Effective Persuasion, Dialogue, and Communication

[Philip Coates]

> OK Shut Up for now -- since everyone agreed to not Go There for now [WSS]

Actually, I read all those posts on Noodlefood - and you are being a bit exaggerated and unfair:

Both she and her husband said quite a bit in defense of MCCaskey. And they questioned whether ARI was going to try to squelch open discussion of differences on issues like induction. They defended the fact that people could disagree on the issues McCaskey did, on induction, etc. The issue was whether he could be on a board whose head doesn't want him and whether they would endlessly keep discussing it.

Hardly a craven knuckling under and kowtowing and conspiracy of silence, don't you think?

When you criticize your opponents you have to bend over backwards to be fair to them.

[caroljane]

> OK Shut Up for now -- since everyone agreed to not Go There for now [WSS]

Actually, I read all those posts on Noodlefood - and you are being a bit exaggerated and unfair:

Both she and her husband said quite a bit in defense of MCCaskey. And they questioned whether ARI was going to try to squelch open discussion of differences on issues like induction. They defended the fact that people could disagree on the issues McCaskey did, on induction, etc. The issue was whether he could be on a board whose head doesn't want him and whether they would endlessly keep discussing it.

Hardly a craven knuckling under and kowtowing and conspiracy of silence, don't you think?

When you criticize your opponents you have to bend over backwards to be fair to them.

I read those posts too. They were the most interesting things I ever read on there, and after Ethel closed off the discussion it was all thyroid and Thomas Jefferson and Poor Patients: Kill them or cure them? The site just became boring after that, and I am not surprised its followership has fallen off.

[Philip Coates]

I think Diana and Paul had to suspect they wrote those things that they would get in trouble with Peikoff and ARI. Which is exactly what happened.

Took courage and a sense of integrity.

No matter how much one may disagree with them on other issues.

[william.scherk]

It should be obvious that I applaud Diana for doing her utmost in the Objective-ish Spring in re McCaskey. Phil among others may not be able to read consecutively and integrate the subsequent bits, but fuck me, does anyone get the idea that I do no tacknowledge the Free Speech Zone that she provided during those heady days? More words on Diana above should make that clear.

The vow of silence and hypocrisy is what I call what keeps Phil (banned), me (banned) and Carol (pre-banned) yet not bathed in the streams of righteousness of Diana and welcome to her measles parties, and it is what makes Diana a sectarian poison, in my opinion. She can have done this great thing for the Orthodoxy (allow a little wind to stir the stale Peikoffian effluvia of Sanctorum) while still being a Sectarian Beast, in my mind.

Phil, you great boneless lumbering dolt, I am not discussing these things with you, now -- these are my opinions, broadly delivered. Yours may differ sob sob but who is asking you? Not Ellen, obviously. She is addressing me, so, if you have some observations and opinions on the broader issues, put those in the trumpet and blow away into the wind as I do.

Edited January 22, 2012 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do not think [Harriman] will even be asked to move out of the Palace marketing area. Why should ARI de-corrupt itself?

Well, in this particular case because supporting him costs money, and because there are resentments at lording-it-over ways, a paler version of the submerged resentments against Nathaniel in the pre-split days. More is involved than de-corrupting.

Ellen

[caroljane]

It should be obvious that I applaud Diana for doing her utmost in the Objective-ish Spring in re McCaskey. Phil among others may not be able to read consecutively and integrate the subsequent bits, but fuck me, does anyone get the idea that I do no tacknowledge the Free Speech Zone that she provided during those heady days? More words on Diana above should make that clear.

The vow of silence and hypocrisy is what I call what keeps Phil (banned), me (banned) and Carol (pre-banned) yet not bathed in the streams of righteousness of Diana and welcome to her measles parties, and it is what makes Diana a sectarian poison, in my opinion. She can have done this great thing for the Orthodoxy (allow a little wind to stir the stale Peikoffian effluvia of Sanctorum) while still being a Sectarian Beast, in my mind.

Phil, you great boneless lumbering dolt, I am not discussing these things with you, now -- these are my opinions, broadly delivered. Yours may differ sob sob but who is asking you? Not Ellen, obviously. She is addressing me, so, if you have some observations and opinions on the broader issues, put those in the trumpet and blow away into the wind as I do.

