Effective Persuasion, Dialogue, and Communication

[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.

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?

Looks like he was the one brief prior that Ellen mentioned.

Too bad. I liked the thought of Ethel going through a Brittney Spears phase before she settled down to a life of Service to the Self.

[Ellen Stuttle]

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?

Lovely. Note the motivational charge, viz. that Brant and I "willfully refuse[d] to address the point [Phil] made" due to our "[not] want[ing] to grant [him] the satisfaction of seeming to understand [his] point."

Well, speaking for this one of the two charged, if Phil's point pertained to the philosophy, his way of putting said point sure fooled me. I did not get the question he bolds from his wording, no. Instead he seemed to be talking about an issue of basing oneself on role models -- an issue on which I believe he gave a talk at a TOC summer seminar. It was that issue I was addressing.

(This exchange is a perfect example of why it's remiss of Phil not to link posts from which he's quoting. Actually to track the exchange would require searching through the sequence hunting for the quoted posts. Links, Phil, if you want me for one to engage in discussion with you.)

Briefly answering the revised question, I don't think in terms of living by Objectivism. I'd worked out my own little ethical guidelines before the first time I read Atlas Shrugged (June 1961). I've lived by those little guidelines ever since and liked the results. My thinking about Objectivism is from an abstract perspective, wanting to understand where I think Rand got it right and where I think the "system" (such as it is, far from a complete system) needs fixing.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Live a life of integrity.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[skipping the excerpts from MSK's post #38]

Your [MSK's] 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. [....]

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. [....]

Brant, we're talking about different respects of "benefit/harm," albeit so closely entertwined as to be hard to separate even analytically. My belief about NBI and the philosophy of Objectivism is that we wouldn't even have "the philosophy of Objectivism" beyond the hints in Galt's Speech if not for Nathaniel Branden and his particular relationship with Ayn Rand as a result of which she was willing to let him put together a lecture course which was the first attempt at presenting the philosophy as such. I think NBI was indispensable in that respect. What I was talking about was the entwined psychological effect, which I think was more likely to be harmful to students' development as individuals than helpful. In short, it was a very "mixed bag." I think it was necessary for a time, but I was glad to see it go -- although my pleasure was short-lived, since the aftermath, continuing to this day, has been "a mess" -- not to put a fine point on it.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now, on to Mr Brickell. Who he?

Looks like he was the one brief prior that Ellen mentioned.

Nope, it doesn't. Notice this detail in the post by Diana which WSS quoted from SOLO (11 November 2006):

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. [....] 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.) [Emphasis added.]

Looks like the "Mertz" was in honor of her grandfather, apparently her maternal grandfather, and "Brickell" is her maiden name.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Looks like the "Mertz" was in honor of her grandfather, apparently her maternal grandfather, and "Brickell" is her maiden name.

I am glad I went searching, because however juicy an Ethel the Maneater story might be, it didn't ring true. It is a lovely double-barrelled family name, then, either adopted in adulthood or a brave family tradition? This would have made me, by Diana's delightufl nomenclature, Mr William Scherk Enwright (and had I married a Mr Chong, the choice of Mr William Scherk Chong or Mr William Scott Chong Enwright).

I use my middle name generally for the same reason newspapers use the middle name when IDing famous criminals and assassins (James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman): to distinguish myself from any name-cousins. I am not the only Bill Sh/Sch/er/ir/ck/k on earth, but I seem to be the only WSScherk at large on the internet. And my internet history goes back unbroken under that name since I strode onto Usenet an avenging fiend lo these many years ago.

The weirdest post ever from Diana was during a fit of authoritarianism back around the Purge the Speicher episode. I can`t be bothered to look it up, but it came after she had denounced Betsy, banned her and slagged her, and told all Betsy list people to fuck off from Noodlefood and never talk to her at conferences. A reader asked in Noodlefood comments what she (the reader) might expect if she was an attendant at a conference on University grounds (or something collegial) and Diana said of course she would answer questions as required under a contract, but otherwise Fuck Off and Do Not Look In My Eyes or get near me or address me.

