Objectivist Roundup

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I caught this from Jonathan's link:

... as someone who always naively assumed things would sell themselves on their merits, I am the world's worst marketer, and I am murderously allergic to marketing jargon and the people who spout it.

This was said in the context of him being frustrated with his own sales and not being able to offer marketing advice.

Let's break this down according to Objectivism, shall we?

Law of identity: This jerk wants the market to work the way his whims dictate, not according to the way its identity says it must work.

The unearned: This jerk wants an unearned share of this market, since he wants a big share, but wishes to deny the nature of its identity and existence.

Ultimately, this is a negation of the nature of human beings.

Michael

[caroljane]

I caught this from Jonathan's link:

... as someone who always naively assumed things would sell themselves on their merits, I am the world's worst marketer, and I am murderously allergic to marketing jargon and the people who spout it.

This was said in the context of him being frustrated with his own sales and not being able to offer marketing advice.

Let's break this down according to Objectivism, shall we?

Law of identity: This jerk wants the market to work the way his whims dictate, not according to the way its identity says it must work.

The unearned: This jerk wants an unearned share of this market, since he wants a big share, but wishes to deny the nature of its identity and existence.

Ultimately, this is a negation of the nature of human beings.

Michael

It is an affirmation of his declared naievete, though.

Books do not sell themselves on their merits and never have. They don't publish themselves even. Successful authors traditionally persuade or pay professional agents and publishers to take on these functions. It is a sad commentary on the merits of Perigo's work that with all his years and connections accrued in the communications business, his persuasive skills have failed him in this regard.

[Jonathan]

The veiled project could be a return to television, or to politics. Or he could be negotiating marriage with Moeller, on the rebound. Or indeed, a von Fursternburg/Dilleresque alliance with Olivia, Lady HooHa!

I too cannot wait for the first of the year for the exciting news. But he does not say what year.

I can't wait either. The anticipation is almost as intense as when Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, announced that Part 2 of Jenn Casey's advice on living with food allergies would be on an upcoming episode of the Philosophy Inaction "radio" show.

Why do these giants of Objectivism do that sort of thing to people? Don't they know how badly they hurt us by teasing us with such announcements? We literally CAN'T wait!!!! So they should just unveil their major accomplishments without advanced notice and save us the pain and insanity of having to wait.

J

[Jonathan]

Successful authors traditionally persuade or pay professional agents and publishers to take on these functions. It is a sad commentary on the merits of Perigo's work that with all his years and connections accrued in the communications business, his persuasive skills have failed him in this regard.

I think that Pigero's failures are directly connected to his behavior in the communications business. People in the industry are likely well-aware of his reputation of turning everything he touches to shit.

The only people that I've ever known of who were still blissfully unaware of his reputation were people at TAS.

Hey! Maybe that's it! Maybe he's got something cooking with TAS! After all, they were dazzled by him enough in the past to ignore his shitting all over them, as well as to ignore their own stated criteria of intellectual seriousness and experience -- they actually invited him to give two presentations at their summer seminar despite his not meeting their standards (while rejecting others who clearly met their standards), and, in doing so, they seemed to be completely surprised that their supporters would object to their idiocy. They're the only people who I know of who are obliviously self-destructive enough to associate professionally with Pigero.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Books do not sell themselves on their merits and never have. They don't publish themselves even. Successful authors traditionally persuade or pay professional agents and publishers to take on these functions. It is a sad commentary on the merits of Perigo's work that with all his years and connections accrued in the communications business, his persuasive skills have failed him in this regard.

Carol,

I agree. And you are talking about the reality of the supply side.

There is a reality on the consumer side, too. A person who whines he should sell gazillions on merit alone and not worry about marketing (or worse, resents those who do), wants mind control over the consumer on a metaphysical level. He wants it automatic. He doesn't even want to make the effort to persuade people to buy his stuff.

This means that underneath, he does not want the consumer to have personal values or personal reasons for buying. He wants carbon copies of himself magically implanted in the consumers's minds. And he wants it all unearned just because he is enthralled with his own message.

People have to be persuaded, which means the message has to cut through the clutter of the marketplace and the constant appeals for their attention throughout the day. Sometimes when they are shopping, they are in bad moods or irritated. Sometimes the kids are bawling too much. Sometimes they are convinced that another product is what they need because of strong marketing. Sometimes they forget things. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Do these people have the right to exist that way? Not to the whiner. He wants automatons, not human beings to buy his stuff.

