JennaW

"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." --Leo Tolstoy I don't want to deal with people who strive to cage their own minds while at the same time I'm trying to break my own mental chains.

MSK--- check your premises-- er, your SHOES. ;)

You got my point right there. I was trying to use the notion of "folk psychology" as something everyone does naturally. A naive notion of psychology is how we are able to interact with each other. In some cases, I think specific parts of Objectivism asked for the biologically impossible: emotions cannot be dictated to the extent that Rand seemed to express; and everyone does, at least, a rudimentary action called "psychologizing" in the form of hypothesizing about the mental states of another person in an interaction. If we cannot psychologize, then we cannot philosophize. As part of human nature, we do both, and many other things. Also, the concept of "sense of life" includes psychology. While humans are not monoliths, neither are we compartmentalized creatures with a divided mental life.

I finished The Russian Radical last night. Chris goes out with a bang... but not really! He keeps going! From his approach, I really understood the complexities of Rand's thinking. Now I'm reading Total Freedom.

I think I already sensed that about Peikoff-- I can't seem to get a good grasp of Peikoff as a person--- my reactions (which I've noticed) have oscillated between liking one thing and disliking another. I need to figure that out in the sense that I'd like to read what Peikoff did on his own. Thank you all for your suggestions! I'm not sure if I will spend $80 on Smith's book (I might ask a university or public library if they have it) since I am poor and my priorities for book spending are for my field. It would be interesting to see how Smith tackles wisdom, insight, etc. But I will try to find Peikoff's work, look into Wilbur, etc. I think the non-mystical, non-Buddhist part of Buddhism may apply sometimes, but I'm not positively sure yet-- although I have found some nice advice there. I think practical wisdom is one aspect of what I'm looking for. My search is for not only a practical wisdom (which is a part), but an integrated, dynamic mini-system called wisdom that is used at the highest levels of conscious thinking/feeling--- I'm not looking for a "Just knowing" concept. I think wisdom is far from "just knowing"--- it has to interact with many other actions (insight, self-rule, conscious awareness, etc.) so I'm looking for practical, intellectual, emotional, perceptival, knowledge-fueled, volitional, realistic, and holistic (and etc.?) all at once. I'm interested in depth and dimensional qualities of wisdom as well as what interacts with it, or what is needed to gain it. Hm. I'll go read some more

Chewing, chewing, chewing... Rand's style of analysis and writing perhaps drew more of the analytical, logical, left-brain thinkers to her work; perhaps they took things a little too literally and rigidly. Systems and particulars matter, but not on their own. To only search for particulars at the expense of the whole system doesn't treat Objectivism as a living philosophy. It is in *how* ones looks at this in relation to reality that works. Reality consists of particulars AND systems--- take the analogy of a improv play. This play doesn't exist without that first word(s) that gets it going. It doesn't exist without characters. It still doesn't exist without character *interaction*, without scenes, nor scene interaction. It's not full without position, space, and time. It's not full without context, contrast, continuum, innovation, joy, or conscious awareness. It's full when it has all of these and ties things together in some way. Ultimately, this play is fluid, dynamic, and stable all at the same time; there are many possibilities that can be gathered from the factors (working off fundamentals)--- in which differing factors interacting (word, time, position, space, setting, character, context, contrast, etc.) can make the total play different than another juxtaposition of factors (different words, time, position, etc.). I see this in Objectivism, the philosophy. Our bodies are made up of particulars AND systems at many levels--- cells, and their interactions, make up organs. Organs, and their interactions, make up a human being. Human beings, and their interactions, make up a group. And so on. They are not static--- even being made of systems, like the improv play, they are adaptive, dynamic, but still contain essence. It is a process--- *life* is a process. But it doesn't mean that all abstracted principles from the axioms always have to go in *one* direction. When you do it that way, you miss out on context, creativity, potentiality, position, space, time, continuum, etc. I don't know about you, but I can't see the same exact non-improv play night after night after night. Freedom cannot exist without individual rights. Freedom cannot exist without free minds. A free market cannot exist without free minds. Guiltless, constructive, creative ideas cannot exist without free minds. Rand connected all these things together in a vague way *on purpose* so that she didn't *spoon feed* us. No wonder I was frustrated--- I wanted to elucidate things more from ITOE while I was complaining that it was "vague"--- when in fact, it is vague just so I can look between the lines and use my own mind to fill in specific details of my own life, thoughts, ideas, and current context! A system need not be compromised because it is not rigid--- in fact, its stability rests on adaption, dynamics, complexity. Like our biological bodies--- we are living embodiment of multiple nested systems that are dynamically stable, but adaptive, and *living*. I think to really engage Rand's works is to realize her (somewhat hidden) depth and to engage in putting flesh, blood,and reality in order to make it *living*--- like putting depth and dimension into a character.

