Objectivism is an Individualist Philosophy

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Sometimes when we sojourn through the Objectivist world, it's easy to forget that Objectivism is a radical achievement by a genius who put no life before her own. You see internecine squabbles between people loyal to this group or that. You see people spend their lives worrying about others' peccadillos and personality faults. I shake my head sometimes because that is not the stuff of greatness.

One of the distinctive features of Rand was that she struck out on her own with unborrowed vision. Now we see the spectacle of people combing over every jot, tittle and comma she wrote while missing the main theme. We, too, can approach the world with unborrowed vision, our sight made clearer by the work of those who came before us but free to explore new vistas on our own.

The world today is a place of accelerating change. Globalization is driving unprecedented cost savings throughout supply chains around the world. Intellectual property is being refined in new and useful ways to cover new technologies. Biotechnology will soon make it possible to live longer lives and reshape our own genetic destiny. New advances in neurology and cognitive psychology will open up the mysterious world of the human brain and allow us to better understand how thinking really works. New advances in semiconductors and computing have allowed us an ever wider window on the world and extended many fold our ability to understand and change it.

Let's leave the world of pedantry and pettiness to our enemies and strike out on untrodden paths, welcoming innovation and intolerant of mediocrity. Let's apply Objectivism to the hard problems of human existence, but realize that the responsibility of original thought remains with us. Let's show with our achievements what free people in a semi-capitalist society can do. Let's work to extend the reach of our freedom and enrich our culture with our uniqueness without becoming embittered by the world as it is. Let's reach for the best within us and not settle for less.

Jim

[Bidinotto]

Amen, James. You've nailed it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

Those are stirring words and I endorse them.

But maybe they should be accompanied with the rest? Like the fact that this post is on OL because it is in answer to a request from Perigo? Added to the genuflect of calling the Brandens liars and smearing their written accounts? Good Christ! How's that for shooting yourself in the foot? From your post over there (most recently):

Absolutely!, I'll post it there straight away. The Branden biographies were Exhibit A in what I'm talking about and not only a focus on pecadillos, but not telling the truth about them.

Talk is cheap, James. Let me appeal to your "best within you" and ask you not to "settle for less." But do it for real.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I am dead serious. If you want those marvelous words you just wrote taken seriously, and yourself to be judged as being above it all, then stop taking snarky inaccurate potshots at the Brandens and concentrate on facts.

There is a reason I am devoting so much time on another thread to correcting the accuracy of your comments about the Brandens' works. They are just plain wrong, as I am showing in excerpt after excerpt that you claim does not exist. The sheer volume of inaccuracies in your published opinions shows clearly that they actually are about "peccadillos and personality faults" and not about "the stuff of greatness" at all.

The very first requirement to lecturing others is to be consistent yourself. For me, right now, your message comes across as saying: "Let's leave all the pettiness aside, except the part I happen to like."

I don't find that very inspiring. But I really want to take your words at the beginning to heart.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Jim; How can you post on SOLO? Lindsay has a nasty attack on this web site today. Why do you brother with these people?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I wondered what kind of response I would get by posting this here. It will be a kind of Rorscarch test for what people want to focus on.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

Jim; You're a delightful person to be around. Perigo is not! I think the words of your post were great but I think posting on SOLO is not in their spirit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wondered what kind of response I would get by posting this here. It will be a kind of Rorscarch test for what people want to focus on.

Jim,

On this particular issue, I personally tend to focus on accuracy and consistency. But there is so much more on OL.

We have a marvelous art gallery where you can see stunning paintings by artists like Jonathan or excellent art mini-tutorials by Michael Newberry. John Enright just did another of his clever poems. We are discussing some real down-to-basics educational proposals for Objectivism with Phil Coates (see here for a general start, but go before and after for some really good stuff, and Brant provided a mini-index. A published author, Greg Browne, has appeared to discuss epistemology. Another distinguished libertarian/Objectivist author and activist, Wolf De Voon, is bringing a fresh look to several topics (see here, here, here and here for some of his writing and links to works). The global warming issue has been a bit heated (but that's everywhere, not just on OL), but there is an enormous amount of material and quotes and links and analyses to look at. We try to stay on top of the Atlas Shrugged movie. Ed Hudgins keeps us posted of his appearances on famous shows (see here and here) and provides some of his upbeat articles (see here, here and here, for example) and Robert Bidinotto sometimes makes an insightful comment and provides further information from the TAS world and their successful magazine, The New Individualist (see here, here and here, for example in addition to his corner).

