My final Rant(s)

[Judith]

When I discovered the whole Hickman thing, it threw me over the edge. This is really bad stuff - indicative of her true nature in my opinion. This "fits" very well with my developing distaste for her and her ideas over the last while. When I read Prescott's account of this it made me sick.

What is this "Hickman thing"? I've never heard of it, and now I'm curious.

Judith

[BAMF]

When I discovered the whole Hickman thing, it threw me over the edge. This is really bad stuff - indicative of her true nature in my opinion. This "fits" very well with my developing distaste for her and her ideas over the last while. When I read Prescott's account of this it made me sick.

What is this "Hickman thing"? I've never heard of it, and now I'm curious.

Judith

Seconded. I've no idea.

Sounds to me like Mac is a bit of an attention seeker. I thought he was leaving. His last rant? Either be gone or don't. I do hope you'll stay and get to know these great people though. It's a nice place...but that's based on my own experience I guess.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith (and Kori),

When Rand was really young, early twenties, she sketched out a novel. At the time there was a serial killer on trial who was unrepentant and arrogant. Rand heard a lot of people complain about him in the tone of "Who does he think he is anyway? He thinks he is so much better than the rest of us. He will get his just reward for being so arrogant." Etc. etc., etc.

We all know how Rand reacted to that kind of pronouncement.

So she started following the trial. The killer, Hickman, was a good looker, so this intrigued Rand. She was in her Nitzschean phase, anyway, of rejecting mediocre folks-next-door complacency, which she held partially responsible for holding back genius and heroism. Don't forget that the common man was the point of the communism that she had witnessed and loathed. She saw mediocre folks take down her father (who was probably a hero to the young girl at the time).

So Rand started studying Hickman for a character sketch and wrote about it in her journals. She extracted traits she wanted for her hero and mentioned that she did not condone the crime, but she was not very emphatic about that.

Michael Prescott is a bestselling suspense writer who specializes in serial killer stories. He and I are fairly friendly online (his blog and emails). He used to be an Objectivist. When he broke with Objectivism, he became very harsh against Rand and the whole Objectivism thing. This is a standard reaction. He is still against Rand, but not as harsh as he used to be. (The fact that we email each other sporadically is an indication.) He still writes about Rand at times and this leads me to believe that there are some unsolved issues in his thinking. Something is still under his skin. But being a specialist in serial killers, Hickman intrigued him. So he looked it all up and wrote about what he found.

I think that he did an important work of scholarship, even if it is negative. The truth is the truth. Period.

You can read about it and find links to some further essays on it here: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

People who become disillusioned with Rand, or those who hate her, use this episode as "proof" that she was psychotic. I happen to agree that this was not one of Rand's finest moments (and how!). Hickman was pure scum. I personally chalk it up to excesses of youth--not psychosis. I think Rand was still under the spell of Zarathustra at the time and her romantic imagination went overboard.

You ought to see how the orthodoxy gets twisted into logical pretzels and hairsplitting defending this one, too. It's a hoot.

I posted a picture of Hickman in my essay The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth—Part 4—Rand's True Value.

Enjoy, if you have the stomach for the crime Hickman committed. It's really really nasty.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

The material on Hickman is in The Journals of Ayn Rand. Thanks for reminders about the essays. Robert I will read them.

[bmacwilliam]

I personally chalk it up to excesses of youth--not psychosis.

Understood. I happen to think that one's fundamental moral code is more or less fixed, and at a much younger age.

I don't think people here are idiots at all, but I do have a big problem with the attitude/mindset exemplified in this statement by Laure:

--------------------

RAND("Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain.)

Laure: The truth hurts, doesn't it, Bob?

-----------------------

It is perfectly valid to question the concept of certainty in relation to human beings, but regardless of what one might conclude, it is illogical to assume a motivation of hatred and/or envy. So while I wouldn't call anyone an idiot for thinking this, I would conclude - for good reason - that this is not a mentally healthy individual, meaning the author or anyone that believes this.

So the problem with me staying and discussing further is the impossibility for me to avoid character attacks. Jeff thinks I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water. I understand this position, but I feel that Rand's ideas, and her twisted justifications for them are NOT separable. So for me the "baby" is an 800lb gorilla that can hardly fit in the tub.

Bob

Edited December 20, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Rich Engle]

Sounds like Rand (not even a stitch of her) is not for you, Bob. Maybe you're right, you should just let it go and stop trying to find something there. Maybe down the road you'll see something, maybe you won't. But no reason to frustrate yourself, right? That never does any good!

As far as character attacks, this is a pretty friendly place. I'm not an atheist and I don't get much shit, for instance.

rde

[Danneskjold]

Ok, I read through most of the Hickman thing. The author makes some valid points, but the way I see it Rand was a person who admired individuals who wanted to stay individuals. That's why she admired Hickman. The author of that article continually ignored this making jabs, usually unfairly, as if Rand was condoning the crime. The other slightly misleading thing he did was take quotes from Rand and talked about them independent of her philosophy. This made it seem as though she encouraged the psycho killer because of his killing and thought that a viable option for anyone who did not want to be subserviant.

It was not a genius move on her part to associate herself with the killer, and she makes some assumptions about the mob mentality that may or may not be wrong. But her reasons to like him were fine by me as long as they are not taken too literally. Here's one example.