I know. A memoir adds more human dimensional because it is expressed from a human's perspective. It is this engagement of a human, reading another human's words, of their personal experiences with other humans. That is more of what I meant.

Actually, thanks to Dr. Branden's book, MYWAR helped me appreciate AR more as an actual human being--- instead of the abstract notion I had in my head. Whether she was really like that? It depends on the person--- a tough talker would be grating to one person but completely normal to another. Dr. Branden's memior was from his perspective and I realize it as such, and it did not put AR in a "worse" light. It made her more 'real', have more depth. And I enjoy the real, I enjoy depth, and I think there is much more beautiful about the human than the not-human. I do not enjoy abstracted, otherwordly idealizations. I supremely enjoy the real human being, with all their complications--- and I think AR was plenty complicated, challenging, and human. I think that's a great thing.

And the subconscious is part of what?

Question: Where can I look in Objectivism material, on the specific topics of wisdom, balance, and insight? I've read through ITOE, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Virtue of Selfishness. In another post, I remember saying that Rand hadn't promoted these points. What else is there that directly addresses these points? I admit that I am frustrated, because I'm not sure where this question goes, but since epistemology is about study of knowledge, I figured a study of knowing ourselves would be under this topic? I know Dr. Branden worked on self-esteem, disowning the self, etc. topics which I understand on my own, deeply, through life experience. Did he talk about the points I'm mentioning in depth? While I'm definitely not adverse at all to developing my own philosophy of realistic wisdom, balance, and insight, I'd like to know what Oism says about this as I'd like to learn, discuss, and pursue these topics farther.

I just finished "My Years with Ayn Rand". I don't know why it's a big deal. Dr. Branden, in this book, was pretty clear about his position and what he did. There was regret, and learning, and growing. One thing I realized was that people change. I don't understand how one cannot realize that, yes, everyone makes mistakes--- some that really hurt, and I've done my share--, but also that it's possible to learn from these mistakes, deal, grow, not make the same mistakes, and move on. The one thing I saw throughout this book was that people were/are complex--- that our mental lives, our consciousness/unconscious/subconscious, is much more intricate than some would prefer.

Utopianism is an interesting phenomena. I think in everyone there is a desire for balance, freedom, happiness, and joy, but sometimes some of us get lost on the way there by imagining this wonderful ideal and then being angry that the world is not like that. Instead of anger at the world, why not compassion and education? How could anger and other destructive tendencies ever hope to convince anyone of a free and progressive future? Maybe this happens when the image of the ideal supercedes actual reality--- when, like clothing, you put on the "ideal" costume and forget that you have it on, and thus, never take it off. I'm not comfortable with holding up an ideal that I cannot reach. I tried that and paid for it in spades--- and those spades were both good and bad. I'm careful of what I mean to myself by saying "ideal" now. In no way would I ever elevate an ideal to God-status, or divinity, or a pedestal. I think Rand was brilliant in her integrations of many facets of thought, and so she made a new invention. But since Objectivism is a system, it has to be seen as such, and overdwelling on particulars may cause the user to miss other balancing points of the philosophy. In that, I agree that it lays a groundwork, either to start off from, or to inspire others to do as she did, not as she said. I think of Rand's ideas as in a marketplace... she wasn't the greatest, but she's one of them. But as it is a fact of reality that things change, and any system that works within reality's boundaries must adapt. I'd like to study deeper into this aspect, to find out what allows for balance, adaptiveness, wisdom, insight, complexity, and change.

