Branden vs. Peikoff on Forgiveness

[studiodekadent]

. . .

In my earlier post, I argued that "forgiveness" is not a key moral fact because doing/being evil is not the heart of the human condition.

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Rather, they all always integrated the facets of morality under the view that the purpose of morality is teach one to enjoy oneself and live.

Stephen,

I absolutely agree with you that the content of Objectivism endorses everything you say. I am not saying that Peikoff consciously, in-fact-believes that morality is primarily about punishing the evils man is "bound" to commit.

What I am saying is that Peikoff's habits and perspective seem to indicate that culturally, his primary use for morality is about condemnation and punishment of evildoers.

Let me explain; Objectivism is strongly against conformity, second-handing and groupthink, and Objectivism promotes individuality, independent thought and innovation.

But the culture of the early Objectivist movement fell into cultishness, in spite of the content of the philosophy itself.

I don't believe this cultishness was intentional.

I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate hypocrisy. I'm arguing that Peikoff is subconsciously treating morality in the same way that Christians treat morality (i.e. a tool principally for the punishment and condemnation of evildoers), and is not aware of the tension between Objectivist principles and how he is in fact acting.

[Brant Gaede]

. . .

In my earlier post, I argued that "forgiveness" is not a key moral fact because doing/being evil is not the heart of the human condition.

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Rather, they all always integrated the facets of morality under the view that the purpose of morality is teach one to enjoy oneself and live.

There's a difference here between official intent and unofficial result.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

. . .

In my earlier post, I argued that "forgiveness" is not a key moral fact because doing/being evil is not the heart of the human condition.

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Rather, they all always integrated the facets of morality under the view that the purpose of morality is teach one to enjoy oneself and live.

There's a difference here between official intent and unofficial result.

--Brant

Exactly.

[Xray]

Rand has Roark commit a minor moral error repeatedly. He finally realizes his mistake and fesses up to himself and to Peter that he is now in a fix that brings a punishment to him for that root error. That error was his helping Peter by doing work for him and letting Peter take the credit. Roark is finally reformed in that respect. Not only that. He is redeemed, and he is held up as morally perfect. I don’t think this is just an inconsistency on Rand’s part. It is something about her conception of the psyche (and moral character) that simply has not been drawn out by her or by expositors of her philosophy, so far as I know.

This is exactly what I see as problematic in speaking of moral "error". For most people who act against a moral standard know perfectly well what they are doing and thus are aware of their action being a violation of that standard. So if they choose ot act against the moral standard because for whatever reasons) they don't care, it is not issue of error; i. e. it is not an issue having its roots in a lack of knowledge about a fact.

Roark too knew perfectly well that he helped Keating in committing a fraud. He was certainly not in error about it being a fraud. But he felt no guilt about it, which is a different issue.

[PDS]

Rand has Roark commit a minor moral error repeatedly. He finally realizes his mistake and fesses up to himself and to Peter that he is now in a fix that brings a punishment to him for that root error. That error was his helping Peter by doing work for him and letting Peter take the credit. Roark is finally reformed in that respect. Not only that. He is redeemed, and he is held up as morally perfect. I don’t think this is just an inconsistency on Rand’s part. It is something about her conception of the psyche (and moral character) that simply has not been drawn out by her or by expositors of her philosophy, so far as I know.

This is exactly what I see as problematic in speaking of moral "error". For most people who act against a moral standard know perfectly well what they are doing and thus are aware of their action being a violation of that standard. So if they choose ot act against the moral standard because for whatever reasons) they don't care, it is not issue of error; i. e. it is not an issue having its roots in a lack of knowledge about a fact.

Roark too knew perfectly well that he helped Keating in committing a fraud. He was certainly not in error about it being a fraud. But he felt no guilt about it, which is a different issue.

Interesting insights, Xray. I think you are conflating the notion of a "blind spot" with "committing a fraud." The blind spot was in furtherance of the buildings themselves, and Roark's love of his work (and the results of that work) as an end in itself. Don't forget the statement in the context (I may be missing some of the exactness): "I do not build in order to be an architect, I am an architect in order to build."

[Selene]

Additionally, in his argument to the jury, Roark was quite explicit invoking the rules of a valid contract under law.

Finishing with, "I was not paid!"

[Guyau]

Rand has Roark commit a minor moral error repeatedly. He finally realizes his mistake and fesses up to himself and to Peter that he is now in a fix that brings a punishment to him for that root error. That error was his helping Peter by doing work for him and letting Peter take the credit. Roark is finally reformed in that respect. Not only that. He is redeemed, and he is held up as morally perfect. I don’t think this is just an inconsistency on Rand’s part. It is something about her conception of the psyche (and moral character) that simply has not been drawn out by her or by expositors of her philosophy, so far as I know.

This is exactly what I see as problematic in speaking of moral "error". For most people who act against a moral standard know perfectly well what they are doing and thus are aware of their action being a violation of that standard. So if they choose ot act against the moral standard because for whatever reasons) they don't care, it is not issue of error; i. e. it is not an issue having its roots in a lack of knowledge about a fact.

Roark too knew perfectly well that he helped Keating in committing a fraud. He was certainly not in error about it being a fraud. But he felt no guilt about it, which is a different issue.

A bit more on this element in the novel:

. . .

