Effective Persuasion, Dialogue, and Communication

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

Edited January 23, 2012 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

> 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.

I should have qualified the 'necessary' further. It's possible to have success without Oism. Else no one could have ever been happy or fulfilled prior to the sxities when Rand fleshed out her ideas.

What I should have said is if you live basically contrary to the fundamentals, you're gonna have to be awfully lucky to be happy, fulfilled, etc. despite that.

[Xray]

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

Late 20s would be closer.

Are you kidding?

(But then I must admit I have never been good at age-guessing ...)

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 came closest. Hsieh was born in 1974. (At least this is what it says on a public records site).

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...!

[Xray]

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.

I should have qualified the 'necessary' further. It's possible to have success without Oism. Else no one could have ever been happy or fulfilled prior to the sxities when Rand fleshed out her ideas.

Or after the sixties, having read Rand's fleshed-out ideas without becoming an Objectivist.

[caroljane]

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...!

Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300.

[PDS]

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...!

Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300.

My wife is reading my 10 year old daughter GWtW right now before bed time. Nothing like images of war wreckage, racial servility and romantic ineptitude to shape the young lass's dreams each night...Happily, she is sharp enough to distinguish the forest from the trees, and vice versa.

[caroljane]

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...!

Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300.

My wife is reading my 10 year old daughter GWtW right now before bed time. Nothing like images of war wreckage, racial servility and romantic ineptitude to shape the young lass's dreams each night...Happily, she is sharp enough to distinguish the forest from the trees, and vice versa.

Absolutely, this is a good age for a great historical novel to stir up the imagination. I was 11 or 12 when I read it first. Has she seen the movie too?

[PDS]

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

Not fair! Some deserving females don't even get one!

So very true, Carol! Remember the scene in GWTW where Sue Ellen bitterly complains about Scarlett already having husband number three, whereas she didn't even have one? Scarlett could at least have abstained from snatching Sue Ellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her ...!

Yes! That was the very meanest thing the little hussy ever did. But she was so desperate for the tax money, she would probably have married Pork if he had $300.

My wife is reading my 10 year old daughter GWtW right now before bed time. Nothing like images of war wreckage, racial servility and romantic ineptitude to shape the young lass's dreams each night...Happily, she is sharp enough to distinguish the forest from the trees, and vice versa.

Absolutely, this is a good age for a great historical novel to stir up the imagination. I was 11 or 12 when I read it first. Has she seen the movie too?

Oh yes, she loves it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

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.

[....]

[...] 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.

Your description gets at an important reason why I thought that on balance NBI was more harmful than beneficial and -- unlike Phil, also Dennis Hardin -- I not only don't bemoan but was glad for its demise. Using your image of "a big frigging hole," "Objectivist psychology" -- not the core theory of self-esteem but much of the elaboration, including the idea of "social metaphysics" -- and the psychotherapy culture seemed to me attempts to fill that hole. Doomed attempts, since "full-Galts" could never be turned out by "10 Steps To Objectivist Happiness" methods. However, even the semi-attempt at a "program" interfered, I thought, with such genuine happiness-encouragement as Objectivism provides. As would any attempt at producing "half-Galts" (Phil's post #36). I don't even look with favor on the idea of an "Objectivist movement." As I've said before -- probably a long while ago; I haven't time to search right now -- I think one reason Phil gets frustrated on this board is because he doesn't understand (or doesn't accept, whichever) that a large percentage of regular posters here just aren't interested in joining the cause he's trying to spearhead.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

And she's had three husbands?

She married  her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

I thought just one prior marriage, a brief one. Are you sure about the "two"?

Ellen

[Philip Coates]

> a large percentage of regular posters here just aren't interested in joining the cause [Phil is] trying to spearhead. {Ellen, post 59]

It's odd to me that even half-Objectivists in the sense of having "accepted half of Galt", say, would not want to continually try to be THOG (That-Half-Of-Galtish). Or - if you prefer Francisco or Dagny rather than Galt as models (I certainly do!) -, then trying to be THOF or THOD.

[Brant Gaede]

[....]

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.

[....]

[...] 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.

Your description gets at an important reason why I thought that on balance NBI was more harmful than beneficial and -- unlike Phil, also Dennis Hardin -- I not only don't bemoan but was glad for its demise. Using your image of "a big frigging hole," "Objectivist psychology" -- not the core theory of self-esteem but much of the elaboration, including the idea of "social metaphysics" -- and the psychotherapy culture seemed to me attempts to fill that hole. Doomed attempts, since "full-Galts" could never be turned out by "10 Steps To Objectivist Happiness" methods. However, even the semi-attempt at a "program" interfered, I thought, with such genuine happiness-encouragement as Objectivism provides. As would any attempt at producing "half-Galts" (Phil's post #36). I don't even look with favor on the idea of an "Objectivist movement." As I've said before -- probably a long while ago; I haven't time to search right now -- I think one reason Phil gets frustrated on this board is because he doesn't understand (or doesn't accept, whichever) that a large percentage of regular posters here just aren't interested in joining the cause he's trying to spearhead.