I'd like to hear more perspective too. I've been "studying" Rand's works and the surrounding situations for 4 months, and I read Atlas Shrugged (again) and Anthem over the 3 months before that, during last semester. I think what "saved" me in general from "overdoing it" was that I had a lot of stuff going on at the same time: starting to write more often, classes, moving, personal upheavals, etc. So, in a very real way, real life is what happened concurrently. It made me know the difference. I get a little bit caught up in the rhetoric and semantics. Her descriptions are very powerful. However, as someone who has written on and off for a long while on personal issues, scholastic/intellectual issues, and have been creative in school and in profession, not to mention having studied media (including text), I was also able to "step back" to see the whole thing and to see the novel as a novel. What was going on was that I had more-or-less been on the same path that she described in terms of values--- but they were unwritten, although mostly realized. Rand helped me realize my own inclinations better, and it was that excitement that drew me; at the same time, I could most definitely keep myself separate as an individual from her. She enunciated the necessity of values, but I knew that the values I was to have must be done on my own--- not supplied by her--- and that it was I who had to figure out the difference between universal values and personal values. I felt this way for about a few weeks last year. It balanced out because I have a tendency to seek out other perspectives; I am thoroughly uncomfortable with immersing myself in one area, rigidly, for too long. 100% of the time, it saves my mind. My mom was like that; she has a very strong-minded practical, common sense outlook. However it restricted her from seeing things differently, and much of the battles between her and I were at the root battles of perspective. I could see the whole and interactions in my teen years, and she could see only principles and particulars. Eventually we both balanced out--- both of us through maturity. I would more like to know how differing people have "gotten out of" their self-described "randroid phase". What they realized that stopped that, what they learned, etc. The only experience I can draw from in terms of ideological totalitarianism is the cult experience. However, I really doubt that everyone who is emphatic is cultic--- I'm emphatic about my values, but I see cultish behavior as a specific leaning that (tries to) overrides the reality of the nature of individuality and being human.

I think coherence/tolerance and correspondence/crusading, set up in the way that it is indirectly expressed by some people, is a dualism. I know it is possible to have all of this as existing within one individual, given context of the individual and the situation. I can tolerate things up to a point-- a pinprick is simply not the same as a broken leg. Crusading does not mean giving up tolerance. Correspondence doesn't mean coherence is thrown out the window. I've encountered much writing, no lectures (I prefer to read), and forum/email communication; and I do notice trends--- not good or bad, just different--- in thinking styles. Chris's work resonates with me because I recognize his approach, and his choice of words, as thoughts that I've carried around in my head for a long while but have not organized them enough to write down. [Galt's speech resonates with me because on the whole, it speaks of many complex issues within not-too-many pages, and my mind naturally is drawn to that approach, and it is easier for me to understand. Thinking on the totality of Atlas Shrugged was a pleasure, as it involved many complex issues that I could engage with at different levels, whether Rand intended this or not.] However, different perspectives, or ways of thinking, themselves are not inhibitors to discourse. Many of my friends think very differently and it is something I enjoy very much--- it is an actual disappointment to me when people cannot think on their own. Different people's ways of thinking are a hallmark of individuality. The only trouble I have with any of this is for those who think that only one way of thinking--- their way of thinking--- is "correct". My mom tried this on me, and one of the hardest lessons I had to learn is that adults can be wrong. The church-cult did this and they spread misery, rage, anger, psychological/emotional abuse, and depression. While I really have no care personally whether someone thinks I think "wrongly" because I engage in systems thinking, my selfish interest lies in making sure that similar thinkers to me have a voice so that I can gain knowledge from their writings (as well as other writings). I prefer options, because I revel in making choices.