I thought it was a freakish social moment -- when all her dunderheadedness combined into one peevish flipout, and I was again glad I lived north of the 49.

[caroljane]

Looks like the "Mertz" was in honor of her grandfather, apparently her maternal grandfather, and "Brickell" is her maiden name.

I am glad I went searching, because however juicy an Ethel the Maneater story might be, it didn't ring true. It is a lovely double-barrelled family name, then, either adopted in adulthood or a brave family tradition? This would have made me, by Diana's delightufl nomenclature, Mr William Scherk Enwright (and had I married a Mr Chong, the choice of Mr William Scherk Chong or Mr William Scott Chong Enwright).

I use my middle name generally for the same reason newspapers use the middle name when IDing famous criminals and assassins (James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman): to distinguish myself from any name-cousins. I am not the only Bill Sh/Sch/er/ir/ck/k on earth, but I seem to be the only WSScherk at large on the internet. And my internet history goes back unbroken under that name since I strode onto Usenet an avenging fiend lo these many years ago.

The weirdest post ever from Diana was during a fit of authoritarianism back around the Purge the Speicher episode. I can`t be bothered to look it up, but it came after she had denounced Betsy, banned her and slagged her, and told all Betsy list people to fuck off from Noodlefood and never talk to her at conferences. A reader asked in Noodlefood comments what she (the reader) might expect if she was an attendant at a conference on University grounds (or something collegial) and Diana said of course she would answer questions as required under a contract, but otherwise Fuck Off and Do Not Look In My Eyes or get near me or address me.

I thought it was a freakish social moment -- when all her dunderheadedness combined into one peevish flipout, and I was again glad I lived north of the 49.

Me too. At least if she sent henchpeople to purge us, they would have to leave their guns at the border.

Snap, I was going to say "Maneater phase" instead of "Brittney phase"...stop pre=plagiarizing me! Even on your birthday.

[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?

This might be seen as a quip, so I want to add a comment.

It is not a quip. I'm quite serious.

The true-believer mind does not admit this possibility, nor imagine under what circumstances this could happen.

And, there is one other part that drives fundies nuts. Many things can happen if a person rejects a philosophy, but still considers it true. The most important, I believe, is that the person removes himself from the power of the fundies.

And that makes them go berzerk.

Notice the way they treat their excommunicated. They treat apostates as more evil than the devil (whatever their particular devil may be). They won't say it, but that's the way they act.

So imagine someone saying the following. Saying it in all sincerity. Close your eyes and really imagine it.

Here goes:

"Ayn Rand's ideas are true, but Objectivism totally sucks as a philosophy."

Does it make you want to hit the person? To spit at him? To call him evil?

Or how about this? Is your first reaction to say he doesn't mean it, he's just testing you or playing around or whatever, and not believe anyone could ever be serious about something like that?

This is a very good litmus test you can run on yourself to see how big the true-believer gland in your brain is.

Of course, if all it does initially on an emotional level is make you curious about why he would say that, i.e., want to find out more before you judge, you're in pretty good shape.

Michael

[william.scherk]

So imagine someone saying the following. Saying it in all sincerity. Close your eyes and really imagine it.

Here goes:

"Ayn Rand's ideas are true, but Objectivism totally sucks as a philosophy."

Does it make you want to hit the person? To spit at him? To call him evil?

It is a good test, though what it tests is unclear. For me, I fail to want to hit, spit or evulize all over him.

But I do have my bitchy side, so if this was in real life, and this was a real conversation starter, I would probably murmur, move my eyebrows around and see if anything else was going to come out. I would give the other guy the opportunity to tell what he meant by "Ayn Rand's ideas" and if he could give examples. I would also kind of inwardly cringe at "totally." If I felt a crazy person rant coming, I would move away (many people would move away at the Ayn Rand mention).