This reminds me of a man (Ed Madden) who once took me to task for complaining that getting gigs in the trombone world was based more on who you know than on merit. He almost slapped me and was quite rude. He said (something to the effect of), "What the hell's the matter with you? Of course people have to know you before they hire you. If they don't even know who you are, what the hell do you expect? Stop whining and get out and meet people."

I was playing in the Boston University Hockey Band at the time and I just sat there with red ears burning. I took it. He was right.

If anybody thinks this merit versus marketing dichotomy is good Randian morality (just because the philosophy of merit is portrayed in her fiction), I refer them to her Letters.

Rand was highly sensitive to marketing. On her way up, she was constantly asking for referrals to major players and constantly worried about image. The Keating versus Roark either-or dichotomy was a fictional exaggeration to make a point. Rand knew in her own life that she needed to craft marketing messages, to play ball with those who did this well, and to associate with the best ones--the ones with the most clout--she could find. In no way did this detract from the value of her work, especially since she avoided the sleazy people. On the contrary, it helped her "acquire a public voice" as she once described it in one of the Ayn Rand Letters.

What's worse, in my experience with these merit versus mariketing people, they don't even buy things based on merit alone. They constantly buy bad crap out of habit. To this extent, they are hypocrites. But wait! There's more!!!

They're generally the biggest suckers of all for the most unscrupulous marketing promises out there and they are characterized by underachievement throughout their lives. This dude is a prime example.

There is a price you pay when you say proudly that you are incompetent at a basic human activity and that you disparage those who hold this competence.

This reminds my of religious people who are proud of their lack of medical knowledge and say that God, not doctors, will take care of them just fine. They feel morally superior to those with knowledge.

Now we have that crappy belief system walking around pretending it is somehow Objectivism incarnate.

Whatever...

Michael

[caroljane]

OMG you played in the Terriers band! They are one of the best teams in the whole NAAC program! You got to go to all the games!

It is too much to hope that it was the BU coach, but I heard a great story from a retired NHL referee who was being interviewed on the hockey channel. He was refereeing a college tournament and the home coach was an excitable type. It was a finalround game and the pep band was sitting behind the home bench. The ref called a penalty and Coach went ape, tried to jump onto the ice with fists bunched, was restrained by players so he leapt on top of the scorers table, swearing and screaming and waving his arms like he was trying to get rescued off a desert island.

The ref tried to ignore him but he was so distracting and disruptive that Ref skated over to him, pointed dramatically and yelled, "If you want to conduct the band, turn around! You're facing the wrong way!"

[caroljane]

I started out to say, excellent post Michael, but got icebound there... are there really many market vs merit types? Even Perigo seems to market his own merit as best he can... and J may have a point too. He must know people in the publishing and agency businesses, even celebrities , yet all he could get for his blurber was a tennis player ,. Most people I know , including some self published authors, realize that marketing is the major factor in success, in any trade, although merit is essential in having a product to sell.

And luck. Luck matters.

[Selene]

Books do not sell themselves on their merits and never have. They don't publish themselves even. Successful authors traditionally persuade or pay professional agents and publishers to take on these functions. It is a sad commentary on the merits of Perigo's work that with all his years and connections accrued in the communications business, his persuasive skills have failed him in this regard.

This means that underneath, he does not want the consumer to have personal values or personal reasons for buying. He wants carbon copies of himself magically implanted in the consumers's minds. And he wants it all unearned just because he is enthralled with his own message.

People have to be persuaded, which means the message has to cut through the clutter of the marketplace and the constant appeals for their attention throughout the day. Sometimes when they are shopping, they are in bad moods or irritated. Sometimes the kids are bawling too much. Sometimes they are convinced that another product is what they need because of strong marketing. Sometimes they forget things. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Do these people have the right to exist that way? Not to the whiner. He wants automatons, not human beings to buy his stuff.

Sounds like a job for the Equalization of Opporttunity Law from Atlas...

[Jonathan]

Rand was highly sensitive to marketing. On her way up, she was constantly asking for referrals to major players and constantly worried about image...

Rand burned a lot of bridges with acolytes, so I think that some of her followers mistakenly think that that's the way she treated everyone. And then they try to mimic what they thought she was by stupidly destroying their best connections on their way up.

