A Higher Power as a Teacher of (Sometimes) Painful Lessons Religious people, trusting in the All-Goodness of their God, believe that He would not deliberately torment us by putting misfortune in our lives, unless there were something important He wanted us to learn from the experience. In recovery programs, you often will hear veteran group members speak of their Higher Power in the same way. Sometimes a distraught or puzzled member will tell the group of how, again and again, they end up in a relationship with an alcoholic or drug user. “Why me?” they ask. “Why do I always pick this kind of person?” A standard answer from experienced Program people is: “Your Higher Power sees to it that you are drawn to that kind of person and relationship, until you become emotionally and spiritually strong enough not to need it any more.” The newcomer may then reply: “I didn’t need it in the first place! I could have gotten along very well and been very happy without it, thank you.” The old-timer (if he or she is wise and “has lots of Program”) may come back with something like the following: “You may not have wanted it, but you apparently weren’t willing to learn in any less painful way how to be emotionally and spiritually healthy. That’s why your Higher Power directed you toward these people and relationships, so that you would learn this very important lesson about dealing with life.” As we have seen, much talk about a Higher Power is really about an authority figure or a ruling personality to whom one submits. I believe, however, that it is much more conducive to one’s taking responsibility for one’s life if one conceives of that power not as a thing or personality, but as a capacity or potential to bring about some kind of change. Then, following the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, we can see that there is a Higher Power in each of us that is more subtle than our bodily awareness or our conscience. That Higher Power, for each of us, is our proper form of being, each of us as he or she can and ought to be, our highest potential for living a healthy and happy life, the human potential for each of us: “the best within us.” (See Rand’s The Fountainhead, 25th anniv. ed., p. x.) Like all living organisms, we human beings are wonderfully complex self-regulating creatures. Unlike other animals, we are capable of willfully turning away from the things we need the most. We are just as capable of choosing to put things into our stomachs, our lungs, and our lives that we know are bad for us, as we are the things that are good. And we often do. Still, there is a place in the center of each of us (don’t ask me where!) that in some sense “knows” what is best for us, even if we try to turn away from it. It never gives up trhying to orient us toward the good, even if we choose otherwise, even if the way it tries to align us with the good seems to be the opposite of what it should be. A good example is found in the area of nutrition. If we fail to provide our bodies with adequate amounts of certain nutrients, we experience cravings for things which are objectively harmful to us, things such as sugar or greasy fried foods (two of my favorites!). Bad as it is to indulge these cravings, however, they represent an attempt of a Higher Power within our organisms to help us to avoid the even worse harm that would result by not having these substances. They serve, much like alcohol and drugs, as medications that temporarily offset the harm we have already done to ourselves. The problem is the same, too: the benefits are only temporary and the long-term effects are a gradual deterioration of our physical well-being (in forms such as obesity, heart disease, etc.). Eventually, of course, we may hit some kind of “bottom”—such as a heart attack, severe depression or humiliation—that leads us to examine our lives (in this case, our nutrition) and decide to make a change in our attitude, our thinking, and our behavior. And once we make and act on such a decision, each step forward on the new path will be just as reinforcing of growth and health as our old course was of stagnation and disease. Until then, we will have no compelling reason to make a major change in our lives. We will continue lurching toward greater and greater physical discomfort and illness, not fully knowing (or caring to know) why. But it is important to realize that our physical bodies and their regulating mechanisms and the cravings they generate are not, therefore, some kind of lower power or enemy of our well-being. They help us, like a Higher Power, in the only way they can: by taking us to the point where we finally become willing to turn our lives around and head back toward health. We can see how this principle operating in a very clear fashion in how we feed our children. If we allow them to have a mediocre (or worse) diet of junk food and fast food, we will find that the kind of treats they prefer tend to be laden with sugar: candy bars, ice cream, pastries, cookies, etc. If, on the other hand, we take care to give them a balanced, nourishing diet—full of vegetables, fruits, grains, and non-red meats—we will find that their sugar cravings largely (perhaps even entirely) disappear. (Of course, any self-respecting kid is going to resent to high heaven his or her parents imposing themselves as a Higher Power in an attempt to change the child’s nutritional habits. If you doubt this, just try to be consistent about the changes you want without getting major amounts of flak from your child!) This, in pattern, is exactly what happens in the spiritual-emotional area of our lives, too. As they say in the computer industry: “Garbage in, garbage out.” And just as importantly: healthfulness in, healthiness out. Our souls (i.e., our minds and their values) work in exactly the same general way as the digestive-nutritional part of our beings. Our only choice is whether we will listen to the Higher Power within each of us and take the steps we need to take in order to be happy and healthy—or ignore that Higher Power and suffer the more painful pathways it leads us onto, over and over if necessary, in order to finally get our attention. And, as in nutrition, we may well have to have some sort of breakdown or major comeuppance before we will be willing to listen and do what’s right for ourselves. This is the basic alternative facing all of us—religious and non-believers alike. And that is the reason our emotional and spiritual recovery can only proceed by means of a “self-conscious contact with a Higher Power”—so that we can deliberately set ourselves to (and keep ourselves on) the course of healthy living and healthy values. Not living by whim and desire, but by principles. Not choosing whatever we want, but choosing what is good for us. I have not spelled out exactly what I think is the good for us as human beings. That issue is not appropriate to the present discussion of why we need a Higher Power in our lives, even if we are not religious in the conventional sense. The basic choices, however, seem to boil down to some form of collectivist-altruist ethics (on which Marxism is based), some form of mystic-altruist ethics (such as that of Judaism or Christianity, for instance), or something like Ayn Rand’s Objectivist ethics or Aristotle’s eudaimonism. Based on my passing remarks in this essay, it is probably not too difficult to tell where I stand on the issue. What’s most important to me, however, is not that you agree with me, but that you honestly and vigorously explore the issue, if it is of interest and concern to you. Conclusion The proper attitude that goes with the healthy choice is not willfulness—which is the root of so much of our problems and unhappiness—but willingness. Willingness to live by principles. Willingness to do what is right for ourselves. Willingness to respect the nature of our spirits and our bodies—and of the world we live in—and to act accordingly. Willingness to get in touch with our Higher Power, to understand what it requires of us for well-being, and to way (in essence, if not in literal form): “Not my will, but Thine.”