Ellen

I think Nathaniel Branden created the Objectivist culture centered in NYC, and if he hadn't I couldn't say things would be generally better today respecting Ayn Rand and her ideas and libertarianism. It was a plus it ended--NBI ended--in 1968. 1968 is the most under-appreciated year of the last century for the United States. It was a hinge year when the Vietnam War broke the back of authority. Same thing happened with Objectivism.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

> a large percentage of regular posters here just aren't interested in joining the cause [Phil is] trying to spearhead. {Ellen, post 59]

It's odd to me that even half-Objectivists in the sense of having "accepted half of Galt", say, would not want to continually try to be THOG (That-Half-Of-Galtish). Or - if you prefer Francisco or Dagny rather than Galt as models (I certainly do!) -, then trying to be THOF or THOD.

The real mother didn't want half the baby.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil, I find being me and living my life fully satisfactory.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

And she's had three husbands?

She married her current husband Mr. Hsieh in 1999, so that means at age 25 she already had two marriages behind her.

I thought just one prior marriage, a brief one. Are you sure about the "two"?

That has me puzzled, too.

Here is Diana bitching about "My Name" at SOLOP back in the day (11 November 2006):

For the record, my name is not "Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh." I've never used that name in my whole entire life. My name used to be "Diana Mertz Brickell." Then I married Paul Sek-Bin Hsieh almost eight years ago. Ever since then, it has been "Diana Mertz Hsieh." So I am properly referred to as "Diana Mertz Hsieh" or "Diana Hsieh" or "Diana" or "Mrs. Hsieh" or "Ms. Hsieh." I specifically chose to omit "Brickell" from my name because I didn't like how it sounded with "Hsieh." (It's not a slight to my family.)

As for the rest of Phil's comments: His reconstruction of events -- particularly the psychological motives he ascribes to me -- are on par with the conspiracy theories of Robert Campbell.

I count one husband, one family name/surname, and one outlier (Mertz). Do we know who the Mr Mertz might have been?

[Edit: while searching for pictures of Diana in a frothy cascade of white sateen at her nuptials, I found this note at Noodlefood -- from 27 January 2006):

My grandfather Jim Mertz passed away on Wednesday. (Some of you might remember my speaking of him this post.) Although as mentally sharp as ever, he'd been struggling with his physical health for the past few months.

Paul and I flew to New York today for his funeral on Saturday. It will be an honor to pay my respects to such an excellent man.

]

Now, on to Mr Brickell. Who he?

Edited January 24, 2012 by william.scherk

[Philip Coates]

Going "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah" & Refusing to Understand in a "Debate"

> It's odd to me that even half-Objectivists in the sense of having "accepted half of Galt", say, would not want to continually try to be..That-Half-Of-Galtish. [Phil]

> The real mother didn't want half the baby. [brant]

> Phil, I find being me and living my life fully satisfactory. [Ellen]

Notice how both of those really superficial one-liners blithely brushes aside and willfully refuses to address the point I made. I'll repeat the point since it appears neither Brant nor Ellen, two intelligent people, wants to grant me the satisfaction of seeming to understand my point.

I'll even break it down into two steps:

1. If you completely agree with a philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live it? 2. If you agree with half the philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live that half?

Got it straight now?

[Brant Gaede]

Going "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah" & Refusing to Understand in a "Debate"

> It's odd to me that even half-Objectivists in the sense of having "accepted half of Galt", say, would not want to continually try to be..That-Half-Of-Galtish. [Phil]

> The real mother didn't want half the baby. [brant]

> Phil, I find being me and living my life fully satisfactory. [Ellen]

Notice how both of those really superficial one-liners blithely brushes aside and willfully refuses to address the point I made. I'll repeat the point since it appears neither Brant nor Ellen, two intelligent people, wants to grant me the satisfaction of seeming to understand my point.

I'll even break it down into two steps:

1. If you completely agree with a philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live it? 2. If you agree with half the philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live that half?

Got it straight now?

And what "philosophy" is that? The one you have, the one you want, Rand's, Objectivism--and what is that: Rand's, mine, yours--and what does "completely agree with a philosophy" mean: no more thinking about it, take it and run??????????

--Brant

you live the philosophy you have and you don't have to try except when you try to absorb and use something different and you need to put your personal philosophical car on the rack and switch some things around--it ain't easy

Objectivism will destroy you if you're half-assed about it--paraphrase of Rand

[william.scherk]

It has come to my attention that several comments here have shown a "willful disregard" of a point that Mrs Grundy has repeatedly underlined on the Blackboard.

When she invited you to pay for the restraint devices and wooden spoons and her salary and for the facilities and books you need to read, she expected that you would stay in your seat, not fidget, obey Commands and Suggestions on the blackboard.

I reiterate. Several of you, unnamed except in the sealed indictment Fedexing its way to Headquarters, I say several of you whom I will not name have willfully disregarded the Point.

I will say it again and this time I am going to use underlines, okay? SOME of you have breached the social contract that allows Mrs Grundy to use the internets as a learning annex cum torture centre. This is, again, "WILLFUL" -- even, as the other Crazy Orthography guy might say: !!~~~~Xzounds! __++==- Disregarded The Point Trebly Underlined By Mrs Grundy.