Roark's error was . . . the error of being a cohort with Peter in a misrepresentation to third parties. It started when they were in school together. Rand has Roark do some of Peter's work in school and on into their careers to show her ideal man as (like virtuous man in Plato's dialogues) in love with something which is sufficient to him even though he will receive no credit or money for the achievement. In the grand final case of misrepresentation, the case of Cortlandt, the rouse is uncovered, and Roark realizes that all the way back to school, he never should have been a confederate with Peter or anyone in this way.

. . .

I have noticed that the kind of restoration that comes to Roark suggests a dynamic conception of moral perfection, one that parallels the concept of health. Sometimes loss of health is temporary, sometimes not. Rand would have been familiar with that parallel from Plato, at least, when writing Fountainhead (cf.).

Angela, when Roark helps Peter in these ways from schooldays to career times, he knows that it is against rules accepted by others and institutions. He may accept and usually follow those rules himself. He knows too that in violating those rules, he could get caught and be in some trouble. But like the view of morality put forth in Patricia Churchland’s Braintrust, his is openly a morality of values, not rules.

He is a man of first-hand values and first-hand judgment. He can learn, by experience, more about people and society, and he can learn more effective policies for the pursuit of his values—which new policies may coincide with some rules accepted already by others—and he can alter weightings he has distributed over his values in past choices such that he would now choose differently. His earlier, less enlightened policy is strategically inferior to his later policy, and in that sense the former policy was morally erroneous in the context of his own values.

As Andrew has observed in this thread, Roark’s values are well set when we meet him. When we are told something about the earlier years of a protagonist in a Rand novel, we get something along the lines of an Alexander Hamilton story: If I recall correctly, at twelve years of age, he got on a boat from home in the Caribbean, sailed to New York, and made his own way.

It is a fun element of many old-fashioned novels to show elements in the child (whether protagonist or antagonist) that elaborate in the adult. Some of Roark’s values, I should say, are for his creator not values appropriate only to him. Rand early and late did not think of or portray such values as being made values only because someone held them to be values.

. . .

Roark says to Wynand “‘we live in our minds, and existence is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality, to state it in gesture and form’” (HR II 558). All living creatures have a life source, which is their constitutional idea. Failure of organism integrity, compromise of its life source, is death (PK XV 205). Similarly, to set against the central constitutional idea particular to one’s self is a failure of an integrity that may be called moral integrity (ibid.). A person of integrity is self-motivated, a self-sufficient spirit (HR XI 660). Life itself for man requires human consciousness, which is independent judgment (HR XI 659). Life itself for man requires creators (HR XVIII 737). The vision, strength, and courage of a creator comes “from his own spirit” (ibid.). Human creators are “a first cause, a fount of energy, a life force . . .” (ibid.).

For all individuals, not only extraordinary creators, seeking the best, loving one’s work, and choosing independence is seeking, loving, and choosing life—one’s own life—against death (ET XI 349; HR XVIII 739–40). In her fully developed ethical system of Atlas Shrugged, the choice of life or death remains implicit in one’s choices for virtues such as integrity, productiveness, and independence.

In Fountainhead loyalty to reason had been a virtue alongside virtues such as integrity and independence. In Atlas loyalty to truth in all things by reason, which is termed rationality, is the premier virtue. And the choice to think becomes the life-or-death choice underlying all the life-or-death virtues of Rand’s full system: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride (see also Wright 2009, 258–62, 265–70). “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character” (AS 1017; see further a, b, c).

The mind’s grasp of reality at the level required for human survival is not an automatic, physically determined process like sensory perception (AS 1012–13, 1041). Furthermore, the human mind has some fundamental freedom to orient itself to reality or to obscure reality by evasion (or to revolt outright against reason and reality, as with Toohey). It has some power of self-deception. Rand’s Galt says: “‘It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture’. / ‘Do not remind me that it pertains only to life on this earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you’” (emphasis added; cf. Nietzsche in Pippin 2010, 85–104).

[Brant Gaede]

Let's not forget Rand wrote to make her novels work. Roark helping Keating was a prime example. Roark rooming with the Keatings while in college? Unbelievable! But that's art, not reality. Genius art.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

The question is really: How does someone redeem him/herself?

Shouldn't the individual be responsible for forming their own answer depending on the situation? When can you disassociate a person with their past? You'd have to also ask when can you be angry at a person in the first place.

[Dennis Hardin]

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Peikoff certainly did, Stephen. In "Fact and Value," Peikoff explicitly states that it is much more important to condemn evil ideas than to praise and reward evidence of a person’s efforts at rational thinking. Here are some excerpts from “Fact and Value.”

. . .Kelley adds that if, after a discussion, a particular intellectual proves to be “not open to reason,” then we no longer have to be tolerant of him. But a man’s viewpoint as such, he insists, no matter what its content, does not justify such a negative verdict. What then does or ever could? If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, does not necessarily indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational? How can we know that he is not merely “honestly mistaken” still? Kelley does not address such questions, because the only answer to them is: on Kelley’s premises, one never can know that a man is being irrational and, therefore, one never does pronounce moral judgment.

Peikoff is saying here that it’s okay to condemn people before any effort to discover how they came to their mistaken beliefs, or whether they are open to rethinking their “inherently dishonest” ideas.

To tear values from facts and concepts from percepts is to explode any such integration and thus to defy the essence of the philosophy which demands it. Such is the result of trying to combine Objectivism with “tolerance” (or with “compassion” or “kindness” in the Brandens’ sense).