This is a follow-up to the 12th grade vs. 6th grade "readability" examples. In an unpublished manuscript on aesthetics (back when it was still cool to spell it "esthetics" :-), I wrote a section on linguistic and esthetic symbols as human tools, and how to evaluate them. This is the first time this material has been shared publicly, so comments are welcome...REB =========================================== Like all human tools, linguistic and esthetic symbols can be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in performing the function for which they are needed. The basic questions to ask are: • Do they enable us to use them successfully for the fulfillment of the need we have of them?--and-- • How well? The primary need served by language and art is a cognitive, integrative one. They implement our system of abstractions. Without language and art, we cannot retain the conceptual integrations we have achieved, nor can we gain and retain new ones. To evaluate whether and to what extent a given symbol (or system of symbols, such as a language) enables us to grasp and retain abstractions, we must first identify the abstraction(s) being symbolized. In the field of language, this is an easy matter. Language encompasses the full range of human knowledge. Various grammatical and syntactical forms, for instance, may be compared across languages--or even between speakers and writers in the same language--according to criteria such as clarity, consistency, economy, etc. Naturally, one’s intended audience is a key factor in knowing how to evaluate, for instance, a given sentence’s effectiveness as a symbol. A sentence may be perfectly clear to a college graduate. If, however, its structure is sufficiently complex, it may be complete gibberish to a sixth grader--even if all of its concepts and words are part of the child’s knowledge and vocabulary. Obviously, we must always ask ourselves: “Clear--to whom?” The principle behind this is known variously as information overload, exceeding cognitive channel capacity, failure to observe the principle of the “crow epistemology,” etc. This principle merely identifies the fact that all consciousness, animal and human alike, is limited in the amount of material that it can retain and focus on at a given moment. Thus, the sixth grader, with a smaller context of knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, and factual information will be more limited in the complexity of what he or she can grasp than the college graduate. Things one says to or writes for the sixth grader must be scaled down accordingly. This requires not only smaller words and shorter phrases and sentences, but often much repetition, as well. Such repetition for the college graduate, however, would probably bore or irritate him, for the simple reason that he does not need the repetition. This illustrates an important fact about the criterion of economy of means. And it must be emphasized that economy of means is not just a matter of how few times something is repeated or how few words are used to communicate a point. The basic issues behind economy are instead: “Repeated--to whom? Communicated --to whom?” How many times is it necessary to repeat something for which person, reader, or audience? How many words are necessary to communicate something to which person, reader, or audience? These issues--which are applicable by analogy to art, as well--may be summarized in the form of a sort of linguistic “razor”: linguistic communicative means should not be eliminated in disregard of necessity, nor should they be multiplied in disregard of necessity. In other words, true linguistic economy entails using all of the words, repetition, etc., one needs to communicate a point to one’s chosen audience--but only those words, repetition, etc., that are needed. (Present work not excepted!) In addition to the linguistic evaluation of (for example) a sentence, there is also the factual evaluation of its content. In other words, one wants to know not only: is it (communicatively) good or excellent as a sentence?, but also: is it a true, factual sentence? Does the sentence represent a non-contradictory grasp of a fact of reality? Even more basically, the sentence must be meaningful. Without meaningfulness, it has neither cognitive nor symbolic value. Such an utterance communicates no content and can thus be neither true nor false. And it communicates nothing and can thus be neither excellent nor poor. It’s totally worthless--except, perhaps, as an example of linguistic pathology. Human beings need not just meaningful sentences--nor just graspable sentences--nor just factual sentences--but meaningful and graspable and factual (true) sentences. Nevertheless, these three aspects of sentences are clearly distinct and must be kept separate when evaluating them.