I feel in this thread the central oddity and distortion of treating Objectivism as a religion, or using it in the role of religion, or misusing its precepts in a religious manner, or behaving religiously. It comes from reification, to my mind. The thing, this object, this Objective-ism, this Essence is found somewhere in Ayn Rand (the writer) and it can be used to Bring Great Things To The World. It is an evangelism and cultism implicit to the same measure as it is fervently held religiously.

That is my kind of groping explanation of how I react to that claim or that sort of claim, MSK. Generally, move away from the probably kooky, but remain close enough to be entertained, if likely.

[Edit: changed an 'at' to 'as,' with remarkable results! ]

Edited January 24, 2012 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

Instead he seemed to be talking about an issue of basing oneself on role models -- an issue on which I believe he gave a talk at a TOC summer seminar. It was that issue I was addressing.

I think that the important question is why did Phil choose Cliff Clavin as the role model on which to base himself?

J

[Philip Coates]

> I feel in this thread the central oddity and distortion of treating Objectivism as a religion, or using it in the role of religion, or misusing its precepts in a religious manner, or behaving religiously.

Nope, it ain't there, pal.

Nice smear job!

You may have gotten that from somewhere else or from others you've talked to: Try to read more carefully and less stream-of-consciousness- ally.

[Philip Coates]

> if Phil's point pertained to the philosophy, his way of putting said point sure fooled me. I did not get the question he bolds from his wording, no. Instead he seemed to be talking about an issue of basing oneself on role models [Ellen, #77]

Ellen, in that very post itself [#77] you quote me as saying "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."

Very clearly I state "half-Objectivists": that obviously pertains to the philosophy.

[Brant Gaede]

[skipping the excerpts from MSK's post #38]

Your [MSK's] 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. [....]

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. [....]

Brant, we're talking about different respects of "benefit/harm," albeit so closely entertwined as to be hard to separate even analytically. My belief about NBI and the philosophy of Objectivism is that we wouldn't even have "the philosophy of Objectivism" beyond the hints in Galt's Speech if not for Nathaniel Branden and his particular relationship with Ayn Rand as a result of which she was willing to let him put together a lecture course which was the first attempt at presenting the philosophy as such. I think NBI was indispensable in that respect. What I was talking about was the entwined psychological effect, which I think was more likely to be harmful to students' development as individuals than helpful. In short, it was a very "mixed bag." I think it was necessary for a time, but I was glad to see it go -- although my pleasure was short-lived, since the aftermath, continuing to this day, has been "a mess" -- not to put a fine point on it.

Ellen

Okay, but there were more than hints about Objectivism in Galt's speech.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Generally, move away from the probably kooky, but remain close enough to be entertained, if likely.

William,

That sounds like you are in pretty good shape. I don't expect you to become a Randroid anytime soon.

In your shoes, though, I would keep an eye on the propensity to be entertained right out of the gate as this hides a conceit in between the cracks that can grow into an ugly prejudice if left on its own. (I speak from experience.)

In other words, looking down on another at first glance, even with an odd remark like that, comes with the seed of vanity. As we generally reap what we sow, guess what the seed of vanity grows up to be?

We all have our ways of being and, maybe, you see this differently. But I've had that thing in my own soul grow and eventually bite me on the ass real hard, so I keep an eye on it.

That's one of the reasons I came up with the identify-correctly-first-and-only-then-judge procedure (done almost pedantically) when I encounter or look into stuff outside of my normal habits.

As to the give-and-take of everyday living, I'm comfortable with my biases. I'm usually aware of them as I sound off. But I try to keep them conceit-free. From the perspective of being inside my head and seeing what I see, that's not the easiest task I've ever undertaken.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

> I feel in this thread the central oddity and distortion of treating Objectivism as a religion, or using it in the role of religion, or misusing its precepts in a religious manner, or behaving religiously.

Nope, it ain't there, pal.

But... but... but... but... but...

That's exactly what I've been talking about.

It is there.

But what about the denial?

Well... look at any religious denomination and what do you hear? "We're not like the other religions. We have truth on our side."

You can't say that with a philosophy, but when you use it--and all the trappings like jargon, savior, symbols, scapegoating, etc.--to become a human sausage, you just say, "We're not a religion. We have truth on our side."