“Tolerance,” as used by Kelley, is a concept (or anti-concept) out of the modern liberals’ world-view; it is a further expression of the philosophy of subjectivism; it conveys the notion that one must be fair to one’s opponents by means of not judging them, by being “open-minded” and saying, in effect: “Who am I to know? Maybe I have something to learn from this person.”

Once again, Peikoff is saying that there is no justification for ever extending the benefit of the doubt to people who have not fully integrated their beliefs and values. You talk to people and discover that they are not fully integrated Objectivists? Then to hell with them. Ignore any good elements you may discover in such people. They have nothing of value to offer. Your cognition of the irrationality of the ideas they hold demands an evaluation of them as evil.

At this early stage of history, a great many people, though bright and initially drawn to Ayn Rand, are still unable (or unwilling) fully to grasp this central concept [i.e., objectivity]. They accept various ideas from Ayn Rand out of context, without digesting them by penetrating to the foundation; thus they never uproot all the contradictory ideas they have accepted, the ones which guided the formation of their own souls and minds.

The cause is fundamental and philosophical: if you grasp and accept the concept of “objectivity,” in all its implications, then you accept Objectivism, you live by it and you revere Ayn Rand for defining it. . .

Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand’s intellectual and legal heir. If you reject the concept of “objectivity” and the necessity of moral judgment, if you sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts, if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it—please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you—

Peikoff starts off by saying that many people struggle to grasp the full meaning of objectivity, but then goes on to say that such people are “rejecting” the concept of objectivity and therefore must be banished from the Objectivist movement. He says nothing about giving them the benefit of the doubt and making an effort to help them gain a full understanding of the meaning of objectivity. He says nothing about looking for the good and encouraging it.

Cognition demands evaluation. Fledgling Objectivists who continue to hold any irrational ideas must be “evaluated” for doing so—i.e., condemned.

“Fact and Value” amounts to Peikoff’s fully developed, comprehensive philosophical statement that it is much more important to condemn the “evil” we detect in others (i.e., their irrational beliefs) than it is to reward and encourage the “good” in others--the rational elements in their thinking that has the potential of developing into full, integrated rationality.

[Dennis Hardin]

The question is really: How does someone redeem him/herself?

Shouldn't the individual be responsible for forming their own answer depending on the situation? When can you disassociate a person with their past? You'd have to also ask when can you be angry at a person in the first place.

Each individual is responsible for earning his or her own redemption. Often, however, they need education on how and why their actions were wrong or immoral before they can see the need for such corrective action.

[Guyau]

. . .

In my earlier post, I argued that "forgiveness" is not a key moral fact because doing/being evil is not the heart of the human condition.

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Rather, they all always integrated the facets of morality under the view that the purpose of morality is teach one to enjoy oneself and live.

Dennis, there is nothing in what you quote from Peikoff in #35 that says or “seems to indicate” that the core of Objectivist ethics concerns relations with other people. Social relations are a division of the Objectivist ethics, but a discussion of that, with a drill-down to the subdivision of judging others morally does not logically imply nor in any way insinuate that the core of Objectivist ethics is not care of one’s own soul and one’s own life, specifically to the purpose of realizing that life and the joy that is happiness.

To what is a different point, you quote Peikoff as writing the conditional statement: “If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, does not necessarily indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational?”

This statement pertains to judging a person to be irrational based on certain evidence. He goes on to falsely claim that for Kelley there is no degree of such evidence at which Kelley could come to the judgment that such a person is irrational and take his leave. That inference would get closer to being licensed if does not necessarily in the conditional proposition were instead could never sufficiently and if Kelley did not agree with the resulting rhetorical conditional question: “If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, could never sufficiently indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational?” . . . . Yes, yes, yes, buy your gas at my station, not the one down the street. That is why I have never commented on these papers between Peikoff and Kelley. It’s a shame I’ve been distracted by it this morning, distracted from more worthwhile and delicious work waiting on my desk. Feeling a little guilt, though nothing attributable to exposure to Objectivism and nothing that can’t be easily remedied by action.

I’ll say your sayings about what Peikoff says in these quotes are askew and let it go.

[studiodekadent]

. . .

In my earlier post, I argued that "forgiveness" is not a key moral fact because doing/being evil is not the heart of the human condition.

Peikoff's central focus on condemnation, however, seems to indicate that Peikoff (probably implicitly) believes that the core task of morality is condemnation.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Rather, they all always integrated the facets of morality under the view that the purpose of morality is teach one to enjoy oneself and live.

Dennis, there is nothing in what you quote from Peikoff in #21 that says or “seems to indicate” that the core of Objectivist ethics concerns relations with other people. Social relations are a division of the Objectivist ethics, but a discussion of that, with a drill-down to the subdivision of judging others morally does not logically imply nor in any way insinuate that the core of Objectivist ethics is not care of one’s own soul and one’s own life, specifically to the purpose of realizing that life and the joy that is happiness.

Stephen,

I think you're slightly misinterpreting what Dennis and I are arguing.

We're saying that Peikoff has been displaying a persistent pattern of behavior (and recurring intellectual focus) which seems to indicate a real preoccupation with condemnation. We're saying that this behavior seems inconsistent with Objectivist morality.

We're not saying he's consciously defying his own stated convictions.