For many years, I have been concerned about how to communicate to school children Objectivist and Libertarian insights that are age-appropriate not only in their content, but also in their style. It's one thing to feel confident that you are writing about an issue that your young audience is ready to hear about. It's quite another to write on their reading level, so that it has the right amount of "chewiness." Back in the 1980s, I read several books on writing style, including a couple by Rudolph Flesch and one by another fellow whose name I can't remember, but who had a lot of very helpful things to say. From this, I got some writing tips for readability, as well as formulas to assess the readability of what I had written in terms of "grade level." To try it out, I wrote two versions of a piece about a Newsweek article, one version aimed at 12th graders, the second at 6th graders. It was a very fascinating challenge, and I think the results are worth sharing. (And discussing, if you are so inclined.) Just note the radical simplification that is necessary to add 6 grades of readability to the piece. Lemme's and Gimme's -- Whose Rights are Right? (12th grade version) In a Newsweek article, "The High Court's Grand Finale" (July 14, 1980), it was observed that the Burger Court takes a narrow, piecemeal, unphilosophical approach to its decisions. This is true, and it applies equally well to our country and its other leaders, too. There are two fundamentally different notions of individual rights waging a crucial, but largely unacknowledged battle for supremacy in America today. The fact that these two radically opposed ideas are not recognized for what they are explains why so many people, and our Supreme Court justices in particular, can reach such contradictory conclusions about rights. These two diametrically opposed concepts of rights can be referred to simply as the "lemme's" and the "gimme's." And they are both present and well accounted for in the Court decisions referred to in the Newsweek article. The "gimme" theory--the modern welfare-state version of rights--says: "I'm poor, gimme a free abortion," or "I'm a minority, gimme preferential treatment." Led by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Marshall, the "gimme's" won on the racial quotas issue. The "lemme" theory--the traditional American concept of rights--merely says to the government, "Lemme choose to seek an abortion, but to have it only if I can pay for it or get someone's voluntary assistance;" or, Lemme choose to apply for this job, but to get it only if the employer is willing to hire me." Led by Justice Stewart, the "lemme's" won on Medicaid abortion issue. Time will tell which version of rights wins out, and whether America keeps lurching down the road to socialism with the "gimme's," or returns to freedom with the "lemme's." But one thing's for sure: neither the Burger Court, nor our country, will find its way until we all clearly distinguish between the two basic theories of individual rights and decide once and for all which one we will consistently recognize and uphold. Lemme's and Gimme's -- Whose Rights are Right? (6th grade version) About two years ago Newsweek did a feature on the Burger court. They observed that the highest court in the land "takes a narrow, piecemeal, unphilosophical approach to its decisions." ("The High Court's Grand Finale," July 14, 1980) This is true. But the report failed to note one thing. Our country and its other leaders follow the same approach. This is why so many people--Supreme Court judges among them--take such contradictory stands on basic rights. They fail to look beneath the surface to rock-bottom facts. They neglect philosophy. People may suspect that a major battle is being fought in our country today. Few of them know what it's all about. Two very different notions of individual rights--the "lemme's" and the "gimme's"--are slugging it out. Both are present and well accounted for in the cases mentioned in Newsweek. The "gimme" theory is the modern welfare-state version. It says: "I'm poor, gimme a free abortion." "I'm a minority, gimme special treatment." Led by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Marshall, the "gimme's" won on racial quotas. The "lemme" theory is the traditional American concept. It merely says, "Lemme seek an abortion, but have it only if I pay for it or someone else helps me out of his own free will." Lemme apply for this job, but get it only if the boss wants to hire me." Led by Justice Stewart, the "lemme's" won on Medicaid abortion. What about the long run? Which version of rights will win out? Will our country keep lurching down the road to socialism with the "gimme's"? Or will we return to freedom with the "lemme's"? Only time will tell. But one thing's for sure. Neither the Burger Court, nor our country will find its way until they clearly draw the line. Only then can they see that the "lemme's" and the "gimme's" do not mix. That they must choose one or the other. Let's help them.