"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?

This is a quote from Rand that Prescott picks into little pieces, and makes jabs at. Prescott says things like:

""That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime?" No, Ayn Rand, that was not his crime. His crime, in case you have forgotten, is that he kidnapped a twelve-year-old girl and held her for ransom and murdered her and cut her to pieces and threw her body parts in the street and laughed about it. That was his crime. True, he did not quite "trample society under his feet" -- but it was not for want of trying."

This is where Prescott is being blatantly misleading. If he payed any attention to Rand's philosophy, or even at times his own paper, he'd have figured it out on his own. When she says "A strong man can eventually trample society..." she means figuritively. He can out gain society in his prowess, usually monetarily. When she asks if not being strong enough, being too impatient, fiery, and proud, was his crime, she says this because she feels that the mob mentality has been so harsh against him because of his demeanor and that is what he is being hated for (although based on the crime I'd have to say I disagree with her premise). The last sentence is an extension of the previous. Rand felt that he was hated so much because of his demeanor, not because of his crime. When she said this she was pointing out that he wasn't be prosecuted for the crime, but his demeanor on the stand. This might have been a faulty premise, but if you accept the premise it legitimizes the statement.

Prescott does everything in his power to keep you from seeing anything that she might have actually meant that would fit within the context of her philosophy. When you add her statements to her philosophy, they make some sense. If you don't, well then you do what Prescott did.

[Judith]

When Rand was really young, early twenties, she sketched out a novel. At the time there was a serial killer on trial who was unrepentant and arrogant. Rand heard a lot of people complain about him in the tone of "Who does he think he is anyway? He thinks he is so much better than the rest of us. He will get his just reward for being so arrogant." Etc. etc., etc.

We all know how Rand reacted to that kind of pronouncement.

So she started following the trial. The killer, Hickman, was a good looker, so this intrigued Rand. She was in her Nitzschean phase, anyway, of rejecting mediocre folks-next-door complacency, which she held partially responsible for holding back genius and heroism. Don't forget that the common man was the point of the communism that she had witnessed and loathed. She saw mediocre folks take down her father (who was probably a hero to the young girl at the time).

So Rand started studying Hickman for a character sketch and wrote about it in her journals. She extracted traits she wanted for her hero and mentioned that she did not condone the crime, but she was not very emphatic about that.

Michael Prescott is a bestselling suspense writer who specializes in serial killer stories. He and I are fairly friendly online (his blog and emails). He used to be an Objectivist. When he broke with Objectivism, he became very harsh against Rand and the whole Objectivism thing. This is a standard reaction. He is still against Rand, but not as harsh as he used to be. (The fact that we email each other sporadically is an indication.) He still writes about Rand at times and this leads me to believe that there are some unsolved issues in his thinking. Something is still under his skin. But being a specialist in serial killers, Hickman intrigued him. So he looked it all up and wrote about what he found.

I think that he did an important work of scholarship, even if it is negative. The truth is the truth. Period.

You can read about it and find links to some further essays on it here: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

People who become disillusioned with Rand, or those who hate her, use this episode as "proof" that she was psychotic. I happen to agree that this was not one of Rand's finest moments (and how!). Hickman was pure scum. I personally chalk it up to excesses of youth--not psychosis. I think Rand was still under the spell of Zarathustra at the time and her romantic imagination went overboard.

You ought to see how the orthodoxy gets twisted into logical pretzels and hairsplitting defending this one, too. It's a hoot.

I posted a picture of Hickman in my essay The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth—Part 4—Rand's True Value.

Enjoy, if you have the stomach for the crime Hickman committed. It's really really nasty.

My god. It's so obvious that she projected her ideal onto someone who didn't fit the bill. It wrenches my heart. I know what it's like to want so desperately to find someone to admire, and not to be able to find someone like that, that you end up projecting those feelings onto someone who doesn't deserve it: casting your pearls before swine, so to speak. And she was so, so young at the time. Give her a break.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

When Rand was really young, early twenties, she sketched out a novel. At the time there was a serial killer on trial who was unrepentant and arrogant. Rand heard a lot of people complain about him in the tone of "Who does he think he is anyway? He thinks he is so much better than the rest of us. He will get his just reward for being so arrogant." Etc. etc., etc.

We all know how Rand reacted to that kind of pronouncement.

So she started following the trial. The killer, Hickman, was a good looker, so this intrigued Rand. She was in her Nitzschean phase, anyway, of rejecting mediocre folks-next-door complacency, which she held partially responsible for holding back genius and heroism. Don't forget that the common man was the point of the communism that she had witnessed and loathed. She saw mediocre folks take down her father (who was probably a hero to the young girl at the time).

So Rand started studying Hickman for a character sketch and wrote about it in her journals. She extracted traits she wanted for her hero and mentioned that she did not condone the crime, but she was not very emphatic about that.

Michael Prescott is a bestselling suspense writer who specializes in serial killer stories. He and I are fairly friendly online (his blog and emails). He used to be an Objectivist. When he broke with Objectivism, he became very harsh against Rand and the whole Objectivism thing. This is a standard reaction. He is still against Rand, but not as harsh as he used to be. (The fact that we email each other sporadically is an indication.) He still writes about Rand at times and this leads me to believe that there are some unsolved issues in his thinking. Something is still under his skin. But being a specialist in serial killers, Hickman intrigued him. So he looked it all up and wrote about what he found.