Phil is working out his emotions and reasoning on the highly emotional unreasonable "darkling plain" of the O movement or nonmovement, from that one first shining moment to now. And he is doing it among friends. Let him lumber as he wills.

[william.scherk]

I do not think [Harriman] will even be asked to move out of the Palace marketing area. Why should ARI de-corrupt itself?

Well, in this particular case because supporting him costs money, and because there are resentments at lording-it-over ways, a paler version of the submerged resentments against Nathaniel in the pre-split days. More is involved than de-corrupting.

Ellen

Strongly and effectively put -- I agree entirely. Why they should de-corrupt and more seems obvious to me, I am just way too cynical and bitter to expect a thorough cleanse.

And Carol, yes, of course, you are right. My apologies, Phil. I just think I have said enough of my own opinion, over to you ....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil is working out his emotions and reasoning on the highly emotional unreasonable "darkling plain" of the O movement or nonmovement, from that one first shining moment to now. And he is doing it among friends. Let him lumber as he wills.

Carol,

That is very perceptive.

I believe there is even more going on. Let me psychologize for a minute.

In the beginning of contact with Objectivism, Phil, like many in the Objectivist orbit, got a glimpse of what it would be like for Galt's Gulch to spread to the rest of mankind. A way to fix a broken world. Heroic stuff. Mountain moving. Very heady. But it was a glimpse, an ephemeral shadow out of the corner of his eye, ultimately a sleight of mind. But it didn't feel like that.

It felt so right.

It was like a blast of high you get when you first get hooked on crack cocaine. You know you felt it because it's there in your memory. But you can't repeat it. Once in a very blue moon you can come close, but that, too, is over before it starts. So you spend your time and efforts chasing that original high and hoping this time will be the one. And it never is.

So where the hell is Galt's Gulch? Phil doesn't know. He's been kicked out of evey place that looked like one. But he feels it doesn't have to be that way. All he tried to do was bring the different venues up to snuff. Ungrateful bastards. And he thinks the glimpses he saw in those places refer to something that actually exists.

What's worse, OL is the closest thing he has found to that original blast, but it is nowhere near Galt's Gulch--nor do the OL people (including and especially me) show signs of ever wishing to make OL into a Galt's Gulch.

In other words, every place that should be isn't. And the one place that shouldn't be is the closest.

That hurts more than he can acknowledge.

What the hell happened? Where did the vision go?

That's a lot to work through.

I'm pschologizing, I know, but I feel very confident of what I speak. Been there. That's why I give Phil space and patience. But I still try to keep a balance, which is why I sometimes inhibit his nagging from contaminating the spirit of independent thinking we all have managed to achieve here.

As to his critics, I let it unfold the way it unfolds. Ya' dish it out ya' gotta take it. Anyway, he needs to learn how to handle his critics more than he realizes, that is if he is ever going to find a path to making his lifetime of effort devoted to Objectivism mean something more than the illusion of martyrdom.

There's actually a beautiful dream to be had by Rand's light. It's just not Galt's Gulch and it takes a while to see it.

Michael

[caroljane]

Phil is working out his emotions and reasoning on the highly emotional unreasonable "darkling plain" of the O movement or nonmovement, from that one first shining moment to now. And he is doing it among friends. Let him lumber as he wills.

Carol,

That is very perceptive.

I believe there is even more going on. Let me psychologize for a minute.

In the beginning of contact with Objectivism, Phil, like many in the Objectivist orbit, got a glimpse of what it would be like for Galt's Gulch to spread to the rest of mankind. A way to fix a broken world. Heroic stuff. Mountain moving. Very heady. But it was a glimpse, an ephemeral shadow out of the corner of his eye, ultimately a sleight of mind. But it didn't feel like that.

It felt so right.

It was like a blast of high you get when you first get hooked on crack cocaine. You know you felt it because it's there in your memory. But you can't repeat it. Once in a very blue moon you can come close, but that, too, is over before it starts. So you spend your time and efforts chasing that original high and hoping this time will be the one. And it never is.