Kat, not too long ago I kept hearing about meetings of an Objectivist Salon being held in the Chicago area by Marsha Enright and others. Are you in touch with her? You might want to pool your resources, if they are still in operation and open to new members. Best, REB

This is the story of my and Bill Dwyer's discussion with Nathaniel Branden about the Mind-Body Problem and the Dual-Aspect Theory of Mind...reb ============================================== Back in 1997 on the Objectivism-L list, there was a discussion of Nathaniel Branden's new book The Art of Living Consciously. Ken Barnes kicked off the discussion on September 13 with some brief remarks under the heading "An Underlying Reality." Ken wrote: Then Barnes quoted this passage by Branden: I was intrigued and posted the following comments on September 17, 1997: Dr. Branden replied to me briefly on September 18: Probably what Branden was groping toward was not some kind of "proto-panpsychism" (as Diana Hsieh opined, in her characteristically over-the-top tendency to put the worst possible negative interpretation on Branden's writings), but instead a way to express what is usually referred to as the dual-aspect theory or dual-perspective theory of the mind-body relation. Kelley wrote about this in the first chapter of The Evidence of the Senses, and some time earlier, I gave a paper eventually published in 1974 in Reason Papers #1, called "A Dual-Aspect Solution to the Mind-Body Problem." Whether you call them "aspects" or "manifestations" or "forms of awareness," though, what is clear is that they are not different things, but the same thing--the conscious, living organism--as we are aware of it in different ways. In any case, Branden's comments in The Art of Living Consciously did not, in my opinion, represent progress in our understanding of the mind-body problem. It was as if he were saying, "Well, since I believe in the 'causal efficacy of mind,' I will abandon my idea that actions are generated by entities and instead say that they can be generated by capacities or 'manifestations.'" There may be a place for "fuzzy logic," but fuzzy metaphysics??? On September 25, 1997, Bill Dwyer posted comments on Nathaniel Branden's "underlying reality" view to Objectivism-L. (His comments were similar in content to what he posted more recently on SOLO HQ website; see the Rebirth of Reason archives for SOLO.) Later that day, he received the following brief reply from Branden: Bill shared this response with me, and the next day (September 26), I wrote the following: As I see it, you cannot escape the logic of causality being the relationship between an entity and its actions, something drilled home to me by you and Rand and Peikoff and Kelley and a number of others who were transmitting the Aristotelian view (as against the Humean event-event view). You cited "underlying reality," "little stuff," and interactions between "manifestations" as a model of mind-body held by Ayn Rand. But so is the above model of causality, which sees interactions as being between entities, not "manifestations" or attributes or processes or events or whatever. The two models seem to be incompatible, don't you think? If you can find a way to reconcile them, I'm all ears! Dr. Branden graciously responded the same day: That concluded my correspondence with Dr. Branden on the matter. (Bill had some further correspondence with him later in the fall. I'll let him decide whether to share it here on RoR.) I then wrote to Bill, again that same day: The "data" Branden refers to that supposedly puts this assumption of necessary mind-body connection in question is alleged instances of people having little or no cerebral cortex nonetheless walking out among the rest of us in society, with seemingly no easy way of distinguishing them from people with intact brains. (I believe the phrase he used at lunch with me and my wife several years ago was "a thin, almost microscopic layer of cortical cells.") I have yet to hear of anything remotely like this from anyone else. Sounds more like a thought-experiment than something real! If you know anything about it, or could find out, it would really help me in laying this (I think) pseudo-objection to rest. As I recall, this particular point was never resolved (although there have been recent reports of single neurons being associated with a particular thought or memory). What Bill and I both came away from this phase of the discussion with was a sense of how odd it was that Branden would advocate the form of dual-aspect theory he did, while claiming to be familiar and in agreement with the criticisms of that theory. [Note to the reader: these comments were originally posted on SOLOHQ on December 8, 2005.]

Glenn, very nice quote, thank you. I put it into the hopper right away! Folks, please feel free to comment on any of these quotes. You can reply to this thread or try to start up a new thread, if it seems to you to warrant a fresh topic on its own. Having fun yet? :-) REB