I think that he did an important work of scholarship, even if it is negative. The truth is the truth. Period.

You can read about it and find links to some further essays on it here: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

People who become disillusioned with Rand, or those who hate her, use this episode as "proof" that she was psychotic. I happen to agree that this was not one of Rand's finest moments (and how!). Hickman was pure scum. I personally chalk it up to excesses of youth--not psychosis. I think Rand was still under the spell of Zarathustra at the time and her romantic imagination went overboard.

You ought to see how the orthodoxy gets twisted into logical pretzels and hairsplitting defending this one, too. It's a hoot.

I posted a picture of Hickman in my essay The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth—Part 4—Rand's True Value.

Enjoy, if you have the stomach for the crime Hickman committed. It's really really nasty.

My god. It's so obvious that she projected her ideal onto someone who didn't fit the bill. It wrenches my heart. I know what it's like to want so desperately to find someone to admire, and not to be able to find someone like that, that you end up projecting those feelings onto someone who doesn't deserve it: casting your pearls before swine, so to speak. And she was so, so young at the time. Give her a break.

Judith

I think the problem was not Rand's attitude toward Hickman so much as toward society generally, which she thought worse than that killer. Considering her experiences in Soviet Russia and that she still had a lot of growing up to do and that she was making private notes for her writing, I tend to cut her some serious slack here, especially in light of her subsequent accomplishments. In any case, I do not evaluate Objectivism by evaluating her.

When I was that age I was in Vietnam shooting at communists. My mistake.

--Brant

PS: [edit] I do evaluate Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand by evaluating her, to some extent. But Objectivism per se, no. As I have stated elsewhere, the former is self-referential, the latter, reality referential.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

When she says "A strong man can eventually trample society..." she means figuritively. He can out gain society in his prowess, usually monetarily. When she asks if not being strong enough, being too impatient, fiery, and proud, was his crime, she says this because she feels that the mob mentality has been so harsh against him because of his demeanor and that is what he is being hated for (although based on the crime I'd have to say I disagree with her premise). The last sentence is an extension of the previous. Rand felt that he was hated so much because of his demeanor, not because of his crime. When she said this she was pointing out that he wasn't be prosecuted for the crime, but his demeanor on the stand. This might have been a faulty premise, but if you accept the premise it legitimizes the statement.

The character in that story ("The Little Street"?) is a forerunner of Howard Roark. Do the comments in the quoted paragraph ring a bell re Howard Roark? I think the progression in her thoughts between the stories would be interesting to explore -- maybe on another thread.

The individual hated by the mob I think goes way back in her emotions. As Brant indicated, she saw mobs in her childhood. How horrible those people must have seemed to one of her spirit.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

You can tear someone to pieces who has a large public record, but the impression can be quite different when looking at the totality and what is important. Consider the intensity of focus of a genius and how distorting that can be relative to normal human give and take and empathy. I think there was a lot Ayn Rand didn't have time for so she could have time for her work. So how do you want your Ayn Rand? As Ayn Rand or imitation Mother Teresa?

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

The other night I was thinking about Bob's reaction to Rand. As I can often do, I began to empathically experience elements of his perspective first hand. His emotional responses to Rand of disgust, loathing, rage, and the desire to remove her presence from his consciousness were momentarily recreated inside of me. I suppose I could have viewed this experience as representing a choice between valuing the images, the emotional responses, and the worldview of Rand's perspective that has evolved inside of me and valuing the perspective of someone I barely know who is saying things I don't agree with. If I were a "true Objectivist" I would side with Rand, express reasons why her perspective is of value, express reasons why Bob is mistaken, and possibly project an image of his character flaws that I imagine to have caused his mistakes for the purpose devaluing his character and his perspective in my own mind. Why? Because a devalued perspective is an unimportant perspective. And an unimportant perspective is one I no longer have to think about.

This is not what happened inside me. Instead, I had a flashback to when I broke free of my randroid phase. I remember the welling up of emotional energy that was necessary to bring my relationship with Rand's perspective to an end by expelling it from my soul. I remember my choice to honour the quiet voice of my authentic perspective by pushing out Rand's vision of the world that had parked itself in my imagination and my intuition. I think Bob may be going through a version of this.

Ellen said she sees Rand as more of a visionary than a philosopher. I have to agree. She has an incredibly complex and detailed vision of human nature and existence in general. The images of this vision evolved through and are expressed in her fiction. She created a model universe through which we could all explore and discover important truths which could be applied to reality.

Her images and her vision were shaped not only by evidence and reason, they were also shaped by the particular twists and turns that made up her psyche. In particular, her self-image, her image of her social environment, and the dynamic interplay between these two, greatly influenced her attitudes and social worldview and did much to give her psyche its particular bent. This bent was embedded in her fiction, in her non-fiction, and in her personal relationships. When you take her work into your soul, Rand's images and views become part of your intuitive processes. In Objectivism's own great package deal, her attitudes and social worldview, which are born in the relation between Rand's self-image and her image of her social environment, also become part of one's intuitive processes.