Roger Bissell has contributed an enormous amount of material (see here and here for archive and research purposes from an impressive list of Objetivism-friendly people (including works by the Brandens and including himself). There is a space on OL for the works by the Brandens to be read and discussed in addition to the biography and memoirs, such as articles and book reviews (see here and here, and Self-Esteem Every Day). There is a partial list with links of some really fine articles according to author. God knows how many people and topics I have left out. Hell, we are even discussing things like trading recipes, parenting and physical fitness.

You will find a high level of actual achievers on OL and the accumulated wisdom and intelligence around here is something marvelous to behold.

I personally am involved in most of the discussions I mentioned, not just in the schism or personality part. But even on the schism thing, I have provided a factual timeline of the Kelley-Peikoff split with links, a list of articles and ideas of the Brandens that have been subject to airbrushing (see here), including a more-or-less complete listing of their contributions to canonical Objectivism (see here and here). Facts, not opinions. There is much more along these lines and I believe this is some of the best, most factual, work that exists in these areas.

I admit to getting rhetorical at times about PARC and interforum attacks on producers I admire (and my good humor leads me to appreciate talented lampoons of hypocrisy and so forth), but I try to make sure there is a solid factual basis provided with ample quotes when needed. In my recent quotes from the Brandens' works (see here, here and here), for instance, I have provided solid information that has nothing to do with personalities, even though these quotes were presented in a discussion where there are people and works devoted to smearing the integrity of the Brandens as authors. (You can find an enormous amount of factual material about PARC in the ARI Corner).

Like you said, it depends on what you want to focus on. On OL, the real focus is on achievement and independent thinking. As of this writing, there are over 27,500 posts and the vast majority have nothing to do with the petty issues you are objecting to. That stuff is an amusing distraction at best. Just ignore it if it bothers you. There's a lot of really good stuff in line with your opening words to focus on if you want it.

May I suggest taking a look at it? Instead of focusing on... er... well... you know...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Mike, That's a good post. Jim, Look and think about Mike's post.

[Philip Coates]

Michael and Chris, your posts stray away from the points Jim was making about avoiding squabbling.

You both changed the subject: i) Brandens, ii) are you consistent?, iii) a defense of 'good stuff' on the website, iv) why are you on another site talking to the 'enemy'. Swiftly changing the thread to discussing these four issues would distract and detract from the central topic that Jim raised and which has so far not been fully engaged.

As did Linz -also- change the subject...he pointed fingers, in his reply to Jim's identical post over on Solo.

Each of you - Michael and Linz as the hosts set the primary example and post endless incendiary expressions of mutual contempt to set the tone - may have admirable qualities and good things to say on various philosophical topics.

But you are unwilling to take Jim's words ...and mine... to heart regarding these endless squabbles or trying to write the final combination refutation cum denunciation of your internal enemies in the movement.

Won't work. Can't be done. Takes you away from a better use of your mind and time. And you will never get the last word. Or even a calm and rational perusal of your words when you attack the character and motivations of your enemies.

Whether or not someone giving you good advice (not a 'lecture') are consistent, practice what he preaches, condemn both sides equally is a *side issue*. Do not get distracted by it.

The issue is whether what Heaps and I and Bidinotto and other advocates of doing other things than endless squabbling and endless character attacks or motivation-questioning is good advice.

That's it.

Period.

End of story.

......

PS, If what has been happening in the Oist movement were just a calm, factual setting straight of the record or just respectful disagreement about various internal issues or movement disagreements, on either side, that might be worth a limited time investment. But it has not been conducted that way...it has been predominantly a shit-slinging contest. On NoodleFood, On OL, on Solo.

Guys, everryone, both sides in all these squabbles:

Reread Barbara's excellent "Objectivist Rage" piece.