Dear Branden fans: Here is something I think has been needed for a good long time: a glossary of terms from philosophy and psychology and ethics that have been defined (or succinctly characterized) by Nathaniel Branden. (Note: NB quotes a number of definitions and statements by Ayn Rand; I won't include those, since they are included in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. When NB provides an alternate definition -- see for instance "value" -- I include only that here.) As with the "one-liners" thread, suggestions, questions, comments, etc. are welcomed, and I will incorporate "worthy" submissions in later editions of this post. (I will list sources-consulted-to-date preceding the entries, so please confine your submissions to what you think I might have missed from the items in the sources list.) Best 2 all, REB ============================================== Sources consulted to date: The Psychology of Self-Esteem (hereinafter PSE), chapter 12 (page numbers from 32nd anniversary edition)(I am working backward through PSE, in case anyone wonders!) ============================================== [A]uthoritarian therapy [is the kind of therapy] in which the therapist preaches, propagandizes, intimidates, cajoles, and otherwise attempts to pressure the patient into accepting certain views. (PSE, p. 243) [D]irective therapy [is the kind of therapy] in which the therapist accepts the responsibility of his role as educator... (PSE, p. 243) Evasion [is] the refusal to think, the willful rejection of reason, the willful suspension of consciousness, the willful defiance of reality... (PSE, p. 232) Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof. (PSE, p. 236) Honesty is the refusal to seek values by faking reality, by evading the distinction between the real and the unreal. (PSE, p. 234) Humility [is the false belief in or pretense of] the helplessness, the smallness, the impotence of one's mind. (PSE, pp. 238-239) Independence is reliance upon one's own mind and judgment, the acceptance of intellectual responsibility for one's own existence. (PSE, p. 234) Integrity is loyalty in action to the judgment of one's consciousness. (PSE, p. 234) Justice is the practice of identifying men for what they are, and treating them accordingly -- of rewarding the actions and traits of character in men which are pro-life and condeming those which are anti-life. (PSE, p. 234) [L]ife is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. (PSE, p. 233) (See also Rand in AS and VOS.) "Man's life" means: life lived in accordance with the principles that make man's survival qua man possible. (PSE, p. 232) A code of ethics or morality is a code of values to guide one's choices and actions. (PSE, p. 228) (See also Rand in AS and VOS) Pride is moral ambitiousness, the dedication to achieving one's highest potential, in one's character and in one's life -- and the refusal to be sacrificial fodder for the goals of others. (PSE, p. 234) Productiveness is the act of supporting one's existence by translating one's thought into reality, of setting one's goals and working for their achievement, of bringing knowledge or goods into existence. (PSE, p. 234) Psychotherapy is the treatment of mental disorders by psychological means...Psychotherapy is properly to be conceived as a process of education through which the patient is (a) led to understand the deficiencies in his method of thinking, and the errors in his values and premises, that underlie his problems; and (B) taught how to improve the efficacy of his thinking processes, and to replace irrational values and premises with rational ones. (PSE, p. 218) Rationality is the unreserved commitment to the perception of reality, to the acceptance of reason as an absolute, as one's only guide of knowledge, values, and action. (PSE, p. 234) Reason (See AR in AS and VOS.) [A person's] self-concept [is his] view of himself. (PSE, p. 222) [A person's] self-evaluation [is his] estimate of himself. (PSE, p. 222) Thinking is the activity of perceiving and identifying that which exists -- of integrating perceptions into concepts, and concepts into still wider concepts, of constantly expanding the range of one's knowledge to encompass more and more of reality. (PSE, p. 233) A value is the object of an action. (PSE, p. 229) (See also Rand in AS and VOS.)

Dear Branden fans: I'm trying something a bit different with this post. I'm going to gradually re-read and peruse my Nathaniel Branden books and select my favorite one-sentence statements by him, listing them here along with the essay or chapter of the book they appear in. (I'm calling them "one-liners," but obviously some of them are more Kantianesque than pithy. I will continue to edit and re-edit this post, adding more worthy statements and sources as I go. Readers are encouraged to (1) comment on any of these statements, and (2) post their own favorite NB statements (with source, please!). I will incorporate ones I like into later editions of this post. (And I will tend to shy away from ones that require editing, deleting words, bracketed clarifications, etc.) ============================================== My #1 pick: "Rational awareness is not the 'cold hand' that kills; it is the power that liberates." (Read chapter 5, "Emotions," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) "There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor more decisive in his psychological development and motivation-- than the estimate he passes on himself." (Read chapter 7, "The Nature and Source of Self-Esteem" in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) "No evasion, no defense-values, no strategy of self-deception can ever provide a man with a substitute for authentic self-esteem." (Read chapter 8, "Pseudo-Self-Esteem," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) From the same chapter, a very long and very eloquent sentence: "Let a man tell himself that self-esteem is to be earned, not by the fullest exercise of his intellect,but by its abandonment in submission to faith; let him hold that efficacy is attained, not by thinking, but by confirmity to the beliefs of others; let him hold that efficacy consists of gaining love; let him believe that his basic worth is to be measured by the number of women he sleeps with; or by the number of women he doesn't sleep with; or by the people he can manipulate; or by the nobility of his dreams; or by the money he gives away; or by the sacrifices he makes; let him renounce the world; let him lie on a bed of nails -- but whatever he may expect to achieve, be it a moment's self-forgetfulness or a temporary illusion of virtue or a temporary amelioration of guilt, he will not achieve self-esteem." "A cheerful neurotic, confident of his ability to deal successfully with life, is a contradiction in terms." (Read chapter 9, "Pathological Anxiety: A Crisis of Self-Esteem," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) "If and when the price of 'harmony' with his fellow men becomes the surrender of his mind, a psychologically healthy man does not pay it; nothing can be a benefit to him at that cost." (Read chapter 10, "Social Metaphysics," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) My favorite in a chapter full of great statements: "The essence of the romantic love response is: 'I see you as a person, and because you are what you are, I desire you for my sexual happiness." (Read chapter 11, "Self-Esteem and Romantic Love," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) Another very long and very eloquent sentence: "If a patient must be taught that the frustations, the despair, the wreckage of his life are ultimately traceable to his deficiency of self-esteem and to the policies that led to that deficiency, it is equally imperative that he be taught the solultion: that supreme expression of selfishness and self-assertiveness which consists of holding his self-esteem as his highest value and most exalted concern--and of knowing that each struggling step upward, taken in the name of that value, carries him further from the bondage to his past suffering and closer to the sunlight reality of the human potential." (Read chapter 12, "Psychotherapy," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)(Note: shouldn't that be "sunlit reality"?) From the same chapter (thanks, Glenn!): "To introduce into one's consciousness a major and fundamental idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything." In "Our Urgent Need for Self-Esteem," posted at www.nathanielbranden.com/ess/ess12.html (thanks Rich!): "To be self-responsible is to recognize that we are the author of our choices and actions; that we must be the ultimate source of our own fulfillment; that no one is coming to make our life right for us, or make us happy, or give us self-esteem." =========================================== OK, you get the idea? Comments, suggestions, questions are all welcome! Best 2 all, REB