It means the same thing.

Basically, all this stuff is alike. And the different people say that their group is not like all the rest.

A different story every time, but always the same old story.

Michael

[caroljane]

Generally, move away from the probably kooky, but remain close enough to be entertained, if likely.

William,

That sounds like you are in pretty good shape. I don't expect you to become a Randroid anytime soon.

In your shoes, though, I would keep an eye on the propensity to be entertained right out of the gate as this hides a conceit in between the cracks that can grow into an ugly prejudice if left on its own. (I speak from experience.)

In other words, looking down on another at first glance, even with an odd remark like that, comes with the seed of vanity. As we generally reap what we sow, guess what the seed of vanity grows up to be?

We all have our ways of being and, maybe, you see this differently. But I've had that thing in my own soul grow and eventually bite me on the ass real hard, so I keep an eye on it.

That's one of the reasons I came up with the identify-correctly-first-and-only-then-judge procedure (done almost pedantically) when I encounter or look into stuff outside of my normal habits.

As to the give-and-take of everyday living, I'm comfortable with my biases. I'm usually aware of them as I sound off. But I try to keep them conceit-free. From the perspective of being inside my head and seeing what I see, that's not the easiest task I've ever undertaken.

Michael

Michael, I can't agree that to "be entertained" equates to "look down on". Of course we all see new people and ideas through with the backdrop of previous ones, biases and all But to be entertained, to me, is to appreciate and enjoy differences - not immediately judge them on a scale from worthy to worthless. And of course we do make judgments and decisions, but really I think we spend equal time not looking up or down, but sideways, if not straight backwards.

You spend a lot of time looking inward, as your signature line attests and as your process of Correct Identification shows. Maybe everyone does identifying and judging unconsciously all the time but I don't recognize it much in myself. It looks like hard work. to do consciously.

[Philip Coates]

> look at any religious denomination and what do you hear? [MSK]

you have to offer proof. that's just the old "objectivism is a religion" smear. amazing that you'd fall for a form of it. so if someone is in agreement with -any- philosophy, you're going to smear them as religious.

too pitiful to discuss any further. i can't even bring myself to use capital letters

[william.scherk]

I wonder, Carol and Michael, if our differing (religious/non-religious) upbringings influenced the way we feel about or 'fall for' religion, how we three are naming and referencing. I do not and would not call Objective-ism a religion. Nor would I call it a cult. I think that religions are different in order from the objective-ish movement of any permutations. I take the behavioural view and that is perhaps a bit harder to explain.

I see cult behaviour amongst Objectivists,, or rather -- cult-ish. I see also behaviours that strike me as sacralizing and Otherizing and otherwise 'religious' -- from enforcement to thought-control, shamings/shunnings.

It just seems beyond question to me that there are strange and unecessary cult-ish behaviours in Objective-ism. That some folks approach Nietzsche, for example, with the same devotion and squabbling and torments as Objective-ish-isms, maybe that is true. In which case I would wonder at a cultic and or religious behavioural repertoire being performed on Nietzsche.

There sure is a lot about organized religion that I like (strictly speaking the form, the art, the architecture, the intellectual history) while deploring its obvious downsides.

So, here, please, I don't mean to tar wide, just tar accurately, without too much smearing and burning the wrong targets.

Michael, you are right to gently prod me to not look down in guise of being entertained. Implicit, maybe, in my earlier remark was that there would be a third alternative for me beyond backing away slowly, or edging back and watching. That would be discussion and question and answer exchange with the speaker (granted I did not feel ranted at). I am a very kind man, but my kindness must also scream and howl in ridicule against that which I find fatuous or unjust, across the board -- and that is what I think people read me for. Not merely the twee and the nice, but also the harsh.

So, if you are cautioning me to be careful, to be just, yes yes, yes, and thanks.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

that's just the old "objectivism is a religion" smear. amazing that you'd fall for a form of it.

Phil,

It's amazing to me that you understood that to be my message.