It was so interesting to read through this discussion... I agree here that we can not FULLY adopt someone else's perspective. First, I think it's because people may not fully know every single last drop of their own internal states at all times, and second that it would require the empathetic person to know everything about the other person. But I do think being willing and able to see things in different perspectives--- different contexts--- is highly important. Knowing that there is usually more complexity, or background, behind something or someone, is important--- this is always the one thing that I keep relearning. For me, doing this has allowed me a measure of understanding. One thing that endangers ourselves cognitively, intellectually, emotionally, etc. and makes ideas have negative consequences in general is the refusal (conscious or not) to understand and empathize. Empathy does not mean a too-soft heart; it has developed in us as social creatures for the purposes of when we choose to work with other people. Therefore, when I asked about differing ways of thinking, I was thinking about how in lack of perspective played out--- the non-acknolwedgement that others think in differing ways and that is what makes individuals. As for going overboard in picking up another person's perspective to the extent that the sense of self is totally ambiguous--- I can understand that to a certain extent. I remember in UCSD that I had a lot of trouble with many ideas because it seemed like I had no idea what to think. With hindsight, I recognize that the lack of knowing to think on my own is probably a combination of multiple factors: my Chinese upbringing, in which questioning an elder was "frowned upon", not to mention being in a less-than-individualistic cultural setting; that high school was not necessarily about thinking on one's own, as many people congregated into groups; that college consisted of more or less the same in the first couple of years; that I lacked life experience with which to work with. It was only after going through some extremely hard times, two years in succession, did I emerge out of that with a seed towards a deeper, and more developed, sense of self. I'd have to say that the years 19-22 were so intense that I still feel like I lived 10 years in 3. Thus I'd have to say, in my own experience, that direct challenges are what made me more secure in myself. At 25, looking back, I felt that if I could handle what I did, I could handle a lot of stuff. While the actual experiences were terrible, they also erased a lot of fears. I still feel the same at 28; but I still know that there is more life to be lived. My experiences, and my essential personality, in many ways, was why some of Rand's ethics resonated with me: her individualism, her egoism, her use of 'selfishness & benevolence', her pro-reason and pro-happiness. Yet I make a huge distinction with myself that Rand did not change my life, because in the end, it is *I* who has to allow change, in order to change it. There is no greater authority in my life than me, but I do give Rand lots of credit for paving that path. Finding yourself is a process, life is a process, and art and science are processes. Who I am is not something I pick up out of a book somewhere to memorize. So in a sense, the scary ability to pick up too much of one perspective--- and not being to hold to myself--- was brought under control once I really knew what it was like to almost totally lose myself. I don't think a person has to force a system upon themselves in order to prevent themselves from losing themselves. This tactic seems to be to be just another way of losing yourself--- by replacing who you are with a system. Perhaps this is a danger, that something else can, in essence, become your identity or your personality. Here I'm thinking this might be a lack of mental/personal boundaries, a lack of depth, a lack of challenge?, naivete, but I don't know--- I'm drawing from my own experience. And this is where groundedness in the self is a good thing, so that there is always a root to return to, yet the freedom is still there to navigate and explore. I read a couple of great things today: "Creativity always comes from such odd juxtapositions. Inventions and discoveries are often based on unexpected combinations and strange connections… This can’t happen when ideas a proffered, already polished, on silver platters, meticulously packaged in well-researched presentations, too precious to be thrown about. The best ideas rarely come in shiny boxes. They come off the wall. Off the wall means, simply, coming from somewhere unexpected. Being open to the unexpected is what play is all about." P. 165 "Like toddlers on tethers, the theorists are free to play in such dangerous ground precisely because at the end of the day, they're still firmly attached to the long arm of experiment. If their ideas are just hot air, eventually the experimenters will bring them to the ground." p. 238 Mind over Matter, by KC Cole

I'm halfway into The Russian Radical. Here's a question: Has anyone who's read this noticed that maybe a root of the debates may stem from different ways of thinking? I'm a whole-brain thinker in general-- I use both "sides" of my brain in different ways, but neither "side" takes precedence over another and they work in concert. However I've met people who were more analytical, or more creative; so I wonder if this may be a point of contention? It would be interesting to do a study on this...