Yes, I think you're on target, Michael. People often fail to acknowledge crucial facts, because they don't like those facts. In particular, in the free will debates, if a particular fact threatens certain other very important values, then that fact must be denied and the arguer for that fact lambasted, ridiculed, fallaciously argued against, whatever it takes to put them down and discredit their argument. When Bill Dwyer and I argue for value-determinism, people react automatically as if our particular kind of determinism -- which is compatible with conditional free will -- is going to render objectivity, knowledge, morality, responsibility, and rights null and void. In order to "save the phenomena," we must be refuted! And what refutations! The discussions on Atlantis-2 list were classic travesties, and on SOLO not a lot better. But note that value-determinism is light-years away from environmental determinism or genetic determinism (the kinds that really destroy objectivity, responsibility, and rights. In value-determinism, your choices and actions are the product of whatever you most desire at the point of decision. That goes for the actions in the world that we choose, as well as each act of thought, evaluation, reflection that we choose in the process of deciding what action in the world to take. It even applies to choosing to focus. Do you want to focus more than you want to do anything else right now? (Including ignore inconvenient or frightening facts.) If so, then you can -- and will -- focus. That is why I say that conditional free will (can, if) and value-determinism (will, if) are compatible. That shows a way out of the never-ending morass between free will advocates and determinism advocates that is based on the reality of human choice being free to follow strongest desire and determined to follow strongest desire. There is no guarantee that that strongest desire is based on a rational identification and evaluation. But you are free to replace that desire with a stronger one, if you desire even more strongly to review your thinking and evaluating and perhaps generate a new action-oriented desire to supplant the old strongest one. (Desires can't be directly replaced with others, only through new input of information and reflection, i.e., cognition and evaluation.) You'll have to forgive me (please). I'm chewing. This is philosophy under construction. Not preaching. And that's another point. As you said, you get reactions as though you are speaking as an authority of Objectivism, when instead you are challenging Objectivism and thinking out loud. They also react as though these posts are finished products, rather than exploration. In a way, our posts are finished products, for (if not deleted) they form a permanent record. We are sort of committed to these ideas, unless we are clear to post a disclaimer with them. Nowadays, there is less difference between the published, printed word and electronic communication than there used to be. No wonder (I'm realizing) Peikoff has given so many lectures (that could be books) and published so few books. A book is a commitment! It puts you out there on the chopping block. And an internet discussion group with archives is like a poor-man's publishing house. To your critics, anyway, who think you are preaching and spreading false Objectivism! <SIGH> Will we get past this craziness? Hang in there, my friends. Please give me your feedback when you are so moved. I enjoy questions and criticisms -- but not debates. I'm too old for that alpha-male, testosterone-based head-banging. :roll: Best 2 all, REB

Hi, Michael. I went back to SOLO Passion, and all of a sudden the main page was right back where it wasn't half an hour before. So, I cut and pasted my piece into the thread, and it successfully implanted. For good measure, I posted it to RoR, also. Comments are always welcome, but as noted, I'm not intending to get into a debate about it. REB