My thesis re. "recurring Christian moral tropes" (or in Peikoff's case, Jewish moral tropes) is simply an hypothesis that his conscious Objectivist morality is being undermined, in practice, by subconsciously repeating the same moral pattern of Sin-Condemnation-Atonement.

Perhaps on some level he's emotionally aware of this, but he might not be. We simply don't know and I'd rather not speculate.

However, we aren't alleging anything particularly complicated. People often have old habits, acquired from old modes of thought (and still having effects on one's emotions), which can conflict with one's conscious convictions.

You're citing records of Peikoff's conscious convictions, but Dennis and I are looking at an entirely different question.

[Guyau]

In the quotation from me, #21 should have been #35.

Andrew, I don't think the in-family or near-neighbor condemning by Peikoff has been a whit different in its hyperbolic character than Rand's. As in politics proper (whether addressed by Objectivists or by others), the loudest words coming from Objectivists concerning their kin-competitors are disproportionately critical. This in-family puffing by Objectivists, of course, is not essential to the philosophy, and neither side is in their teachings at odds with the essentials of Objectivism, notwithstanding all the foot stamping to the contrary. All the condemning directed at Peikoff too, chronic at this site, is not essential to the philosophy or its future. The positive intellectual contributions of Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute are enormous, notwithstanding the slight notice given that by siblings. They march into the future fine, notwithstanding the in-family racket. (Remember too that he who has the gold makes the rules of an organization, and an annual operating budget of twelve million dollars is not likely mainly from Peikoff; the direction of productive work at ARI can continue should they lose his financial contribution at his death.) That racket will subside naturally, in the years after all the people who personally knew Rand and were implicated in her personal conflict are deceased. The hyperbolic noise of politics proper, of course, you have with you always, even to the end of the earth.

[Dglgmut]

The question is really: How does someone redeem him/herself?

Shouldn't the individual be responsible for forming their own answer depending on the situation? When can you disassociate a person with their past? You'd have to also ask when can you be angry at a person in the first place.

Each individual is responsible for earning his or her own redemption. Often, however, they need education on how and why their actions were wrong or immoral before they can see the need for such corrective action.

To be shown how one's actions were immoral is to be shown how one's actions were not motivated by rational self-interest. Earning redemption can coincide with earning self-respect, but it should be an offshoot rather than a focus of its own. Right?

However, I took the question as being from the point-of-view of the potential forgiver (but I guess it could have been either way). To forgive someone is to acknowledge that they've changed; that they are no longer the person with whom you were angry/disappointed.

It depends on the particular situation and one's own judgment of that situation and of the person whose character is in question. They might as well have asked, "When should you approve of a person?"

[Xray]

Interesting insights, Xray. I think you are conflating the notion of a "blind spot" with "committing a fraud." The blind spot was in furtherance of the buildings themselves, and Roark's love of his work (and the results of that work) as an end in itself. Don't forget the statement in the context (I may be missing some of the exactness): "I do not build in order to be an architect, I am an architect in order to build."

PDS,

I don't think Roark had a blind spot when "helping" Keating. I've always interpreted his "helping" Keating as pure selfishness: Roark (although no one aside from Keating was to know that he'd be the spritus rector behind it) saw this as a unique opportunity to see his creative architectural work brought out into the public.

Keating used Roark, but Roark used Keating too. It was planned by both as a win-win deal, and imo any question in terms of a possibly unethical behavior in that context were of no interest to either party.

Suppose Cortland had been built as Roark wished and therefore not been dynamited by him, he would probably have felt triumphant and have signaled to Keating that he was going to "help" him again in new projects. For Roark's deep desire to "build" would need to be satisfied again.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A Different Kind of Forgiveness for a Different Kind of Outcome

I came across a method for forgiving people that allows you to attain the serenity of Howard Roark, at least to some extent. I found it in a most unusual place.

Highly unusual.

What if I said this manner of forgiveness does not deal with any kind of condemnation, any kind of intent for punishment or withholding of punishment? What if, instead, it is premised on the responsibility and right of each person--as an inherently valuable being, as an end in himself--to seek his own path in life?

Does a process like that, also, not fall within the Objectivist orbit?

I believe it does.

Forgiveness is not just a matter of following some rules. If you want to use a rulebook, you can condemn a transgressor from on high as if you were sitting on the Throne of the Infallible Moral Judge casting down Zeus-like lighting bolts of justice. But how much of that is theater and how much is moral value? My vote is mostly theater. In that spirit, forgiveness is nothing but a caricature. Sanctimoniousness.

At core, even in that case, forgiveness is a form of handling relationships with other people and with yourself. It is more profoundly indicative of values, of what a person truly thinks is important, than appears on the surface.

So many, many times we have to forgive others so we can forgive ourselves. If we are truly selfish in a moral manner, our own state is--and should be--of far greater importance to us than the affairs of others.

What use is it to make someone else feel rotten or put on a good show if we make ourselves feel rotten by doing it?

So the forgiveness method below does not deal with the moral correctness of others, or excusing evil in others, or the harshly judgmental attitudes toward others that are normally present in the Objectivist subculture. Instead it uses forgiveness as a moral and psychological process for each one of us to value our own lives in a properly prioritized, deeply satisfying manner.

It is a selfish use of forgiveness. And that is saying a lot, seeing where it came from and seeing where I am saying it.

An Odd Result from Forgiveness

When I was in my last year of high-school I did a forgiveness experiment on my own. This was before my first contact with Ayn Rand's works.