I really like this thread.

Oops, sorry-- I keep thinking there's some Peikoff list out there. Okay, nevermind what I wrote about the list in relation to Peikoff. I did confuse Peikoff with Binswanger. I wasn't saying that the internet was the cause of the debate. It was more of a general statement of the difference between face-to-face interaction versus internet interaction. All in all, my post was about the nature of personal versus public/professional, and the public, professional life is different than personal.

I couldn't hear what was being said at all, there were so many people around. I liked what few text I found at the website. Otherwise I have a deep appreciation for the film and photography--- that stuff is hard to do, especially with animals involved, and the timing, etc. So I am seeing this from a background perspective too.

I went and saw this exhibit in Santa Monica pier on Mother's Day. It was fantastic and very calming, but also had a lot of substance. It was also non-religious, even though it looked like it was. My favorite ones are the ones in the water. I couldn't take pictures inside the exhibit, but I did take one while waiting in line: "What matters is not written on the page. What matters is written on the heart."

I'm like that too. If someone says "That book was disapproved by so-and-so!" the first thing I'll do is look it up and read it. If someone tells me that something is sinful or the like, I'm sure to be poking around in it. In all cases, it has provided me with lots of education and growth. Now I am wary of any talk of "sinful" because more often than not, it is not based sin, but on fear.

Peikoff & his list: My opinion is that Peikoff isn't such a "cut and dry" person where he demands every drop of orthodoxy, despite his list requirements (that I've read) and despite his writings (some of which I have read). I'm skeptical of both, judge, and take what I think is appropriate to my own life. If he's snarky there, he's snarky, end of story. If he's got a great point somewhere else, he's got a great point. Required loyalty oaths of any kind that require a certain way of thought are not my thing; professionally, time-limited contracts for research are fine. Ideological contracts are not, even with myself. By that I mean that I hold myself to the reality of change, dynamics, and the multitude of things I have yet to learn that may change my mind later on. In other words, I have no wish to shoot myself in the foot. I've heard that in person Peikoff is nice and has a sense of humor, and more open-minded, than his writings seem to exhibit-- but that is a personal experience from someone I know who has interacted with him. So I'm not willing to write off personal experiences that I have not had yet (that would be jumping the gun, and I hold this to all people), although I do judge specific internet activities such as posts, essays, articles, work, etc. and realize my decisions based on that. But again, I do make a large difference between the internet world and actual face-to-face interactions. People I know through the internet, no matter how long, can never be as close to me as people I've met face-to-face and developed a history with. The closest that people I've never met can be are acquaintances, and therefore, lack a large degree of the personal. This is why the interactions on forums and websites are to a large degree, impersonal to me. Cyberspace is not the whole of reality. I mistakenly assumed that everyone else would not take an internet interaction personally; especially in light of reading many scientific debates in which whole chapters in published books (not just public articles) are written back and forth in order to critique a scientific opponent. In that arena it is almost a must that a critique is never taken as a personal attack and that the discussion is about theories, ideas, and the like without character assassination. I think that the idea of personal boundaries need to be re-examined in light of all this. Maturation cannot happen without the understanding that there is a public realm and a private one, and while they interact, they are not equivalent.

Information is only scary if you are afraid of something.

Wait, she's never met Chris Sciabarra?! Are you serious or just playing?

Phil--- I've read your position and I understand where you are coming from. But I've moved on from the "dialectical debate" and I am focusing on Chris's work as a positive impact on my life and on the world ultimately. I've borrowed about 10 JARSs from a friend, and have 2 of Chris's books. And honestly, I cannot find much interest in myself to enter into what I see as an obviously dead-end interaction. I find no happiness, growth, nor progress in dealing with folks who seem to have already written down the conclusion before anything else. However, if you find it beneficial and ultimately a gain for you, go for it. And if you're tired, there's nothing wrong with resting and relaxing. Just be sure to laugh often and fully.