Actually, it's not. What you are doing is what religious people do when they feel their religion is under attack. They tune out and start seeing red and to hell with understanding anything.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> They tune out and start seeing red and to hell with understanding anything.

Actually, Michael that's what -you- are doing. You are not reading and posting carefully. You are simply firing off a glib response. Go back and reread my original points on this subject and it will all become clearer to you.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think that the important question is why did Phil choose Cliff Clavin as the role model on which to base himself?

J

I've never seen the show -- I had to Google to find out who Cliff Clavin is. However, the question, combined with subsequent posts in which Phil snippetizes further, leads me to think of Michael Jackson.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I would never want you to change a comma of what you write, not even when you bash me and/or get it all wrong. Let 'er rip. You do it like no one.

I have been a fan of your style ever since way back when you showed up on SoloHQ. Remember those times? The best you got from folks back then was, "Huh?"

But at the beginning, I was commenting. You usually ignored me. But I even took on your expression for a while, "the ick factor," which you used when discussing lack of empathy in the Objectivist world. You should see some of the good things I have written about you offline over the years. (I won't say more about that, though, because I don't want it to go to your head.)

I merely pointed out a spiritual thing about looking down your nose. I believe it is possible to condemn something or blast it with satire--even bitingly--without comparing ones inner self to the object of scorn and ridicule. If you screw this up and allow yourself to feel haughty as you clobber, you are actually stooping. You are competing in a spiritual game you say you scorn.

This is something l learned from a Brazilian author whose advice I do not follow enough, Nuno Cobra. (He's a famous Brazilian kingmaker of sports champions.)

He wrote in "A Semente da Vitória" (The Seed of Victory) the following (my translation):

Não se deve lutar com quem não se gosta, para não se igualar a quem você repudia. (You shouldn't fight someone you disdain, so you don't become flush with the person you repudiate.)

He was quoting a woodsman named Pedro, his own mentor.

(A woodsman wouldn't talk like my translation, though. I was simply trying to keep the form, but the more I mess with it, the more dorky it sounds. A colloquial way of saying it would be, "Don't fight people you despise. That way you don't stoop to their level.")

That sounds like snobbery, or even Roark's "I don't think of you," but when you look deeply into it, it's the opposite. You have thought of a person you dislike. You thought about him enough to make a serious considered judgment. That's why you walk away (when you can). You're not in competition with that person anymore. You have nothing to gain by beating him.

But you do fight a person you respect underneath and that's a good fight.

It's very tricky to do satire in that spirit and I believe you pull it off (most of the time). To be clear, your lampoons usually transmit goodwill and a desire for the person to improve. So you actually are equal to the person so far as moral possibility goes. This is not fighting in the sense of trying to destroy--which I did, say, with Perigo and Valliant.

This thought popped up and it suddenly got interesting, so let me probe a second.

I didn't try to destroy them, just their credibility for spreading a toxic agenda through their attempted leadership roles in the Objectivist subcommunity. They tried to destroy people I love and admire, so I stood up. I fought.

I also did satire, but I'm sorry to say that I didn't give a damn whether they improved or not--nor do I. I'm working on it, and God knows I've tried. I just can't feel anything but disdain for those individuals. So, after they were discredited--through my efforts and those of others--I simply stopped fighting them. I don't lower myself--inside myself--to a moral level I reject as sleazy.

Should they say bad things about me in the future, I'm not sure if I would ever counter with anything anymore. And I think that's sad. I don't like feeling that way about any human being.

Back to conceit. I believe the root of vanity and the root of religiosity are the same. Maybe not identical, but there is certainly a large overlap if you represent them by circles on a Venn diagram.

The quote below is a typical "looklng down your nose" attitude of the kind I'm talking about--one with the same root. It's standard Objectivish snark in lieu of a comment based on correct understanding, but it could just as easily be satire. The point is that this is not in the same spirit as your benevolent satires or my tough love encouragement.

... too pitiful to discuss any further.