They get what they deserve.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Books do not sell themselves on their merits and never have. They don't publish themselves even. Successful authors traditionally persuade or pay professional agents and publishers to take on these functions. It is a sad commentary on the merits of Perigo's work that with all his years and connections accrued in the communications business, his persuasive skills have failed him in this regard.

This means that underneath, he does not want the consumer to have personal values or personal reasons for buying. He wants carbon copies of himself magically implanted in the consumers's minds. And he wants it all unearned just because he is enthralled with his own message.

People have to be persuaded, which means the message has to cut through the clutter of the marketplace and the constant appeals for their attention throughout the day. Sometimes when they are shopping, they are in bad moods or irritated. Sometimes the kids are bawling too much. Sometimes they are convinced that another product is what they need because of strong marketing. Sometimes they forget things. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Do these people have the right to exist that way? Not to the whiner. He wants automatons, not human beings to buy his stuff.

Sounds like a job for the Equalization of Opporttunity Law from Atlas...

Too much speculation about LP, but if you x him out we have something to talk about.

Build for clients or have clients in order to build? Roark was an (old-meaning) queer fellow. His psychology was more engineer than artist, but Rand portrayed a man with an artist's sensibility to his done creative work in contradistinction to its creation. This seems to hark back to Rand's engineering temptation when she was a young woman in Russia and the hell she went through with Night of January 16. Rand herself was a creator in spite of her need to be in control self, but being in control won out in the end. This is why The Fountainhead is about steadfast integrity being the core of creation since that core protects both the creator and what he creates. It is emphatically not about any act or process of creation. Where there is a somewhat feeble attempt at that is in Atlas Shrugged and Rearden designing a bridge that takes full advantage of the strength of his Rearden metal. It's feeble for it's only a diamond in dirt that way.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Too much speculation about LP, but if you x him out we have something to talk about.

Build for clients or have clients in order to build? Roark was an (old-meaning) queer fellow. His psychology was more engineer than artist, but Rand portrayed a man with an artist's sensibility to his done creative work in contradistinction to its creation. This seems to hark back to Rand's engineering temptation when she was a young woman in Russia and the hell she went through with Night of January 16. Rand herself was a creator in spite of her need to be in control self, but being in control won out in the end. This is why The Fountainhead is about steadfast integrity being the core of creation since that core protects both the creator and what he creates. It is emphatically not about any act or process of creation. Where there is a somewhat feeble attempt at that is in Atlas Shrugged and Rearden designing a bridge that takes full advantage of the strength of his Rearden metal. It's feeble for it's only a diamond in dirt that way.

--Brant

Brant,

I disagree about the speculation. Mainly because that jerk does not have a monopoly on whining.

I've known losers like that all my professional career in music--those who demand success without taking into account the way to get in front of others. Back then there was a drop of legitimacy to some of the complaints because exposure (in arts and publishing) was controlled by gatekeepers (agents, record producers and A&R executives, TV producers, etc.). You had to get through them to get your stuff to market.

But now, with YouTube, print-on-demand services with huge innate markets like Amazon's Createspace and Kindle, that drop of legitimacy dried up. Yet the whining (disguised as moral superiority--too pure to be concerned with something as banal as marketing) persists.

I have very little sympathy for it. This is an extension of the martyrdom syndrome.

About Roark, don't think he didn't take his client's wants and needs into account before he designed anything. Remember the Enright House. Hell, even the building he blew up.

Roark didn't just dream up a building and make people pay him to build it because he had such integrity. He worked on commission. His clients told him what they wanted.

His intolerance came from refusing to follow superficial trends in aesthetics, not from eliminating his client's desires from the picture altogether.

Rand did do one disservice in that book to the marketing industry. She insinuated that the only advertisement and publicity Roark ever did was letting people look at his buildings and spread the news by word of mouth. (And even then, viral marketing is a legitimate form of marketing.)

I agree with you about control being the psychological factor underlying her approach. But the issue is more nuanced than total control by creator or market. The law of identity applies to both.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I've said it before, but I think it's worth repeating: I think that one of the biggest problems with the Objectivist "movement" is that it has a lot of people who somehow ended up emulating Ellsworth Toohey rather than Roark or Galt. They're not creators or producers, but consumer commentators.