I haven't read the previous discussions between Bob and others that led to this thread. I'm not sure I really care to. I get that Bob was spewing venom at Rand and those he saw as defending her view or attacking his. I also think I get where Bob's venom is coming from. I think its healthy for Bob to spew his venom at Rand. In a spiritual fight for his own authentic vision, he is defending himself against the invasion of a foreign mindset. I'm not saying Bob was a randroid before. I don't think he was. But Rand has a way of getting deep inside you and I think she got inside him. He's just trying to get her out. Later, when the attitudes which were entwined with her vision are expelled, maybe he will be able to see her work and those who find value in it more objectively.

I hope that Bob sticks around OL. There is a small group of non-Objectivists who have an interest in the principles and history of Objectivism here. I think Bob could be a great addition to this group. I am leaning more and more toward thinking this is the group I am most aligned with.

Bob, I think if you can separate Rand's views of the objective world from her views of the social world, you will better see the value of her philosophy separated from the twists of her psychology. I think the value of her work is worth this effort. Unfortunately, her presentation is not only entwined with attitudes born in her social realm, they are aimed at manipulating that social realm. Hers is the word of the absolute and she is claiming the social status of highest authority. This side of Rand I just view as an interesting character study. I have struggled all my life to understand the characters and the dynamics in my social realm. I have learned a lot trying to understand Ayn Rand. I must admit, I would rather discuss her ideas, or ideas that have roots in her principles, than read her work today. I am not too keen on the attitudes that come through her work. After a very short randroid phase, I pushed her attitudes out of my perspective 20 years ago. The reason I like OL is because many of the people here have also pushed or kept her attitudes out. This is why I think you could be a good fit around her once the exorcism is over.

Rich mentioned he turned to Nathaniel Branden's work after he started to turn away from Rand. I did too. You will find in his post-Rand days Branden looses much of the attitude that he too absorbed from her (and carried to heights of his own). With Branden you get the brilliant vision with less of the attitude and a view of human nature with a more evolved understanding of psychology. I find I can still read his post-Rand work without taking a defensive mental posture against unwanted attitudes.

Paul

[Judith]

I think the problem was not Rand's attitude toward Hickman so much as toward society generally, which she thought worse than that killer.

I find so much in Rand with which I can identify, and this aspect of her is one of them. If you can stand my bringing up temperament types yet again, I often speak about "The agony of the NT or NF child being brought up by SJ parents and teachers." It's so obvious that she suffered that with a vengeance. She even writes about it in her essays, such as the one in "The Romantic Manifesto" (I forget the name of the essay) wherein the child's natural romantic sense of life is met with hostility by adults who say, "Who's like that? Forget that and do your homework! Buck Rogers never gets a cold, and you had one just last week! Who are you to think you can be better than the rest of us?" She says the hostility in the adults comes from their inner knowledge that they sold out on their own dreams long ago, and that they batter the child's sense of romanticism until he comes to think that his own life dreams are impractical and gives up too.

The standard kinds of characters who talked to YOU like this when you were a child are the kinds of people she planned to write about in "The Little Street". We all ran into them in our childhoods. The church ladies who got mad at us for asking the wrong questions in Sunday School. Our mothers who slapped us when we said, "So let's send my breakfast to the starving children in China; I don't want it." The teachers who stomped on us whenever we offered them logic or creativity instead of rote obedience. Over and over and over -- again and again and again. They rewarded the good little girls who kept their dresses clean and sat with their knees together and their hands folded primly on their desks. They rewarded the good little boys who kept clean handkerchiefs in their pockets and raised their hands in class and recited the memorized answers correctly. They didn't reward the kids like us, who crawled around on our hands and knees and tore our clothes because we wanted to figure out what made those shiny things in the sidewalk shine, or who colored outside the lines because we had a better idea of what we wanted to draw than the person who made the coloring book. Were you hurt by adults like that? I was. She was. Again and again and again. Over and over and over. Bewilderment after bewilderment after bewilderment. Injustice after injustice after injustice. It gets to a person after awhile.

By midlife, you come to understand that it's not their fault -- that it's in their nature, that they really were trying to do their best by us, to teach us what they thought were the practical things we needed to succeed in life. They had no capacity to understand us, and we had no capacity to understand them. But back then, it really, really hurt. And someone in his or her twenties, still learning what life is all about, probably hasn't yet come to that perspective that allows one to understand that people are what they are. All Rand saw was that she was surrounded by people who weren't like her, that didn't understand her, that didn't think like her, that didn't value what she valued.

I'm pretty sure that Rand, living in the Red Decade, heard some words used against someone that had also been used against her: "Who does he think he is anyway? He thinks he is so much better than the rest of us. He will get his just reward for being so arrogant." Well: that's all it would take to get her attention! Here's someone just like me! Desperate as she was to find someone like herself in any way, it wouldn't take much to get her to drop context in a major way and defend someone for some minor trait that she shared. She projected much of herself onto a murderer. It's all so terribly sad and lonely. I can see exactly how it happened.