But I am discussing and it is not pitiful at all. That comment is a great example of one of the pitfalls of a religious attitude bolstered by vanity.

Phil looked down his nose at me at that moment, but he lowered himself to what he believed was my level in order to snark at me.

That's not what happened in reality (meaning I was not in reality lower than him), but even on the level of perceived reality qua the snob's perceived reality (where he thinks I'm lower), it's a contradiction. There is no spiritual growth involved, nor victory, nor any value for anyone outside of Phil. And he can only get value from it by demeaning himself to himself. By stooping inside.

And that's not a true value according to his professed philosophy.

I believe that is the message Nuno Cobra's wise words convey.

Anyway, my warning to you against conceit was in this sense. Certainly not in the sense for you to tone it down. And there's more. If I did not hold you in high regard, I would not have wasted my breath.

(That's something Phil could think about someday. It seems I deploy a lot of breath on him.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've stayed out of discussing Hsieh because I don't like to discuss her. She's doing her thing and she despises me (as per last communication) and that's fine by me. I think she's a good kid who's very confused, kinda stupid in her gratuitous nastiness and power longings, and needlessly rude.

But she's trying to build something and I always like to see that. I know she doesn't know jack about human nature and managing crowds, so I don't give her much of a chance of success with her social networking endeavors beyond a small tribe, but doing it is one of the best ways to learn it. She's not a stupid woman, so maybe she'll start to see things she never imagined existed and change a little for the better.

If not, she's in a rut where I predict she will stay.

But something very interesting came up that is pertinent to the theme of this thread.

It deals with shunning--a religious element that, unfortunately, was grafted into Objectivistism by Rand herself.

Those who practice shunning often end up getting bit by the beast they tried to tame. That's happening with Ms. Hsieh right now.

I never go to her site except in a blue moon. But I just did to see if she was involved with those athiests who put up a "God Is An Imaginary Friend" billboard in Boulder that's in the news.

Boy did I get a surprise. See here. (I only skimmed that thing, though. I realize I'm long-winded at times, but I don't have time to read another War and Peace right now.)

Apparently there's a site run by 14 ARI-side individuals (as of this post) who are calling on Objectivists to check their premises and look at "the danger that some, who may seem in agreement with the philosophy, are in fact subverting it." I think these are young folks because I don't recognize any of their names.

The site is called Checking Premises. They use Peikoff's "Fact and Value" as their jumping off point, including that silly part at the end where he tells everyone (read David Kelley) to go away because Ayn Rand would not have wanted them.

But one of their warnings is about Hsieh herself. Look at this pearl of wisdom (which follows some qualifications). It is under the "Current Controversies" tab over there.

We believe she [Diana Hsieh] has revealed herself to not understand and/or to not agree with certain aspects of Objectivism. In addition, we have serious concerns about the nature, frequency, and tone of her public disagreements with Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Homily time anyone?

What goes around comes around.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Don't spit into the wind.

How about this one by Rand?

Judge and prepare to be judged.

Well hell. There it is. Cancha feel the luv in our neck of the woods? (Actually their neck of the woods 'cause I don't live there.)

An ARI-side shunning effort has been formally started against Hsieh--with the standard denials and claims of merely trying to do yada yada yada... (See the comments to her post.) We've all seen that plot before, rigtht?

If it grows, it will complete. That's what these things tend to do unless the target is cunning enough to defuse it. If it does complete, there will be one bitter-ass Noodlefooder in the world. I believe Hsieh knows this, which is why she wrote a full-length novel about it.

Does it get any more religious than that?

It's funny because I don't mean Hsieh this time.

Michael

[Jonathan]

[Brant Gaede]

Heh. Diana has a lot of time on her hands. It's interesting she thinks that Web site was set up just to attack her. I think it was set up to attack or control everybody by people still learning how to control their own bodily functions. The woman has a grossly inflated view of herself, like many would care much if she wrote thousands of words attacking Chris Sciabarra almost six years ago on SLOP. The Great Diana has spoken. The Great Diana speaks. The Great Diana will speak.

--Brant