[This is an edited version of a post to SOLO Passion] Dear SOLO-ists: I have been referred to as engaging in an "ongoing campaign against free will." That is not accurate. I argue for conditional free will -- you could have done otherwise than you did in a given situation, IF you had WANTED to. This is in contrast to the standard Objectivist concept of free will, which is really more of a KANTIAN outlook, and which I have characterized as categorical free will -- you could have done otherwise than you did in a given situation, PERIOD, i.e., EVEN IF you HADN'T wanted to. I am no more against free will than Ayn Rand was against necessity in morality. In regard to ethical necessity, she said, "Reality confronts man with a great many 'musts,' but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: 'You must, if --' and the 'if' stands for man's choice: '--if you want to achieve a certain goal.' " (CVD, pp. 118-119) Similarly, in regard to free will, I say: Reality confronts man with a great many "cans," but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic freedom (of will) is: "You can, if --" and the "if" stands for man's desires: "--if you want to achieve a certain goal more than you want to achieve some other goal" (i.e., if you value a certain thing more than you value another thing). I think that, in order to remain consistent with her Aristotelian, anti-Kantian outlook, Rand ought to have defined free will as I have, as conditional free will -- not as Peikoff (in OPAR) and others have, as categorical free will. I realize that it's standard practice in Objectivist circles to refer to Kant as a destroyer of reality, reason, morality, you name it, and that the effect of his categorical necessity was to destroy moral responsibility (CVD, p. 121). I think a case could be made that Rand's categorical freedom has a similar effect. If as Peikoff says (OPAR, p. 60), there is no reason or explanation for focusing, one just focuses or not for no reason, then all of one's actions (to the extent they flow from one's focusing) become arbitrary. Categorical freedom a la Peikoff (and Rand?) destroys moral justification. However, in the interest of dialogue and mutual exploration -- you know, truth-seeking? -- I would gladly set aside such judgments so that some reasoned discussion could take place. But that presupposes people are more interested in discovering truth than being right and defeating their opponents. If someone wants to explore this issue, on or off list, I am all for it. But I am not going to engage in rhetorically heated debates... I have also been referred to as engaging in "subliminal psychophancy," because I want to refer to my point of view as Objectivist. For the record: I am an independent thinker, using Aristotle's and Rand's most general frameworks and methodologies as my starting point and method of operation. My resulting views are not immune to criticism (but neither are theirs!), so I proceed by checking my premises, trying to be sure my views correspond (reduce) to reality and cohere (integrate) with one another, and double-checking my conclusions. I consider myself an Aristotelian because I agree with his essential philosophy, just as I consider myself an Objectivist (or Randian) because I agree with Rand's essential philosophy. I am no more a "psychophant" toward Rand than I am (or she was) toward Aristotle. You might think that it would be perfectly fine for me to regard myself as an Objectivist, since Rand has given several prominent statements of the essence of her philosophy, with which I agree in toto and unreservedly. Still, that is not good enough for some, because I disagree with the Objectivist (categorical) version of free will, which is not included in any of those statements. Here's something to ponder: no doubt, some of Aristotle's original followers, were they alive today, would dearly love to pitch out the whole lot of the Objectivists who identify themselves as Aristotelian, being in agreement with Aristotle's essential philosophy (while disagreeing with him on various very well known Aristotelian views, such as his politics, his Unmoved Mover, etc.). Would they be right? Are Objectivists out of line in claiming to identify with the basic Aristotelian world-view? Or would the purist Aristotelians be out of line in being so overly restrictive and jealous of competitors? My way of cutting through all this silly squabbling and turf-protecting is this: of all the philosophies out there, which one do my views come closest to? For nearly 4 decades now, there has not been even a close second to Objectivism. Yet, despite the fact that I agree with the great bulk of Rand's views, I am certainly not a Randian/Peikoffian Objectivist. Nor am I a Kelleyite Objectivist (as I'm sure he's relieved to know, if he cares). Nor am I a Brandenian or Machanian Objectivist -- or Neo-Objectivist, as they sometimes style themselves. I think it's perfectly fine to qualify "Objectivism" in these ways, but since I don't have enough of a name or body of work to justify attaching my own name to it, I suppose the best label for me is "Independent Neo-Objectivist" (with no insult intended to the others). And that is where I will leave it... Roger Bissell, musician-writer

Hey, folks -- I spent a couple of hours composing a piece , and as I was in the process of trying to post it to the Forum on Solo Passion, I was bumped off. After that, I tried every navigation angle I could and either got an "access denied" page or a page with general headers with no content to click on. I then tried to do what the entry page says, post some initial content, and nothing happened; I couldn't find the posted content anywhere (even though it said it was "created"). So, either some new "improvement" is being tried with no success at the website, or I have been ostracised from Solo Passion. Anyway, I am going to post my piece here for your interest. You're probably a more receptive audience anyway. :? REB

Hi, Dragonfly! You mentioned comments about painting by Rand in The Romantic Manifesto, and you wrote: It might interest you to know that I have written a bit about this in an essay for Reason Papers No. 23, Fall 1998. The essay was "Kamhi and Torres on Meaning in Rand's Esthetics," of which I'll quote just a brief portion here. If you are interested in reading the entire essay, it is posted at http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmmm.html. As you may know, I have a fairly substantial bone to pick with Torres and Kamhi and their book on Rand's aesthetics, What Art Is, which I nonetheless gladly recommend, for its comprehensive and stimulating coverage of Rand's ideas. (It should be supplemented by reading the various pieces on their book and on art, music, and architecture that were published in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, some of which are also posted on the above web page.) Welcome, and best regards, REB P.S. I heartily concur with your comments on Rand's opinions on music, and I will simply add this philosophical footnote: arrrrrgh! :?