J

[caroljane]

Speaking of which types, checking in on Oonline, I see that Knuckledragger Nicky is exuding his characteristic charisma and visibility. He berates Boydstun for using the collectivist term `Tribes`` in denoting his Choctaw ancestry. Thorough as he Knuck is, I don`t doubt healso reported this transgression to a moderator.

[PDS]

The veiled project could be a return to television, or to politics. Or he could be negotiating marriage with Moeller, on the rebound. Or indeed, a von Fursternburg/Dilleresque alliance with Olivia, Lady HooHa!

I too cannot wait for the first of the year for the exciting news. But he does not say what year.

I can't wait either. The anticipation is almost as intense as when Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, announced that Part 2 of Jenn Casey's advice on living with food allergies would be on an upcoming episode of the Philosophy Inaction "radio" show.

Why do these giants of Objectivism do that sort of thing to people? Don't they know how badly they hurt us by teasing us with such announcements? We literally CAN'T wait!!!! So they should just unveil their major accomplishments without advanced notice and save us the pain and insanity of having to wait.

J

While awaiting the outcome of JC's forthcoming podcast regarding this issue, my plan is to avoid eating those foods I'm allergic to. Does anybody think this would be immoral?

I am hoping to avoid moral condemnation.

[caroljane]

Yes! To be on the safe side you should not eat anything. You might be allergic to something and not know about it, and eating immorally is eating immorally. Not knowing is no excuse because it is your personal responsibility to know everything about food allergies in case you might have one.

[caroljane]

You know, I sense a Next Big Thing in the works. With Dr Mrs Dr so tech savvy we could be looking at a new OWN network to eclipse that uppity liberal Oprah. Already there are a couple of sex experts on tap, fitness advisors, diet gurus...ready to give the world the Real Objective Reality.

OWN would be short for, of course, Objectivists Whining about Nothing.

[PDS]

Yes! To be on the safe side you should not eat anything. You might be allergic to something and not know about it, and eating immorally is eating immorally. Not knowing is no excuse because it is your personal responsibility to know everything about food allergies in case you might have one.

I consider potatoe* chips to be immoral. fyi.

*Be careful, Ellen and Daunce, I am baiting a trap here.**

**Remember when I queried whether your famous blue raincoat was torn at the shoulder?

[caroljane]

I do.And in confronting the trap I fully admit to a fondness for Jarslberg.

[Jonathan]

Pigero is having strong feelings about the JFK assassination. His feelings trump the laws of physics and the science of forensics.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Pigero is having strong feelings about the JFK assassination. His feelings trump the laws of physics and the science of forensics.

J

Pigero is having strong feelings about the JFK assassination. His feelings trump the laws of physics and the science of forensics.

J

I'd like that power! I'd like to rule the world!

--Brant

Agnes Can

[Jonathan]

Max Headroom is absolutely destroying Pigero. And collateral-damge bitch-slapping Terry.

[Brant Gaede]

Max Headroom is absolutely destroying Pigero. And collateral-damge bitch-slapping Terry.

What's to destroy?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Interesting: Terry's SOLO user page lists http://www.inspirationz.com/, which includes poster-sized copies of art created by Objectivish types. I was very surprised -- stunned, even -- to see Newberry's Ascension Day there, especially since it's been retitled "Depth of Life," and has been defaced with a quote from Emerson. Emerson, of all people!!! On a Newberry painting!!! And Emerson's little contribution to the collaborative work of art/appropriation is obviously much more important than Newberry's since the collaborative work's title comes from Emerson rather than Newberry!!!

J

[Jonathan]

Max Headroom is absolutely destroying Pigero. And collateral-damge bitch-slapping Terry.

What's to destroy?

--Brant

Touché.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting: Terry's SOLO user page lists http://www.inspirationz.com/, which includes poster-sized copies of art created by Objectivish types. I was very surprised -- stunned, even -- to see Newberry's Ascension Day there, especially since it's been retitled "Depth of Life," and has been defaced with a quote from Emerson. Emerson, of all people!!! On a Newberry painting!!! And Emerson's little contribution to the collaborative work of art/appropriation is obviously much more important than Newberry's since the collaborative work's title comes from Emerson rather than Newberry!!!

J

Even Cordair is better. I really believe Ayn Rand wouldn't like this kind of stuff either.

--Brant

I know my cats wouldn't, and Ayn was a cat person!