So where the hell is Galt's Gulch? Phil doesn't know. He's been kicked out of evey place that looked like one. But he feels it doesn't have to be that way. All he tried to do was bring the different venues up to snuff. Ungrateful bastards. And he thinks the glimpses he saw in those places refer to something that actually exists.

What's worse, OL is the closest thing he has found to that original blast, but it is nowhere near Galt's Gulch--nor do the OL people (including and especially me) show signs of ever wishing to make OL into a Galt's Gulch.

In other words, every place that should be isn't. And the one place that shouldn't be is the closest.

That hurts more than he can acknowledge.

What the hell happened? Where did the vision go?

That's a lot to work through.

I'm pschologizing, I know, but I feel very confident of what I speak. Been there. That's why I give Phil space and patience. But I still try to keep a balance, which is why I sometimes inhibit his nagging from contaminating the spirit of independent thinking we all have managed to achieve here.

As to his critics, I let it unfold the way it unfolds. Ya' dish it out ya' gotta take it. Anyway, he needs to learn how to handle his critics more than he realizes, that is if he is ever going to find a path to making his lifetime of effort devoted to Objectivism mean something more than the illusion of martyrdom.

There's actually a beautiful dream to be had by Rand's light. It's just not Galt's Gulch and it takes a while to see it.

Michael

Michael,I hear you. Variously on here I have I have tried to acknowledge the shining light,which you so well keep lit

[Brant Gaede]

There's actually a beautiful dream to be had by Rand's light. It's just not Galt's Gulch and it takes a while to see it.

Michael

It's the boy on the bicycle.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Halfway Up the Mountain is Good Enough

Michael, that's an eloquent post [#33] and there's an element of truth to it.

But I'm not expecting Galt or Rearden or Dagny in ARI, TAS, the various discussion websites like OL or the old OWL. It's all too soon, too difficult, too poorly integrated. More importantly it's not necessary. Be as much as you can be, not a fictional character. Just partial or gradual understanding is a big 'systems and personal upgrade'. I think if we had some more Half-Galts, the Objectivist movement would be influential and spreading. And widely respected, even by opponents well outside of free-market circles.

No one can be expected to have the combination of original world-historical genius (in multiple fields - both physics and philosophy in his case), unflinching resolution, great insight, persuasive leadership skills, massive knowledge, force of single-minded will of a John Galt. And no single place has to function as smoothly or on as high a level as Atlantis. Unfortunately there seems a tone in your post of "Giving Up on the Gulch"? ==> "what it would be like for Galt's Gulch to spread to the rest of mankind...an ephemeral shadow..ultimately a sleight of mind."

I'd be thrilled to meet to more "half-Franciscos" or "half-Dagnys".

I'd be thrilled with a Half-Atlantis**; It's a smug, pretentious Starnesville that is enormously destructive.

**Actually I did encounter that three times in my life: Once was the pre-schism Jefferson School summer conferences of the eighties.

[Xray]

Unfortunately there seems a tone in your [MSK's] post of "Giving Up on the Gulch"? ==> "what it would be like for Galt's Gulch to spread to the rest of mankind...an ephemeral shadow..ultimately a sleight of mind."

Could you give a link to that post? TIA.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Halfway Up the Mountain is Good Enough...

... I'm not expecting Galt or Rearden or Dagny in ARI, TAS, the various discussion websites like OL or the old OWL. It's all too soon, too difficult, too poorly integrated...

... if we had some more Half-Galts

Phil,

This is the cyanide in the Kool-Aid.

In other words, the program works. The people who try to use it don't. The program is never wrong. People in thier default states are always wrong.

Really? I mean, really?

I've sat in too many AA and NA meetings to not see it. Time and time again, I've heard people say, "There's nothing wrong with the program. If only I had kept to it, everything would have worked out by now. I just need to try harder."

Yes, I sat in meeting after meeting taking all this in. And for some reason, it would not stick to me. But now I have a lot of study about crowd control under my belt.

Back then? I just didn't follow the program. Not the way they wanted. But I got clean and stayed that way. How did I do it? Simple. I merely acted on some of the suggestions and they helped me. And the support group was wonderful (until it turned into a servitude group). But I never did the program like you are supposed to. And get this, I felt guilty about it.