Judith

[Judith]

The other night I was thinking about Bob's reaction to Rand. As I can often do, I began to empathically experience elements of his perspective first hand. His emotional responses to Rand of disgust, loathing, rage, and the desire to remove her presence from his consciousness were momentarily recreated inside of me. I suppose I could have viewed this experience as representing a choice between valuing the images, the emotional responses, and the worldview of Rand's perspective that has evolved inside of me and valuing the perspective of someone I barely know who is saying things I don't agree with. If I were a "true Objectivist" I would side with Rand, express reasons why her perspective is of value, express reasons why Bob is mistaken, and possibly project an image of his character flaws that I imagine to have caused his mistakes for the purpose devaluing his character and his perspective in my own mind. Why? Because a devalued perspective is an unimportant perspective. And an unimportant perspective is one I no longer have to think about.

This is not what happened inside me. Instead, I had a flashback to when I broke free of my randroid phase. I remember the welling up of emotional energy that was necessary to bring my relationship with Rand's perspective to an end by expelling it from my soul. I remember my choice to honour the quiet voice of my authentic perspective by pushing out Rand's vision of the world that had parked itself in my imagination and my intuition. I think Bob may be going through a version of this.

Yes -- it's like one of those drawings, where you can look at it one way and see a vase, and shift your perspective and see two faces, or the one that can be a rabbit or a duck. The facts are there, and depending on which ones you emphasize or de-emphasize, how you interpret can be radically different. I can see why Bob said what he did, even though I disagree with him vehemently. I can see why the Randroids say what they do, even though I disagree with them vehemently. Rich is right: Nathaniel Branden brings a much-needed voice of sanity to Objectivism.

Judith

[BAMF]

The standard kinds of characters who talked to YOU like this when you were a child are the kinds of people she planned to write about in "The Little Street". We all ran into them in our childhoods. The church ladies who got mad at us for asking the wrong questions in Sunday School. Our mothers who slapped us when we said, "So let's send my breakfast to the starving children in China; I don't want it." The teachers who stomped on us whenever we offered them logic or creativity instead of rote obedience. Over and over and over -- again and again and again. They rewarded the good little girls who kept their dresses clean and sat with their knees together and their hands folded primly on their desks. They rewarded the good little boys who kept clean handkerchiefs in their pockets and raised their hands in class and recited the memorized answers correctly. They didn't reward the kids like us, who crawled around on our hands and knees and tore our clothes because we wanted to figure out what made those shiny things in the sidewalk shine, or who colored outside the lines because we had a better idea of what we wanted to draw than the person who made the coloring book. Were you hurt by adults like that? I was. She was. Again and again and again. Over and over and over. Bewilderment after bewilderment after bewilderment. Injustice after injustice after injustice. It gets to a person after awhile.

Wow, that really struck me! I almost cried...or puked...or both! :cry:

[Paul Mawdsley]

Yes -- it's like one of those drawings, where you can look at it one way and see a vase, and shift your perspective and see two faces, or the one that can be a rabbit or a duck. The facts are there, and depending on which ones you emphasize or de-emphasize, how you interpret can be radically different. I can see why Bob said what he did, even though I disagree with him vehemently. I can see why the Randroids say what they do, even though I disagree with them vehemently. Rich is right: Nathaniel Branden brings a much-needed voice of sanity to Objectivism.

Judith,

I like your metaphor. Although, the drawing that can be perceived as either a beautiful woman or old hag seems to be a more complete fit. This is one of the reasons I am struggling with labeling myself an Objectivist. Doing so feels like it symbolizes making a choice between perceptual orientations and claiming one is right and the other is wrong. Both are real. Objectivity requires I accept, own, and integrate both as part of my authentic, personal perspective.

I am fine with saying I am largely an Objectivist oriented thinker or my perspective is predominantly grounded in Objectivist principles but I am not an Objectivist package. For example, one of the most important principles guiding my models and understanding of the world, especially my social world, is the causal principle that is contained in field theory. The idea that an entity can be conceived as being a node in a web of relationships who's actions are determined by the information contained in the field as a whole is very important for understanding quantum physics and social dynamics. It is, however, an idea that is viewed as contradicting Objectivism's basic causal orientation, especially in the social realm. Post Modern philosophy is grounded in this causal principle. Look at the Objectivists' evaluation of Post Modernism and you will see how Rand and most who call themselves Objectivists have chosen one perceptual orientation over another. Objectivism is very much defined by what concepts and principles it is against. I am not against all the same concepts and principles. Therefore, perhaps I am not an Objectivist.

Btw-- I think it is precisely because Rand's intuition was not in touch with field-particle causation that her perspective was so extreme in the social realm. The reverse is also true. Developmentally, it's one of those reciprocal causation things. One's intuition in the social realm helps one form a concept of field-particle causation. One's concept of field-particle causation helps one understand the dynamics in the social realm. Her work tends to attract people who are/were also deficient in the same area of development, myself included, and repel those who are very intuitive in the social realm. It is being true to one's authentic social perspective that leads to pushing Rand's worldview out of one's core.

Maybe Bob's social alarm bells are going crazy. Maybe it's not an accident that I first encountered him in discussions of quantum physics.

Paul

[bmacwilliam]

Btw-- I think it is precisely because Rand's intuition was not in touch with field-particle causation that her perspective was so extreme in the social realm. The reverse is also true. Developmentally, it's one of those reciprocal causation things. One's intuition in the social realm helps one form a concept of field-particle causation. One's concept of field-particle causation helps one understand the dynamics in the social realm. Her work tends to attract people who are/were also deficient in the same area of development, myself included, and repel those who are very intuitive in the social realm. It is being true to one's authentic social perspective that leads to pushing Rand's worldview out of one's core.