Look inside...and don't think it only applies to your bitter, bitter enemies.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I was heartened by your last post. I think it's probably time I start writing most of my thoughts on my own blog: Jim's Blog. If people want to respond there, they can and people can use whatever is there with attribution.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

My main informational purpose on OL is to promote thinking about Objectivism. (I also promote things like fostering the creation of works, hanging out, etc.) Thus there is a lot of stuff about Rand and her works and other main Objectivists and their works.

Within this context, the reasons behind my engagement of Perigo, Valliant, Hsieh, etc., may not have been clear to you, so let me state them in terms that are near impossible to misunderstand. Please keep in mind that, although there are three, they are a secondary purpose.

1. I fully intend to discredit PARC as the ineptly flawed agenda-driven reference book it is.

I (and others) am presenting an enormous amount of facts to that effect and much more is on the way. After all this is fully presented in proper form, people can then decide for themselves. I will have nothing more to say about PARC. Those who believe in contradictions after that will deserve what they get, but I am certain that the number will be minuscule.

2. I fully intend to promote the enormous positive contributions of the Brandens to Objectivism and to Rand's history.

This often means breaking the back of the silly airbrushing campaign and it throws me into direct conflict with the purpose of PARC, but it just as often means making their works available and encouraging commentary. My efforts to this effect actually have been met with extreme public hostility (surprise, guess from whom?). I will not stop positive work because someone calls me names for doing it. Dream on, if anybody thinks I will.

3. As a parallel (since, incredibly, the same people are usually involved here, too), when malicious irrational high-profile attacks occur like with the Chris Sciabarra smear, I step up to contest them.

I believe you did, too, on that one, even citing the poor results a lack of such refutation caused with Schwartz's blast of libertarians as your reason. And I would do it again (and probably will, since I have someone else who was unjustly defamed in mind right now).

All the rest is horsing around, at least to me it is. If I took those guys seriously, I would go nuts.

I have been this way since the beginning. I have announced it since the beginning. Anybody who doesn't like it is free to not like it. I won't change. Nothing anyone can do will make me change, so that's just the way it is.

Now, with that stated clearly (and I dearly hope is was not misunderstood), as to the "change of subject" you mentioned, I now so change it. Let me point to the small quantity of time and effort spent on these things in relation to the huge quantity of time and effort spent on more productive activities. My previous post is a good start. Like I said, if the small part bothers you, ignore it.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jim wrote (on SOLOP):

Absolutely!, I'll post it there straight away. The Branden biographies were Exhibit A in what I'm talking about and not only a focus on pecadillos, but not telling the truth about them.

Not to squabble, but I think it would be more accurate to say that Rand's "To Whom It May Concern" was Exhibit A if we're talking about someone not telling the truth while focusing on making personal issues public.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

Thanks for posting what you did. It's partly my fault, but I think it would've happened anyway.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

Jon;

I think Miss Rand told the truth in ITWIMC but she did not tell the whole truth.

She did make very personal issues public in a big way.

Jim, I liked your first post I just don't see why you associate with Perigo.

[Wolf DeVoon]

MSK mentioned me in Post #7. Sorry to butt in, however I saw this:

malicious irrational high-profile attacks

...and felt I should own up. I've made malicious irrational high-profile attacks on VIPs, including Chris Sciabarra, completely unrelated to the squabbles mentioned heretofore. When called on it, I apologized to Chris unreservedly. That's not germane to the topic. What matters is why I (or anyone else) attacked Objectivist VIPs? It's not a pretty reason. I did it to define myself as a public person with an agenda to get noticed. It's a big issue among brainy people, and we should not feel so darn exceptional about it. Most television commentators squabble and throw mud at each other, for instance. Libertarians do it just as often as Objectivists.

It's never the best tactic, and certainly isn't profitable in the long run. More light, less heat is always good policy. Sad thing about being an asshole: no one ever forgives or forgets. That would be altruism.

I've been coy about linking to an archive of my work, because I hoped to start afresh. I'm not sure that I am succeeding very well, and I suspect that tough talk comes natural to me, with a tendancy to shoot from the hip at times. Regrettably, a thing is itself. See http://g21.net/do108.htm

W.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Jonathan]

Jon;

I think Miss Rand told the truth in ITWIMC but she did not tell the whole truth.