(Phil, my dear sweet darling, you know I do not want to ignore you and make you go back in that dank dark box, but honey, isn't there a strong soothing drink you could slug back, so that you do not come off as a finger-wagging schoolmarm for the eleven millionth time?

Do we have to throw you on the bonfire or something before YOU get the point, love?)

[Edited to be pleasant, but it is not working. You folks are on your own with the Difficult Person. It is dank and dark from here on in for me. I am perhaps a bit more mentally fragile that the bulk of OLers, but I do get a sinky feeling that I might go right bang off my rocker if I continue to engage with Dr Jeckyl and Mrs Grundy. If I can't control my anger and need to vituperate then it is time to pull the plug.

Sorry, Phil. I love you and all, but sometimes you just take the form of all that I loathe in discussion, and a hot flush of rage comes over me. It might be the incompetent authoritarianism of your teachings and curse and tortures, it might be echoes of the hideous nightmare in Syria that has so obsessed me these past months, it might be that I am on day five of de-nicotining, but all this angry and confused blather is to say you go back on ignore. Stop poisoning discussion. Bye bye.]

Edited January 24, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Real Objectivism: (1) reality, (2) reason--just like science, (3) rational self interest, (4) individual rights--freedom and liberty.

I completely agree with this, but consider the tremendous unexplicated detail mostly in and about "(3)." Living Objectivism means think and do, think and do, and think, think, think, read, read, read, discuss, discuss, discuss. That's all class! Take it and run!

--Brant

sorta like OL

[william.scherk]

Real Objectivism: (1) reality, (2) reason--just like science, (3) rational self interest, (4) individual rights--freedom and liberty.

I completely agree with this, but consider the tremendous unexplicated detail mostly in and about "(3)." Living Objectivism means think and do, think and do, and think, think, think, read, read, read, discuss, discuss, discuss. That's all class! Take it and run!

I like this a lot, Brant, and you give me courage. Me, I think I whittle it down even further, and make conversational, even as a constant companion ready to whisper in my ear. "Use reason. It is the sharpest tool in your kit." And that is about it, my philosophy, and on a good day, my meter pops out at 100 a couple of times, and lolls and bobs aroud 85 for most of the rest.

As Ellen put it, class is out, life is on, and it is pretty good, thanks.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What if you happen to think of yourself as an end in yourself and not as a vessel that needs to be filled by a philosophy from another person to become complete?

Not even by half a philosophy?

What if you treat a specific philosophy in the same manner you treat specific advice? As something to use and discard as you see fit as you go about your life?

I would call that individualism of the highest quality.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Using your image of "a big frigging hole," "Objectivist psychology" -- not the core theory of self-esteem but much of the elaboration, including the idea of "social metaphysics" -- and the psychotherapy culture seemed to me attempts to fill that hole.

I think I'm not feeling so good.

I actually agree with Ellen Stuttle on something.

God...

... what's happening?...

... the room is spinning...

(thud)

[Philip Coates]

> Do we have to throw you on the bonfire or something before YOU get the point, love? [WSS]

You're allowing yourself to focus exclusively on the manner, the fact that my post shows (justified) irritation with Brant and Ellen - rather than the content of the post. Youre allowing yourself to not grasp the fact that an angry post can be both appropriate and justified.

Awww, poor OL selected posters, their delicate little sensitivities about being ~lectured to~! Do I have to throw you on the slow cooker, before YOU get the point, love? ==>

"The speaker has some interesting points."

"Yeah, but I'm going to keep complaining about his delivery and ignoring them."

"Why is that?"

"He sounds superior. Makes me resentful. Reminds me too much of schoolteachers."

"Didn't you say something similar about Peikoff? You couldn't get past his grating voice and his arrogance?"

"That's right. And another thing with Phil is his failure to use the OL quoting method. And his annoying use of punctuation and underlining. It sounds like he's disrespectful and shouting and I'm fragile."

"Can you get over it?"

"I don't wanna. I'd rather keep complaining bitterly and ignore any good points he makes."

[Philip Coates]

> 1. If you completely agree with a philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live it? 2. If you agree with half the philosophy, why wouldn't you try to live that half? [Phil]

> And what "philosophy" is that? The one you have, the one you want, Rand's, Objectivism--and what is that: Rand's, mine, yours [brant]

That's why I said "a" philosophy. If one doesn't even half agree with Objectivism, then he should live by whatever it is he does agree with.

> What if you happen to think of yourself as an end in yourself and not as a vessel that needs to be filled by a philosophy from another person to become complete? [MSK]

A philosophy is a view of how the world works plus a code of living. Everyone has one. The choice is whether they live by it or not. ("From another person" is irrelevant; we all learn things of immense value from others.)

> Objectivism will destroy you if you're half-assed about it--paraphrase of Rand [brant]

Not if you genuinely don't see why certain parts are true and thus don't live by those parts until you either see them or see how to apply them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not if you genuinely don't see why certain parts are true and thus don't live by those parts until you either see them or see how to apply them.

What happens if you "genuinely see why certain parts are true" and disagree and refuse to apply them?

Michael