Hey, Kat, sorry I'm a day late and a dollar short, as they say, but Happy Birthday! As for your hug from Barbara, perhaps I can collect an extra one from her next week, and then the next time I'm in the Chicago area, I can pass it on. Cheers! REB

Theist's Delusion by Roger E. Bissell 1995 Because the natural world is just a sludgy sort of Parmenidean One, Full of Prime Matter, base and mean, There could be nothing new under the sun, Did not our Dear Heavenly Father deign to supervene. (This whimsical little poem was inspired by John J. Haldane's essay, "The Mystery of Emergence," published a few years back in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society.)

Rich and Michael -- Becky and I were married in a UU Church in Omaha in 1990. Her ex steered clear, which was somewhat of a surprise, since he is such an unreformed party crasher and wet blanket. It was a nice church and a nice ceremony (we wrote it), and the bride was (and is) beautiful. :-) I'm not really interested in wreaking vengeance or even hassling my wife's ex. I just wish he'd voluntarily go away! We just got back from our weekend trip to Nashville. Our son's wedding was wonderful, and our visit with the other kids was great, too. My wife's two grown daughters (from her marriage to the ex) came along, because they are really close to my 20-something kids (from my marriage to my ex), and regard my son as their brother. They also met and fell in serious "like" with my 38 year old son (from my marriage to my first ex), and now regard him as their brother! (Just the kind of thing that gives my ex and my wife's ex fits. And that is much sweeter revenge than any bully-boy stuff from UU terrorist organizations. :-) And they reiterated how I have been more of a father to them (supporting, accepting, etc.) than their own dad. That is particularly sweet, considering that for a good 7-8 years or so, the younger one (now 23) was more or less hostile toward me. (She's now very affectionate and respectful, having caught on to her dad's distortions and empty promises and seen my patience and efforts on her behalf as real caring.) But enough on that for now. I gotta hit the hay and go back to work at Disneyland at 8:30 tomorrow morning -- and hope that my chapped, swollen lips will be able to negotiate the Disneyland Band material without too many muffed notes! Buenos noches, mi amigos. REB No como los otros muchachos

I am nearing the end of a wonderful weekend in Nashville, Tennessee. My son Andrew (26) got married on Friday, and my wife, her two adult daughters, and our 11 year old daughter flew here from California on Thursday to visit and attend the wedding. In addition to the three kids already mentioned and my son, we also spent time with daughter and other son from my second marriage, my three grandchildren (daughter's kids), and my son from my first marriage. We got at least one or two great wedding photos of all the kids and me and Becky lined up with the happy wedding couple, so someday soon I hope to be able to upload and share the photo with you folks here on Objectivist Living! In the meantime, peace, love, and truth! REB

I completely agree with Michael about the focus of Objectivist Living being the positive, the life-affirming, the growth-oriented, the happiness-seeking. When I was going to recovery meetings in Al-Anon, we were encouraged to take our focus off the alcoholic or addict -- read: the person who was abusing us and making us miserable -- and put it onto what was best for us, for our healing and growth and happiness. When addicts and abusive people are deprived of all that unhealthy attention they have attracted, they sometimes come around and become decent people. Or, they precipitate a break and move on to find other victims. Or, we come to see that there is no value in continuing to interact with them, nothing but pain and turmoil and a waste of our precious time on earth. I was very impressed when I heard Rand and Peikoff say at one point that polemics (i.e., negative, critical focus on other people and their ideas) is a small part of Objectivism, and that positive philosophy is the dominant focus. Yet, I see so many people who profess to agree with this idea nonetheless spending countless hours trying to tear down other people's viewpoints and character. And good people being drawn into futile debates with them about this. (I just raised my hand.) It just occurred to me that the one thing these people fear most is other people not under their control putting out good, substantial work that attracts attention away from them. As witness all the criticism of such prolific writers as Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra, who are independent intellectuals writing about Objectivism, psychology, and cultural analysis. Nathaniel and Chris are growing, achieving, doing good work -- and so many of their critics are doing little other than trying to tear them down. What does this tell you? (That's a rhetorical question at this point, right? :-) Well, enough on that! I am SO glad to be here, with all you, to make Objectivist Living a haven and a place for recovery and health -- and sharing and happiness. :-) REB

I wrote: "What really turns me on is the idea (and reality!) of a woman who is intelligent and strong and "melts" emotionally and sexually when we are together." Barbara, you commented: Busted! Yes, I melt in re Becky, too. My "melting" takes a different form from hers; I don't quite wear my heart on my sleeve as she does. But my heart melts (i.e., my emotional warmth and deep affection activates) with her, for sure. As for "happy endings," I think we have already had a pretty extensive one: 17 years since reuniting personally, and over 16 since reuniting romantically. And we are hoping for many more years of our happy ending -- really hoping that it is a happy MIDDLE and ending. :-) Anyway, here's to romantic melting and happy endings! (And thanks for your other wise and supportive comments.) REB