She did make very personal issues public in a big way.

Jim, I liked your first post I just don't see why you associate with Perigo.

Yes, Rand did not tell the whole truth. In fact, she omitted the primary reason for the split, and tried to create the false impression that it was caused by other reasons, and some of those reasons don't appear to have been true.

Anyway, I think Jim is correct that he is partially responsible for having tarnished his own inspirational words above by doing exactly what he was suggesting that Objectivists should rise above. Which is probably a good indication of the difficulty of what he's suggesting. It's not easy to remain silent while you, someone or something you admire is being attacked or lied about, or about which the whole truth isn't being told.

J

[Jonathan]

MSK,

I wanted to thank you for your kind words above. It's very nice to be appreciated and to have one's work valued.

Thank you,

J

[Philip Coates]

> I've made malicious irrational high-profile attacks ... I did it to define myself ... It's never the best tactic, and certainly isn't profitable in the long run. ... I hoped to start afresh. [Wolf]

Wolf, being willing to admit past mistakes and try to correct them not only doesn't happen all the time but counts for an -enormous- amount. And is usually more important and worthy of praise than the past errors and can greatly outweigh them.

Assuming you didn't murder and eat little children for breakfast or serve as Adoph Hitler's butler? You didn't do that, did you? :-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

Your self-honesty is one of your most attractive features.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'll make a few seed comments about some of what I brought up in the original post and people can comment if they wish.

Accelerating Change- Lester Thurow wrote a terrific book entitled Fortune Favors the Bold in which he discusses the need for new structure of management for companies in which the day to day operation of the company is performed by a different person than the major strategic decisions of a company. He said companies need a chief knowledge officer to make decisions about entering and exiting a business and intellectual property.

Globalization- Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat describes how information technologies and comparative advantage have expanded the pool of workers in many professions globally and driven down costs on an unprecented scale. Alan Greenspan has stated that the world economy has grown faster in the last 5 years that at any other time in human history.

Biotechnology- Most people may not know it, but the industry as a whole loses money. Factor in that heavyweights such as Genentech, Amgen, Biogen IDEC and a few others make a lion's share of the money, you've got a whole bunch of startup to midsize companies poised for dieoff just like the dotcom industry. Most small biotechs hope to be bought up by a big Pharma company, but because FDA approval is so costly and budgets are squeezed there will likely be a lot of biotech bankruptcies in the coming years.

All of these are areas that should be of interest to Objectivists and get some comment. However, outside of George Reisman, many of these areas get little comment. It's a little known fact in Objectivist circles that there is a flowering technology first adopter libertarian movement that has little to do with the CATO, Libertarian Party and other well-known elements of the libertarian establishment. This movement can be found in institutes such as the Foresight Institute, the Institute for Accelerating Change, the Redwood Neuroscience Institute and the Emerging Technologies Conferences at MIT. This technolibertarian first adopter culture should be prime territory for the spread of Objectivism, but it has barely been tapped.

Jim

[Wolf DeVoon]

I nominate James as point man and Objectivist ambassador to Foresight Institute, the Institute for Accelerating Change, the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, the Emerging Technologies Conferences at MIT, and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, where a lot of idle money is parked.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris G,

Thanks for your sentiments, I think you are a delightful person too. If you think Perigo gets angry, you haven't seen my wife when she's angry, I generally start running for cover . I have a set of positions on Objectivist movement issues that doesn't well align with any group, so I associate with those where I can speak my mind knowing full well that I may have serious disagreements with them. That's true of this site too.

Jim

Edited May 29, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Chris Grieb]

Jim; I suspect your wife gets mad because you don't do something or the opposite. Lindsey seems to be angry because you diagree with him.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim; I suspect your wife gets mad because you don't do something or the opposite. Lindsey seems to be angry because you diagree with him.

And I have a choice about how I wish to respond to that.

Jim

[Laure]

James,

I agree totally with your post. In my mind, you belong in the small category of "genuinely nice Objectivists." I like to think I'm a member as well! I think the members of this category should post wherever the heck they want to. In terms of all the squabbles that go on, I think I've settled on the approach of just "going on record" as to my position (not that many people would care anyway), and then moving on.