Maybe Bob's social alarm bells are going crazy. Maybe it's not an accident that I first encountered him in discussions of quantum physics.

Paul

Paul,

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful and interesting responses. I will try to respond to some of this later today. Your thoughts gave me much to ponder and I thank you for that.

Bob

[Paul Mawdsley]

A thought about Hickman:

Perhaps he just symbolized the antithesis to the concept of man as a node in the social web. On an intuitive level Rand was an artist/philosopher trying to symbolically isolate and identify a distinction in causal principles. As such, all the rest of his characteristics melted away as she was forming a powerful abstraction. I would have to thank Rand for the concept of causation she helped me to understand. The concept of linear/local entity-to-action causation that shaped her vision is the most important single idea I have taken away from her and NB's work. She was able to make this concept of causation concrete in her mind, partly, by focusing on elements of Hickman's character and the nature of the relationship of his character to his actions. She would not have been able to produce her vision, nor her philosophical system, without this absolute focus on this single concept of causation as a guiding principle. For that matter, nor would Nathaniel Branden. I just think it is now time to expand our thinking about the nature of causation as a principle for guiding our models and vision of the world. To do this we must break free of Rand's social worldview, the assumed absolutist nature of her vision, and the view of her as highest authority.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

A thought about Hickman:

Perhaps he just symbolized the antithesis to the concept of man as a node in the social web. On an intuitive level Rand was an artist/philosopher trying to symbolically isolate and identify a distinction in causal principles. As such, all the rest of his characteristics melted away as she was forming a powerful abstraction. I would have to thank Rand for the concept of causation she helped me to understand. The concept of linear/local entity-to-action causation that shaped her vision is the most important single idea I have taken away from her and NB's work. She was able to make this concept of causation concrete in her mind, partly, by focusing on elements of Hickman's character and the nature of the relationship of his character to his actions. She would not have been able to produce her vision, nor her philosophical system, without this absolute focus on this single concept of causation as a guiding principle. For that matter, nor would Nathaniel Branden. I just think it is now time to expand our thinking about the nature of causation as a principle for guiding our models and vision of the world. To do this we must break free of Rand's social worldview, the assumed absolutist nature of her vision, and the view of her as highest authority.

Paul

Paul, you've lost me here, esp. with "linear/local entity-to-action causation...." Could you flesh this out a little?

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

This is not what happened inside me. Instead, I had a flashback to when I broke free of my randroid phase. I remember the welling up of emotional energy that was necessary to bring my relationship with Rand's perspective to an end by expelling it from my soul. I remember my choice to honour the quiet voice of my authentic perspective by pushing out Rand's vision of the world that had parked itself in my imagination and my intuition. I think Bob may be going through a version of this

One of the many writings that come out of Paul that keeps me depositing respect points in his bank account.

Talk about parallel experience. Talk about sympatico. Sheesh! Talk about encapsulation.

If there were a message to go out to Bob, that might be a good one. That's what I've been trying to say, but Paul does oh-so-much-better at it.

So, perhaps I will lodge a further sell-point into Mr. Mac. Behold, it is simple and stupid...

Look at where you are, and look what's happening. Meaning, go under the covers. There are core things at work here, things from Rand's work, that keep on keepin' on. Think Atlas-- a long process of people coming together.

Well, that thing is still happening. We here are all here because of a common interest, a common inspiration.

We are a group of folks that would otherwise not be together, and, I might add, no slackers, but experienced professionals.

We know that Rand was disappointed with the response to Atlas; she thought her prime movers were coming; that she would "find her people," so to speak.

And I think she did, but she didn't see it. "To each, according to their ability."

The response from Atlas was large (I am excluding the press-bashing, I'm talking about raw response from readers). But, at least as far as I can tell from what Nathaniel wrote, it wasn't enough. Somehow, Rand herself became elitist and rejected accolades from the very ones within which she created resonance. Nothing, it seemed, was good enough for her. She was, maybe, looking for people with super powers or something. Word up: what prime movers do is not flashy: mostly, it is about hard work. But in any event...

What I am getting at is that there are core, operant, er, "principles" seen in her work that are still being executed today. This place here is one of them doing that. We are doing, we are networking, we are reading, sharing, discovering. All over a couple of novels. Hot dayymmmnn!

So that's good, right? And, to state the obvious, were it not for her work, whatever we are doing would simply not exist in this form, because the common interest would not exist.

Maybe she did something more powerful than even ~she~ knew. I find that's how integration, true integration works. It moves forward in the life-direction, even though parts of what that means remain unknown.

rde

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul, you've lost me here, esp. with "linear/local entity-to-action causation...." Could you flesh this out a little?

Brant,

When I am writing I am trying to put words to the images in my mind. Once I attach some words to an image I assume I have expressed myself well enough to be understood. I forget that sometimes the words I use have a unique meaning of my own creation. Unless you are a mind reader or have simultaneously developed the same meanings and word usage, I have some work to do to properly communicate the images in my mind and the meaning in my words. Consider it a personal character flaw on my part: I have great enthusiasm for expressing the images in my mind but I struggle with the discipline necessary to communicate effectively.