How screwed up is that? I got clean. Doesn't that count for something? What the hell is AA and NA for if not getting clean? According to the program, people like me are not supposed to exist. But I assure you, I do exist. And the program qua program did not work for me.

This message--"the program works, but you don't:--is the one you get with any self-help system that becomes more cult-like the closer you get to the core. This goes from 12 Step groups to Scientology to Objectivism to many denominations of the different religions to, I suspect, Integral Naked.

The question is always, "How can I better fit my life and will to a system of rules and procedures?" It is never, "How can I learn some techniques so I can do what I want to do better--so I can improve my life?"

Actually, "never" is not accurate. That only applies to the insiders. You do ask that question before you start moving up the ladder to the Kool-Aid bucket. That is the question that baits people into wanting to try the Kool-Aid in the first place. How can these ideas improve my life? Especially if you have a problem or you feel unfulfilled in your inmost desires.

But "learning steps to improve your life" always turns into "you can only improve your life if you follow the steps--and if you don't, you are screwed."

It's bait and switch by a thousand cuts. The program works. You don't. The proof is you're here--and you're here because you need the program. If you didn't need it, you wouldn't have shown up in the first place.

That's the cyanide in the Kool-Aid.

But you, Phil, are coming along. Now you are talking about "half-Galts" and the saving the world part is moving down on the priority scale. That's a big step in the right direction.

Anyway, enough of that. Here's something else--another monkey-wrench for your works. There's a big main reason you keep saying Objectivism is too difficult, it needs to be integrated, yada yada yada, for people to practice now. You say that It's too soon (echoing Ayn Rand, "it's earlier than you think"). But the main reason is not because it's too soon. It's because Objectivism happily has a serious lack--a big frigging hole--that true cult-systems have filled.

It's what I think I will start calling the Angry Birds system. In Angry Birds, you only get to go to the next level after you have completed the previous one correctly.

There is no system in Objectivism of ascending a ladder of knowledge (secret or "difficult") by levels towards enlightenment. Yeah baby! Thank goodness for that systemic hole. No highly effective sausage making machine there.

Lots of esoteric systems like Rosicrucians and Freemasons do have these levels. Scientology does. Some academic philosophy does. All kinds of secret societies do.

Is this bad? Not always. It works well in martial arts. But then there's actual skill you need to learn and practice--and your essential will is left alone.

It is bad, in fact it's terrible when you have to gradually replace your individual will with the model approved by the collective (the tribe) as set forth in the doctrine. I'm talking about why you live, not just a specific skill set. That's pure poison.

But let's take a big gulp of the Kool-Aid and dream for a second. What if someone came up with Angry Birds levels for Objectivism--someone who really understood how "difficult" Objectivism is and who knew all the secrets and "integrations"?

Think about it. A system we could test and tweak. Let's do 10 Steps To Objectivist Happiness. What would a Black Belt Level 10 Objectivist look like? Dream it, man! Shoot for the stars! We would eventually be able to produce full-Galts with predictable results, not just hope to see a few half-Galts here and there if we get lucky. We could keep mankind from blowing itself up and usher in a productive era of joy and heroism like the world has never seen. The Objectivist Enlightenment Age.

How cool is that? Kool-Aid cool?

Chew on that one. See what the Galt sausage tastes like. And I say that in all goodwill. You're gonna get there anyway at some point on the path you're on. The dogma dam is cracking in your mind. I can see it in your posts. The water will eventually come through and you're gonna have to decide if it is wet or not.

Meanwhile, I want my Kool-Aid to be just Kool-Aid. I'll skip the cyanide, thank you.

Michael

[PDS]

> OK Shut Up for now -- since everyone agreed to not Go There for now [WSS]

Actually, I read all those posts on Noodlefood - and you are being a bit exaggerated and unfair:

Both she and her husband said quite a bit in defense of MCCaskey. And they questioned whether ARI was going to try to squelch open discussion of differences on issues like induction. They defended the fact that people could disagree on the issues McCaskey did, on induction, etc. The issue was whether he could be on a board whose head doesn't want him and whether they would endlessly keep discussing it.

Hardly a craven knuckling under and kowtowing and conspiracy of silence, don't you think?

When you criticize your opponents you have to bend over backwards to be fair to them.

I read those posts too. They were the most interesting things I ever read on there, and after Ethel closed off the discussion it was all thyroid and Thomas Jefferson and Poor Patients: Kill them or cure them? The site just became boring after that, and I am not surprised its followership has fallen off.

I do indeed find the thyroids of other people boring.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's actually a beautiful dream to be had by Rand's light. It's just not Galt's Gulch and it takes a while to see it.

Michael

It's the boy on the bicycle.

--Brant

Brant,

That's a pretty cool thought.

I wish I had come up with it.

Seriously.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: It's a Start, but it's Nowhere Near Enough

> Let's do 10 Steps To Objectivist Happiness. What would a Black Belt Level 10 Objectivist look like? [MSK, #38]

Problem is, as I've argued elsewhere, Objectvism is not enough for happiness, success, fulfillment - either individually or in a movement for cultural or political change. It's necessary but not sufficient. You could have a perfect understanding and integration of it and you'd still need a whole host of other skills, other knowledge of the real world in many areas.

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: It's a Start, but it's Nowhere Near Enough

> Let's do 10 Steps To Objectivist Happiness. What would a Black Belt Level 10 Objectivist look like? [MSK, #38]

Problem is, as I've argued elsewhere, Objectvism is not enough for happiness, success, fulfillment - either individually or in a movement for cultural or political change. It's necessary but not sufficient. You could have a perfect understanding and integration of it and you'd still need a whole host of other skills, other knowledge of the real world in many areas.

Objectivism is not necessary at all for "happiness, success, fulfillment . . . ." I think you mean that if you are an Objectivist you are using it for same but need more. With that I'd agree.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Phil is pretty clear. I'm sure he means what he says.

He really means that the program (Objectivism) is not the problem for human happiness. People are.

The program is THE ANSWER.

It's a Kool-Aid thing.

As to the "other skills," hell, we can put them in the 10 steps.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Phil is pretty clear. I'm sure he means what he says.

He really means that the program (Objectivism) is not the problem for human happiness. People are.

The program is THE ANSWER.

It's a Kool-Aid thing.

As to the "other skills," hell, we can put them in the 10 steps.

Michael,

He said it was necessary. It's not. It certainly has helped a lot of people who have read Atlas Shrugged.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I agree.

There are lots of good ideas in Rand's writing and people become intellectually enriched by them. But there are lots of people who are perfectly happy who despise Rand's works.

I am pretty sure that, at this time, Phil would consider my second observation as an attack on Rand (or even an attack on him).

I don't know what he would say about the truth of the observation, but I suspect if he uses his own eyes and sees it, it bothers him a lot.

It's hard to undrink Kool-Aid. But it's doable. And Phil does have a good mind.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I see I didn't respect the context Phil was writing in as I just took his post atomistically.

--Brant

sorry about that

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Just for the record, as I truly like Phil, let me say that I'm not looking down on him. I speak as the perfect person who, if you catch me right, tends to drink the Kool-Aid. Except when I do it, I gulp it. I swill down the whole friggen bucket.

It's true. I fight this in myself. When I hear the call of the wild goose, I want to fly up and get in formation, but think I'm big stuff because I'm a "wild" goose.

Heh.

You can see, it's not easy living with me. So you know Kat's a hero.

Michael

[caroljane]

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late thirties to early forties is mine. I think she was in her mid-to-late twenties in 1997-98 when I had a bit of correspondence with her while she was still running NB's web site.

Ellen

And she's had three husbands? Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

[Selene]

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late thirties to early forties is mine. I think she was in her mid-to-late twenties in 1997-98 when I had a bit of correspondence with her while she was still running NB's web site.

Ellen

And she's had three husbands? Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

Where did she bury the other two (2)?

[caroljane]

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late thirties to early forties is mine. I think she was in her mid-to-late twenties in 1997-98 when I had a bit of correspondence with her while she was still running NB's web site.

Ellen

And she's had three husbands? Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

Where did she bury the other two (2)?

lol. This reminds me of my telemarketing days. A distraught lady was outraged that she was called - "How dare you intrude on me, I've just buried my husband!"

Jeez thought I, I hope he was dead at the time.