I was raised in an environment where hillbilly attitudes about child-rearing prevailed. (I refer to backward hillbilly attitudes, not to the many fine and good people who live in the mountains.) That meant beatings.

My parents were not bumpkins, though. They worked hard. At that time they were trying to climb out of a dirt-poor coal mining world and into the American middle class. But you are who you are. My parents were not intellectuals. They were new to child-rearing and had no other models, so they repeated what they had learned. The result: my brother and I got beaten quite a lot. Mom and Dad beat us because their parents had beaten them.

I gradually grew aware of this fact, but my heart still smoldered with resentment and shame from those beatings. As I was soon to go off to college, I concluded it was not a good idea to carry that baggage with me. So I decided to forgive my parents.

I found a quiet place where I could think without interruption. I went there often. I started going back in my mind to each beating I could remember. I tried to recall all the details--all the emotions I felt back then. I tried to mentally relive the sting of the belt's lash on my legs.

After I had this in focus, I held it for a while, then I added a thought: My parents had good intentions, but they didn't know any better. Then I forgave them as fully as I could. Sometimes it took a lot of effort. I made it a point to keep pushing myself to forgive them until I no longer felt the outrage, until I felt serene, until I felt there was nothing left to blame them for.

I did this time after time.

The result? I went into a depression like I never experienced before. It was horrible and I became a mess.

Now I know my mistake, but I didn't have a clue back then. You don't need to relive the actual pain to be aware that something hurt like hell at one time. All you need to do is remember it happened, it hurt, and try to recall your emotional reaction.

Ironically, my father was the one who pulled me out of that funk. In fact, I still cherish the ass-kicking motivational speech he gave me. It is a memory I carry with total pride in what he did. The contrast with what I was going through was wonderful.

There was an unintended consequence, though. I managed to forgive my parents a lot, but my love for them diminished.

I didn't hate them anymore like I was starting to, but I began to feel indifferent.

That surprised me. It actually shook me and made me feel guilty in a whole new manner.

Roark's Serenity

Soon after I left for college, I discovered Ayn Rand. But it was Atlas Shrugged. That created blinding intensity. It was a relief when I later came across Roark's serenity.

But there was a problem. How could I get some of that for me?

The words of Nathaniel Branden below (from "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement") make me feel like he knew me back then. He is exactly right.

In preparation for this presentation, I re-read the opening chapter of The Fountainhead. It really is a great book. I noticed something in the first chapter I never noticed before. Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it. He is serenely happy within himself. For average teenagers, this condition is agony. They read The Fountainhead and see this condition, not as a problem to be solved, but as a condition they must learn to be happy about — as Roark is. All done without drugs! What a wish-fulfillment that would be! What a dream come true! Don't bother learning to understand anyone. Don't bother working at making yourself better understood. Don't try to see whether you can close the gap of your alienation from others, at least from some others, just struggle for Roark's serenity — which Rand never tells you how to achieve. This is an example of how The Fountainhead could be at once a source of great inspiration and a source of great guilt, for all those who do not know how to reach Roark's state.

Part of my angst was bitterness at the folly of people when I tried to interact with them. I was constantly disappointed at the unfairness I saw around me. I had no idea what a cognitive bias was back then and people just bewildered me, especially when they were nasty. Like it or not, maybe I managed to forgive my parents and that helped a lot, but I was unable to erase the scars and remaining open wounds.

So Roark's serenity seemed to me like the voice of God. I could only long for it from where I sat. It was unattainable. That kind of serenity felt like a poem I like. (As an aside, it is often attributed to Samuel Coleridge. I tried to find out where, but I came across a site that said there are no known details or publication dates).

What if you slept

And what if

In your sleep

You dreamed

And what if

In your dream

You went to heaven

And there plucked a strange and beautiful flower

And what if

When you awoke

You had that flower in you hand

Ah, what then?

I have news for folks, including NB. The feeling of desperately wanting Roark's serenity but believing it is impossibly out of reach is not just applicable to teens and young adults. I carried it for years. I know others have, too.

Although I sometimes make light of the following phrase from The Fountainhead, I have longed for this state, especially when my mind has been on fire and wouldn't let me stop thinking about someone who did me dirty. Ellsworth Toohey, as we all know, made himself into an enemy and destroyer in Roark's life.

"Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."

"But I don't think of you."

Toohey's face had an expression of attentiveness, of listening quietly to something as simple as fate.

Note that, in a typical Randian fashion, Roark is giving Toohey his just rewards by saying that. Well, I haven't found a way to attain Roark's cool here and, at the same time, get psychological revenge, but I have found a way to get to the serenity state and just move on.

Is that a good thing? Is it worth pursuing?

I believe so.

Besides, I've lost my appetite for psychological revenge after having tasted it a few times. I refuse to be a bad guy and take pleasure in the suffering of others.

Metaphor...

Before I say where the method came from, first a word about metaphor. We use metaphors all the time to intensify and broaden the meaning of our communication. Rand certainly did. For instance, I seriously doubt anyone would accuse Rand of actually believing that cotton floats in thin air from the following quote in Atlas Shrugged:

A gray cotton, which was neither quite fog nor clouds, hung in sloppy wads between sky and mountains...

I only mention this for the literal-minded. We are going to look at a process that needs to be seen in terms of metaphor, not metaphysics. And there is an aggravating element. The person teaching the method proposes that there really is a transparent "energetic connection" and all the rest. But in my conception, anyone can get value by treating all that as a metaphor.

The method comes from an NLP New Age wealth building guru, Christopher Howard. He has a video called "Forgiveness" where he shows how to do it. As of this posting, you can see Parts 1 and 2 on YouTube, but I haven't found Part 3 online. (I have seen it, though.)

... and Reality

But before we get into it, lets look at verifiable reality. Here is a work of applied neuroscience and psychology for the general public that I am studying, Your Brain at Work by David Rock.

In the large amount of fMRI scans and other brain studies that Rock synthesizes, he came up with what he calls the "SCARF model" for the unconscious drives and monitoring that are lodged in the brain's limbic system.

SCARF is an acronym for status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. These are concerns that light up parts of the brain over and over in the scans. Rock mentions that the basic "move toward" and "move away from" reaction (often known as the pain-pleasure mechanism or even the reptilian brain) underlie these concerns and operate them on a spectrum of intensity. Obviously these areas are not all that exist. But they are salient enough to put a name on them.

How does this apply to forgiveness?

Notice that most of these drives and monitoring involve social matters. You will find a common belief in the brain science world: The neocortex grew huge during evolution more because of social situations than handling data. Whether this is true or not, the neocortex does light up in fMRI scans in consistent areas during repeated tests under controlled situations--and there are many studies and experiments that support Rock's SCARF model.

Notice how a situation of moral condemnation hits all five.

Status: You judge yourself to be above the transgressor because you are in the right, but you might, also, see yourself existentially below the transgressor as a victim. You are acutely aware of this hierarchy underneath it all whether you realize it or not.

Certainty: The need for certainty asserts itself with moral condemnation--you feel an urge to fudge over facts and/or spin them if they don't align with your condemnation. You subconsciously want to condemn with certainty, not with "well... maybe... I'm not sure..."

Autonomy: Even when you are the victim, you still feel you have enough power to condemn. That's one of the reasons people often do it so loudly, even when there is nothing to be gained by it.

Relatedness: By condemning, you are making a clear statement that the transgressor is a threat and not to be included in your group.

Fairness: This goes without saying in moral condemnation. Even when you are unfair, you will rationalize it until it seems fair.

Notice that forgiveness hits all five in the same spot as condemnation.

In other words, if your brain is engaged in keeping an intense moral condemnation alive, the emotions resulting from these five areas will stay just as alive. And if this results in simmering hatred, it will eventually erupt in your health in addition to paralyzing your productive efforts and happiness. But forgiveness allows you to sever this automatic interest where it happens. Thus, your related emotions abate.

And that is precisely what this method is all about--at least as I use it.

The Method

Christopher Howard starts by establishing a couple of concepts. As I said, he posits that these are real, but they work equally well as metaphors or useful illusions.

He tells you to rub your hands together for about a minute until the friction gets them pretty hot. Then hold them out like you were going to embrace someone. Slowly bring your hands closer and further apart, testing distances, until you feel a magnetic pull. Howard says this is like the "energy" you are going to sever that is between you and other people.

Whether it is or isn't, once again, this is a useful idea as a metaphor (to represent emotional entanglement).

Howard is careful to explain that you can sever this "energy" permanently and eliminate the person from your life, or you can cut it temporarily, which basically gets rid of your present entanglements and allows you to reboot your feelings about, and relationship with the person.

He also asks people to look until they see (or imagine) wispy, almost transparent lines of elastic light--like spiderweb threads--connecting the two sources of energy, the hands. This image is useful during the severing and forgiveness process.

In the steps below, keep in mind that this is a form of hypnosis. So everything has to be done slowly and deliberately. If you try it, be advised you are going to be doing self-hypnosis. Don't be in a hurry. Otherwise it will not do anything for you.

1. Close your eyes, blank your mind, and start breathing deeply and slowly for about 4 or 5 minutes.

2. Once your brain is oxygenated and you are relaxed, slowly imagine yourself floating way up high.

3. As you do that, imagine a large stage down below.

4. In your mind, call the person you want to sever "energy" ties with onto the stage.

If you suddenly decide you want to keep him (or her) in your life exactly as that person is, tell the person to leave. By staying on the stage, that person's "energy" ties to you are going to get severed.

As an aside, Howard demonstrates his method in public by asking the audience to bring different groups from their past on stage, starting with kids from school, boss and coworkers, children, parents, spouses, cousins, enemies, heroes, all kinds of people.

I am describing the process here with only one person, but you can do it for more.

5. Notice the spiderweb threads of "energy" connecting you and the person. It streams from you to him way down below.

6. Now imagine your head opening up and a beam of goodness or divine energy from the "Great Out There" flowing into it. (Once again, this does not have to be taken literally. It can be considered like a metaphor.)

As this beam flows into you and fills you up, imagine it overflowing, spilling out of your heart and flowing down to completely engulf the person below, including the spiderweb threads. The idea is to bathe everything in the light of good intentions.

7. Then ask the person, very slowly:

Do you totally support my magnificence...

My ongoing evolution...

And the direction I am going in life?

The person should say, "No." After all, he or she is still on the stage.

In Howard's version where you call groups of people on stage, you ask each person individually the same question. So you ask it over and over:

Do you totally support my magnificence...

My ongoing evolution...

And the direction I am going in life?

When someone says, "Yes," in your mind, you ask the person to leave the stage. This person will remain unaltered in your life. Only the people who say, "No," will have their "energy" severed.

8. Imagine two large blades forming over your head as the "Great Out There" beam keeps flowing through you and spilling from you down over the person and spiderweb threads. Take your time here.

9. With great sincerity and deliberation, tell the person, "I forgive you."

Pause.

Then ask, "Do you forgive me?"

You do not need an answer here. Just by asking, you neutralize many of the bad emotions you are hanging onto. When someone does something wrong against you, you also tend to think and do all kinds of crap in return. (We all do it.) This question basically brings awareness of it to the surface and allows you to get rid of it.

10. Take time to let this linger. Then, in a feeling of total goodwill, command the blades to quickly fall and sever the spiderweb threads. Whoosh.

11. As the thread segments float away from each other, imagine the person slowly exiting from the stage and going off into the distance. The stage is then empty.

If the person is to leave your life permanently, let that person leave and follow his or her direction to achieve whatever good that person can in life.

If the person is to stay in your life, let that person go in a similar fashion, but realize that soon there will be another "energy" connection and new spiderweb threads based on a new start.

12. Now imagine a thick ring of light (like a donut) forming over the top of your head. See it slowly descending over your head, encircling it, and continuing down the rest of your body. Since this is hypnosis, you normally think about each part as you go down--the light encircling your head, but at the level of your forehead... then eyes... nose... mouth... neck... shoulders... and so on.

As the ring of light moves, it scrubs off all vestiges of the spiderweb threads that are still stuck to you, and it cleanses, purifies and heals your wounds.

13. Once the ring of light has bathed your entire body (like a scanner pass), imagine it slowly going back up from your feet to your head, scrubbing off any vestiges of the spiderweb thread that were missed going down, and cleansing, purifying and finishing the healing of all wounds.

14. Allow the light ring to drift back up into the "Great Out There."

15. Breathe deeply and slowly for about 4 or 5 minutes, just like you did when you started.

16. Gradually open your eyes and enter your new reality.

Final Thoughts

This is not a one-size-fits-all method for dealing with all the trials and tribulations involved with wrongdoing. Sometimes you have to condemn someone and not forgive them, ever, because forgiveness is impossible. Hitler, for example.

But in most situations where we get entangled, that level of evil is nowhere to be found. So, if your life is more important to you than harboring leftovers from bickering and bad experiences with people, the method above is a great way to set yourself free from the emotional bonds and/or the people involved.

I even think of it in part as a distraction killer.

To the small extent I have used this method, I can witness that I feel really good about it. I actually attain a Roark-like serenity with respect to the people whose "energy" I have severed. It has also brought me some good results when I think about my upbringing. Oddly enough, my love for my parents (and even my brother) is increasing. (You have no idea how good that feels.)

I don't expect everyone to resonate with something like this. If it is too touchy-feely for you, I understand.

Anyway, my blades are poised.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

To forgive is to eschew revenge and being a victim and to refuse to carry a hurt forward in your life. It's the selfish thing to do.

--Brant

[Selene]

To forgive is to eschew revenge and being a victim and to refuse to carry a hurt forward in your life. It's the selfish thing to do.

--Brant

Well put.

[Dglgmut]

If it simply means not being angry anymore and accepting the facts of history, then that doesn't really help the person looking for forgiveness.

A person trying to earn forgiveness wants to restore your image of them. They want you to judge them as you did before they betrayed you. If you told them, "I still look at you the same, but I refuse to let it hurt me anymore," I wouldn't consider that forgiveness.

Forgiveness is pretending to forget by acting as if the past didn't happen. That's probably why Rand called it a sin.

You don't forgive an act, you reassess it. If you discover the act was not exactly what you thought it was at the time, then there's nothing to forgive.

You don't really forgive a person, either, as for you to disassociate them from their past you must acknowledge that they've changed; and therefor you look at them as a different person, one who doesn't need forgiveness.

[Dennis Hardin]

To what is a different point, you quote Peikoff as writing the conditional statement: “If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, does not necessarily indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational?”

This statement pertains to judging a person to be irrational based on certain evidence. He goes on to falsely claim that for Kelley there is no degree of such evidence at which Kelley could come to the judgment that such a person is irrational and take his leave.

I’ll say your sayings about what Peikoff says in these quotes are askew and let it go.

Stephen,

"Forgive me" if I'm distracting you from more important things, but I can't resist pointing out that your underlined statement above contradicts your assertion that my assessment of Peikoff's quotes are askew, since you essentially agreed with me.

Peikoff's "false claim" about Kelley means that Peikoff thinks Kelley should condemn a person as "evil" for holding certain beliefs, discounting the person's potential for rational persuasion--i.e., with no regard for evidence of the "good."

Cognition demands evaluation, Peikoff says, and it's okay to condemn with arbitrarily limited evidence.

We can leave it there, if you like.

[Guyau]

". . . since you essentially agreed with me." No, I did not and I do not.

My remark:

. . .

Dennis, there is nothing in what you quote from Peikoff in #35 . . .

To what is a different point, you quote Peikoff as writing the conditional statement: “If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, does not necessarily indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational?”

This statement pertains to judging a person to be irrational based on certain evidence. He goes on to falsely claim that for Kelley there is no degree of such evidence at which Kelley could come to the judgment that such a person is irrational and take his leave. That inference would get closer to being licensed if does not necessarily in the conditional proposition were instead could never sufficiently and if Kelley did not agree with the resulting rhetorical conditional question: “If the content of a man’s ideas, even when they are openly at war with reason and reality, could never sufficiently indicate a process of evasion on his part, how can we ever know that a man who disagrees with us after a discussion is being irrational?” . . .

That was one showing that Peikoff’s argument to reduce Kelley’s position to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) fails by an invalid inference. From “does not necessarily” you cannot infer “could never sufficiently.” It showed also that substituting the latter phrase into the premise containing the former phrase begs the question, and instead of concluding an absurdity for Kelley, results in a premise not plausibly true of Kelley’s position (because, for one thing, it is not plausible at all, which was why Peikoff was trying to conclude it). Read as I have read it, Peikoff’s premise with “does not necessarily,” in the context of his specific argument structure, is not a proclamation by Peikoff that he thinks one should presume every interlocutor with whom one disagrees is to be classed as “at war with reason." As Kelley rightly points out, Peikoff’s clause “openly at war with reason,” indicates that one has attended to how the interlocutor is reasoning, and for sure turns Peikoff’s premise into a tautology. Tautologies are true. Kelley was pleased to accept Peikoff's premise exactly as Peikoff had stated it. But now again, by a second route, we see that Peikoff's premise does nothing to advance his argument.

Dr. Kelley’s own excellent response to the spotlighted text of Dr. Peikoff is on pages 42–43 of Truth and Toleration (1990, Institute of Objectivist Studies).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are some teasers from Nathaniel Branden’s remarks on the topic of forgiveness in “Basic Principles of Objectivism” as transcribed in The Vision on Ayn Rand.* (Remember class, circumstantial ad hominems are not relevant to the merit or demerit of the content in these lectures and this book. Get this book and get Roger’s corrected Index.)

Page 195:

What a person of pseudo-self-esteem “seeks from others is an escape from moral values, an escape from moral judgment, a promise to be forgiven, . . . .”

Page 295:

“Anything can be forgiven or tolerated in our culture, except somebody who will pass moral judgments. . . . It is . . . an age in which anything is to be forgiven, anything is to be understood except, as I say, anybody who dares to point out that the evil is evil.”

Pages 491–92:

“If you wish to avoid the trap and the errors of the sanction of the victim, you must learn to pronounce objective moral judgments. . . . / There are two principles to remember in such cases, two characteristics involved in all instances of the sanction of the victim: First, avoid granting anyone any double standard at your own expense. . . . [Do not make] the mistake of tolerating in others the kind of evil that you would condemn in yourself. Whenever you are able to say about some immoral action, with full rational knowledge of your reasons, ‘I would not permit myself to do this’, do not accept, tolerate, forgive, or sanction it, when it is done by others. / [second] . . . if you are made to suffer because of your flaws, if you are blamed, denounced, punished, or hurt because of your own actions, which you know to be evil, this is merely justice; and a rational person will accept it as justice and will work to correct his flaws. / But if you find yourself in a situation where the source of your pain is . . . .”

[merjet]

Peikoff's "false claim" about Kelley means that Peikoff thinks Kelley should condemn a person as "evil" for holding certain beliefs, discounting the person's potential for rational persuasion--i.e., with no regard for evidence of the "good."

Cognition demands evaluation, Peikoff says, and it's okay to condemn with arbitrarily limited evidence.

The first sentence is fine. The last part of the second sentence is your again jumping to a conclusion based on limited evidence. Peikoff was on a crusade in Fact and Value. He was not when writing about forgiveness for OPAR.

[Dennis Hardin]

Peikoff's "false claim" about Kelley means that Peikoff thinks Kelley should condemn a person as "evil" for holding certain beliefs, discounting the person's potential for rational persuasion--i.e., with no regard for evidence of the "good."

Cognition demands evaluation, Peikoff says, and it's okay to condemn with arbitrarily limited evidence.

The first sentence is fine. The last part of the second sentence is your again jumping to a conclusion based on limited evidence. Peikoff was on a crusade in Fact and Value. He was not when writing about forgiveness for OPAR.

I will stand on the evidence presented. Anyone reading my post can decide for themselves whether my first restatement of Peikoff’s position implies the conclusion.

What the hell does the fact that he was on a crusade have to do with anything? When has Pope Lenny ever not been leading a crusade?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peikoff never forgave Nathaniel Branden for the bad things he did.

Would be a good idea for us to forgive Peikoff for all the bad things he's done over the years?

Who wins if we do that?

As long as I am in a touchy-feely mood, here's a goofy (but really nice) video I stumbled across researching other stuff.

I had never heard of Amanda Gore before (don't worry, she's Australian, hopefully not related to another more famous Gore ). And for some reason I went ahead and started watching this thing.

I was in a blah frame of mind and it cheered me right up. She's perky and funny.

Amanda talks about the bad health problems that come from simmering anger and how forgiving gets rid of the anger. So it kind of ties into my long post earlier on a different kind of forgiveness.

I have not checked her claims about how long it takes for health problems to show up after a bout of stress, but who cares? You can call her talk anything you want, but it is definitely not a scientific presentation. And it's common knowledge that constant bad emotions result in bad health.

Her zoot zoot zoot stuff is pretty silly, but harmless. It's actually kinda cute if you get into a dorky mood.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vQFl4a0xiBE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Zoot zoot zoot...

(I know, I know. You don't need to say it. But the way I see it, better dork now while the dorkin' is still good... )

Michael