I started to write a response and realized I would need more time than I have tonight to complete it. I intend to create a new thread on the vision of the nature of causation I have put together. It is a very complex picture that starts with simple notions of causation that are not much more complex conceptually than the categorization of our direct experience (eg.: agent-to-action causation and action-to-action causation), and evolves into the much higher level of abstraction of the Aristotle/Rand/Branden concept of causation (labeled entity-to-action causation) and the post modern/quantum field view we can label field-particle causation. Bare with me. I will put together some basics of what I am talking about.

For now, think about how Rand liked to write about actions being carried out in a linear fashion toward some goal. The metaphor of railway tracks running parallel seemingly to a single point in the distance perfectly suited Rand's vision of the proper causal function of man. She talked of the ideal being single minded and purposeful in the pursuit of one's goals. This captures the idea of being very linear. Such single mindedness requires that one push out all non-linear distractions, especially the non-linear processes of flowing with the social current.

With linear causation the chain of cause and effect proceeds in a traceable line from single event to single event. It can contain a lot of events but each event is a simple transfer of energy between individual entities. Non-linear causation is far more complex. The way I see it, we are no longer talking about the transfer of energy but the transfer of information from the patterns of behaviour of entities in the background field to an individual entity or node. This information is processed by the node according to its specific identity to produce an effect in its behaviour. (Note that non-linear causation still fits Rands formulation of causality: What a thing is determines what it does.)

As to the local vs non-local element, this is a causal concept I have found a great deal around discussions of quantum theory. I remember Ellen once talking about how Rand was influenced by her Russian background in ways Rand did not acknowledge. Since Rand only saw local/linear causation, she only saw the overt causal influences on her development. Ellen's point was that Rand grew in a cultural soil who's particular identity, as a whole, had an effect on her development. It is this "as a whole" that gives rise to the concept of non-local (as well as non-linear) effects.

An example of a non-local effect for each of us today can be found in the Bible. I have never read the bible so, as an entity, I have never directly interacted with that entity. But the Bible has had a profound effect on my development because it is embedded in the social field that is my culture. As such, the writers of the Bible have had a non-local effect on my identity and actions and my culture has had a non-linear effect on my identity and actions. Thinking linearly and locally, my parents, my teachers, my wife, and you with your question, have all had a linear and local effect on my actions. Emphasizing Rand's contribution, regardless of the actions of those in my environment, and regardless of whether those actions were local or non-local, linear or non-linear, my identity determined my actions. My identity may have been informed by the actions of others but how I processed the information determined how I behaved.

It is because identity is at the core of Rand's thinking that she focused so deeply on human nature. Understand what man is and you understand why he behaves as he does. (Compare this to Marx for example.) Unfortunately, she did not grasp the complexities of psychology because there were huge parts of her that were submerged in her subconscious. Nor did she grasp the complexities of social dynamics because she did not fully grasp the nature of causality. But what she did was brilliant. We are now able to look at these things because she provided the vision for any who's identity could process her information and see it. I am truly grateful for how her vision altered my life.

Paul

As usual, my enthusiasm overcame my discipline. I didn't plan on staying up this late.

[Guyau]

Hi Bob,

Remember me? You may remember me from over at RoR. You may remember that I am not an Objectivist and why. Nonetheless, I have found it worthwhile to discuss philosophy and science with Objectivists and other people who see valuable things in Rand's philosophy. There are a couple of ideas of Rand's that I think are original, true, important, and fertile for further development. So I have focused my efforts to those areas and to making those adventurous developments.

You expressed a number of views over at RoR that I would think could be discussed and developed in a very considerate, cool-headed, and profitable way here at Objectivist Living. I list here some quotations from you over at RoR to indicate some of these issues.

Stephen

2006

MARCH 5 - I believe that I value my life greatly, but would choose to sacrifice myself if (however unlikely) I was presented with the choice of sacrificing myself and saving my wife or children. I do not feel that life would be so miserable after a death of a family member so that I wouldn't want to live, so I cannot justify the sacrifice in these terms. So I value my life, but just not always at the top.

Is this a non-Objectivist position? Is this viewed to be "wrong"? I'm not looking to reconcile or justify my choices within Objectivism, just curious. I think (still early) that I am at odds with a small amount of Objectivism, but am relatively new to the philosophy, so I am really not sure.

MARCH 23 - Much of what you might believe to be rational and real could very well be wrong. The history of science fully supports this statement. It is a fool who dismisses this possibility, even more foolish than one who thinks truth can never be discovered.

MARCH 23 - Let us ask ourselves how one can validly infer a statement about the nature of the existence of existing things, namely, that they cannot come into or pass out of existence, from a mere law of logic. Suppose we construct an argument on Rand’s behalf:

1. Necessarily, every x is self-identical.

2. To exist = to be self-identical

Therefore

3. Necessarily, every x exists

Therefore

4. Every x exists necessarily.

Therefore

5. No x exists contingently.

Therefore

6. No x can come into existence or pass out of existence.

The problem with this argument lies with premise (2). Rand needs (2), but (2) does not follow from (1). (2) must be brought in as a separate premise. But, unlike (1), (2) is scarcely self-evident. For even if it is true that x exists iff x = x, it does not follow from this that the existing of x consists in x’s being self-identical. It is conceivable that there be a nonexistent object such as Pegasus that is self-identical but does not exist. This shows that the biconditional given is circular: x exists iff x = x & x exists. There is more to existence than self-identity.

APRIL 20 - If you have a 'break' with physics, you have a break with reality, logic, and rationality. The biggest intellectual gift that physics can give someone is when something that seems irrational and counterintuitive becomes rational and clear.

JULY 11 - Sensory perception is all that we have, but we must recognize it is as incomplete and therefore can and does lead us to make incorrect conclusions about reality. It is also important to realize that reality can sometimes even contradict our senses entirely.

JULY 13 - If you see a pink unicorn, but try to touch it and cannot, you have used perception and logic to determine that at least one of your perceptions was wrong.

JULY 20 - By actively maintaining a quality relationship and doing nice things to loved ones tends to dramatically increase the quality of one's own life. Loving someone else is usually good for you.

JULY 21 - I believe man struggles with a nature that includes a mostly selfish, but also altruistic tendencies, both of which are morally equivalent. I dismiss the notion that altruism is entirely evil.

JULY 21 - Our vision does not generally have sufficient resolution to be able to discern flicker rates above 50 or 60 Hz or something like that. We could conclude that the light source is constant therefore, but that would be objectively wrong. That is my only point. Perception, because of it's limitations, can directly lead to errors regarding reality without a breach in logic. I don't really understand the opposition to this

AUGUST 2 - History of science shows a general increase in our understanding of reality. Senses, intelligence, logic, resourcefulness tend to fill in the gaps. All of the gaps? Of course not, perhaps they will never be filled - who knows.

AUGUST 2- Our senses are fallible, that has implications that we need to think about and take into account. I don't think the implication is that senses are useless follows at all and we can never really know anything. Talk about baby/bathwater.

When I stub my toe, I instantly know that I am certainly not completely cut off from the real.

AUGUST 14 - The "law" of identity itself states nothing meaningful.

[bmacwilliam]

Stephen,

That's excellent! Thanks for the summary - very helpful indeed. Thank you so much for that.

Now at this point, I have a few more disagreements with some of her ideas, but more importantly I'm stuck with the moral quandary of not wanting to associate with Rand's ideas because of my negative perception of her. I find her very difficult to read now.

I'm quite interested to learn what ideas of hers you conclude are "original, true, important" and why.

At this point, I suppose I could benefit intellectually from discussing some of my objections that you outlined, but on the other hand I'm not sure if I can temper some of my distaste. It also leads me to question whether or not it's reasonable for me, or fair to others here to continue discussions on a forum dedicated to Rand's ideas when I openly disagree with many of them, and have honest contempt for her, and by extension, others here when these same ideas are expressed.

To it's almost like a schoolyard bully situation where Rand is an intellectual thug and bully. As in the literal bullying situation, I feel compelled to punch back. I'm just not sure if that's appropriate, and the right thing to do might just be to leave.

Bob

[Laure]

Bob, maybe what you need is to read something that will show you a more sympathetic side of Rand. Have you read "Letters of Ayn Rand", or "Facets of Ayn Rand" by Mary Ann and Charles Sures? "Letters" in particular may be helpful.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob,

I think it's possible that I might appreciate your quandary more than anyone else on this list. Stephen seems to an extent to share it, though I think not to the same degree, since I think he's more interested in certain foundational philosophic issues and not as much interested as I am in psychological issues.

I feel to an extent not quite comfortable about posting here because of my own feelings about Rand as a person, feelings that are less admiring than the going tenor. I've always felt, even from my first reading of Atlas, which was where I learned of Rand when I was eighteen and a half, that she was not someone with whom I'd have a desire to be personal friends.

On the other hand, I find her fascinating; I also find her attempt to produce a viable secular morality very important. I think that the world scene is desperately in need of a really good secular morality. I also think that there are enormous problems in reconciling such a morality with current science -- the basic problem pertaining to the issue of volition. The current scientific picture leaves us with a "volition" which can't be anything more than I'd call "illusory," a "volition" which is a paper tiger, which has no causal clout. On the other hand, I think that the very enterprise of science is impossible without a volition which does have causal clout. So in my view there's a really big bad problem in need of being solved. Questions raised by Objectivism I think are of much importance to attempts to solve this problem. Furthermore, I have a strong interest in the psychological/social dynamics of belief systems -- the role and effect of such systems in human life. And the Objectivist world is a place which provides a lot of material pertinent to this interest.

Thus I do a certain amount of posting on Objectivist lists, especially this one -- but always a bit uneasily, always with a bit of the feeling that I'm an intruder in the citadel. (There's also the problem of my having little time for elist activities; but even if I had abundant time, the uneasiness problem would remain.)

So I think I can well sympathize with your questions as to whether you should just bow out here. On the other hand, I personally would like to see the sort of issues you raise -- both philosophic and psychological -- talked about. And Stephen seems to have found your contributions on RoR of interest, which means that he might be motivated to get into some foundational stuff with you -- and I have no doubt that I'd find the ensuing discussion of value to read, even if I had little time to participate.

To repeat, then, I hope you will stay. But I well appreciate why you might not want to, and the sources of awkwardness for you if you do.

Best wishes either way.

Ellen

___

Edited December 22, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle