Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

[Newberry]

Still, I felt a twinge of "warmth" upon reading the story -- and not because of my having a religious or altruistic-overtoned upbringing. I think that I was really lucky in some ways in my upbringing.

The respect in which I agree with MSK is in wondering if there's some deeper-than-any-philosophic-views response which is triggered in many people by a story like that, even despite their doubt (my hunch is that most people would have doubt) that the story is a true one.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I appreciate your post and was aware of your thoughtful previous comments. Undoubtedly, kindness is an important element to a good life--and I don't doubt that acts of kindness would have positive chemical triggers, "warm" feelings. Perhaps there is another way to look at the kindness problem? Perhaps, as one among many values to be integrated into a whole life, without the need to discount some other value to accomplish it?

Concerning a universal trigger about the story for some, I would love to hear the introspective attempts to discover the cause within themselves.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

After reading Barbara's comments and Michael N, I tried to reread the story. First, no member of a team is going to decide for the rest of the team. Second, the author of this tale has no understanding or appreciation of baseball. Down six in the eighth inning doesn't mean you can't win. Even if you only have one out left in the ninth you can still win. The kids on the losing team are fighting for their metaphorical lives qua that game. To ask them to stop, to give up their battle, would be atrocious. It's the Stoddard Temple, frankly, with the game itself the Temple. Maybe we should be discussing THAT!

--Brant

Edited June 13, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[georgedonnelly]

How could we bear to live in this world, a world so scarred with suffering and unhappiness, if we did not sometimes witness the happiness of others? It's emotional fuel, it is the experience of what is possible to us. We need to see it. And how can it be wrong to help create it in others? The cost of losing a baseball game is surely not a high price to pay.

What about the cost of sacrificing yourself? Is that too high? You could not care less about their baseball game, but what if they DID care, and they performed this act under duress?

In other words, where is your empathy for the baseball players? (only half kidding)

I found a copy of the book "The Power of Intention" by Dyer. There are no footnotes and there is no bibliography.

Health news is big. For example, the latest news about red wine being considered "anti-aging" got an enormous amount of play around the Internet.

Just as one example, I quickly found the below article on serotonin, which is decidedly not as interesting or noteworthy as Dyer's studies would be. So why is there no news of Dyer's studies?

Serotonin lower in shift workers

And I easily found this, which is similar, but is about oxycontin.

Empathy and Oxytocin Lead to Greater Generosity

"Oxytocin specifically and powerfully affected generosity using real money when participants had to think about another's feelings," Zak explains. "This result confirms our earlier work showing that oxytocin affects trust, but with a dramatically larger effect for generosity."

Here's what Wayne Dyer thinks of truth:

"My belief is that the truth is a truth until you organize it, and then becomes a lie."

Does this make sense to the same people who tear up when they read the Shaya story?

If your serotonin level is rising, it's more likely because you spent that dollar on yourself than because you gave it to a homeless man. ;)

btw Michael I also found those links you mention in post #72 in the original search I did (which you ridiculed), but none of them are relevant to the question of whether kindness actually causes serotonin levels in the brain to rise.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me change it around for Judith and Barbara. I can't sing nor carry a tune. Lets say I was 12 and my dad took me to a Met rehearsal and interrupted for an hour so that his tone deaf son could learn to sing on the stage. No that isn't right, lets say a highschool chorus--I can't imagine a worse night mare than to listening to a tone deaf person for more than five seconds, but imagine taking an hour away from the 20 or so people in the choir--it ain't going to happen, it is not based on reality, it is not a prescript to how to do it right.

Michael,

It's funny you brought up this example. Here is a story that actually happened. I know it did because I did it.

I was the musical director of a play in São Paulo, Brazil that ran for about 5 months, Opera de Sabão. (It was about the radio days in Brazil when people would sit around a radio to listen to soap operas. The original work was a novel by Marcus Rey and adapted for the theater by Roberto Vignati.)

One member of the cast was tone deaf (Graça). She desperately wanted her real voice on the recording that was used during the performance to beef up the voices on stage. I happen to know some exercises that give tone deaf people a general awareness of tone, but it is a long, painfull process for those who watch. You have to have a lot of patience. There were about 12 people in the cast, all good singers, and they all stood around in the studio without complaint for a long, long time as I did my thing with this woman. The producer didn't even complain about the extra cost. On the contrary, everybody watched fascinated as I forged her into singing a short passage in tune. I even told them they should leave because it was going to take a long time, but they didn't.

During the performances, we had her lip-synch since nobody can make miracles and make her un-tone deaf without warming up with those hours of awareness training. But she was lip-synching to her own voice and her own voice was in tune. The smile and delight on her face night after night was reward enough to everyone. The price? Something you consider to be a sacrifice. More than once during the run of the play cast members commented on her happiness and they always smiled when they did.

You may not place value on something like this. That's your choice. I do. The people in the play did. The woman did.

If I ever have a chance to do something similar, I will do it.

Incidentally, I also conducted a magnificent work with the São Paulo Municipal Theater Orchestra that took me 4 years to compose. I literally had 250 people in front of me between the orchestra, two choruses, soloist and off-stage brass and percussion. I brought the house down. I value that too. I intend to do something on a similar scale in the not too distant future (but not in orchestra music).

In my world, I can have both. And I have had them. And I would not give up either. I judge that my life is richer for having lived both. I don't understand world-views that try to make these experiences either-or. But I see people argue this all the time on both ends.

I notice you have no comments about serotonin and kindness. Yet the serotonin increase with kindness is reality. Where does this reality fit in your world-view?

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

I notice you have no comments about serotonin and kindness. Yet the serotonin increase with kindness is reality. Where does this reality fit in your world-view?

You'll have to demonstrate its reality before anyone in their right mind will believe it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

"Anyone" is an awful lot of people, yet you claim you know about their mental health. This kind of heckling is why I am not discussing this issue with you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

Actors in a play are in quite a different milieu than boys in a baseball game. The last is obviously a phony story, the first is a real-life story. And in a game and in a rehearsal are also quite different things. The boys in the story were not approached while they were practicing, but during the performance! Trying to have it both ways is to have it no ways. Just a mess.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Be happy.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Be happy.

Michael

Michael, I can be very funny with an occasional one-liner, but I am not a clown and I refuse to be patronized. If you don't want to reply to one of my posts, please don't imply I'm only worthy of a dismissive pat on the head.

--Brant

(You are remarking on my post 102.)

Edited June 13, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[georgedonnelly]

"Anyone" is an awful lot of people, yet you claim you know about their mental health. This kind of heckling is why I am not discussing this issue with you.

You make an unsupported assertion and expect Michael to accept it on faith. That doesn't look like an exercise of reason to me.

You want substance and quality? Lead by example and show us proof that the exercise of benevolence causes serotonin levels in the brain to rise.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(You are remarking on my post 102.)

Nope.

[Brant Gaede]

(You are remarking on my post 102.)

Nope.

107? What's the difference?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

There are 2 things I will never understand:

1. Why stories of kindness call for such negative overreactions in some Objectivists,

2. Why there is an abundance of thin skin and chips on shoulders.

For the record, I was not being patronizing. I was just making a light-hearted quip. Patronizing is in your head, not mine.

I wonder about the sense of humor and good vibes in general I see among Objectivists. It is always put-downs and mockery. "Howard Roark laughed." I don't see much of that spirit. "But I don't think of you." I see more of that spirit, but I notice that the person saying it usually has a chip on his shoulder and is looking out of the corner of his eye, thinking about the person he is not thinking of.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

I wonder about the sense of humor and good vibes in general I see among Objectivists. It is always put-downs and mockery.

You have demonstrated the "put-downs and mockery" very well in this thread.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder about the sense of humor and good vibes in general I see among Objectivists. It is always put-downs and mockery.

You have demonstrated the "put-downs and mockery" very well in this thread.

George,

I couldn't ask for a better demonstration. In your world, that's all you are able to see.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

There are 2 things I will never understand:

1. Why stories of kindness call for such negative overreactions in some Objectivists,

2. Why there is an abundance of thin skin and chips on shoulders.

For the record, I was not being patronizing. I was just making a light-hearted quip. Patronizing is in your head, not mine.

I wonder about the sense of humor and good vibes in general I see among Objectivists. It is always put-downs and mockery. "Howard Roark laughed." I don't see much of that spirit. "But I don't think of you." I see more of that spirit, but I notice that the person saying it usually has a chip on his shoulder and is looking out of the corner of his eye, thinking about the person he is not thinking of.

Michael

I'll take your word for what's in your head, Michael. As for what's in mine, I looked at what you wrote and where you wrote it. True, I am in a bad mood today. I lost one of my fish last night in very upsetting circumstances. I'm having trouble putting money to work in this stock market. I need to get laid.

At least my dog still likes me.

--Brant

Edited June 13, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[georgedonnelly]

I wonder about the sense of humor and good vibes in general I see among Objectivists. It is always put-downs and mockery.

You have demonstrated the "put-downs and mockery" very well in this thread.

I couldn't ask for a better demonstration. In your world, that's all you are able to see.

You criticize others for the same actions you yourself take. I guess I was unable to see your points and your quality and substance and your posts and so that's why i made so many arguably substantive posts attempting to address yours.

You ridiculed me for my supposed lack of quality and/or substance.

You claimed I wanted you to do my thinking.

You claimed I was imagining words that you didn't say, when you actually did say them.

Now you claim Brant's impression of you being patronizing was in his head, which it was not.

If those don't constitute "put-downs and mockery" then you have corrupted the concept.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I am sorry to hear about your fish. I know people can become quite attached to them.

This has nothing to do with nothing, but I once blocked out a screenplay where a radical rebellious couple in Brazil was destined to get caught. As they were discussing their plans, one of them was trying to clean an aquarium. Just as he was talking about the part where later he would be caught, he accidentally dropped the fish on the ground and the camera does a close-up of the fish flopping and struggling to breathe. I thought that was a pretty good way of foreshadowing by visual metaphor.

I don't remember anymore if the fish died or not in the script. Maybe that fact is more ominous foreshadowing, but in reality instead. I better keep my eyes open and take better care of myself as I age.

At least if I wrote it today, I know I would not kill the fish just for a camera shot.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am curious about something.

Has anyone else besides me found anything on scientific studies of the impact of behavior on sorotonin levels? I will be finding more than the ones I presented, but I would appreciate any leads.

Michael

[Newberry]

MSK:

In my world, I can have both. And I have had them. And I would not give up either. I judge that my life is richer for having lived both. I don't understand world-views that try to make these experiences either-or.

1. Why stories of kindness call for such negative overreactions in some Objectivists,

2. Why there is an abundance of thin skin and chips on shoulders.

Michael,

Perhaps it is a habit, but again you make an accusation against some floating "objectivists." For clarity I will assume you addressing me personally and/or George and Laure. That's fair.

You are stuck on one version of kindness, and you imply that because Laure, George, and I don't agree with your one version that we do not possess such things as benignity, benevolence, generosity, sympathy, compassion, and tenderness. And that we are terribly insecure.

Now is that what you want to say?

Michael

[Jonathan]

I understood both Barbara's and Judith's posts. And I do have the opposite view for a couple of reasons: watch an excellent athlete practicing, especially when they are young and feel that they have to do everything to improve themselves. Out of that group of boys, there would have been at least one, if not several, that would have felt let down and used by the father and their selfless teammates. If I were playing I would have quit the team, and gone on to another sport in which I could complete my heart out and enjoy the that exhilarating feeling. I might help out a lesser player and I have, but on my own conditions...but I can tell you the feeling doesn't come with in 1% of how awesome it feels when you are competing at your full limit.

So both from experience in watching other athletes in practice and in full on competition; watching great athletes give lessons; and from having taught every type of tennis player, having volunteered time to help out others, and from competing on a high level, that story is full of bull shit, suggesting that it is the way for young athletes to behave is, likewise, bullshit, and that it would be the happiest day of their lives is pure nonsense to a real athlete. So in that story, what is left out is not the indifferent kid, but the one that really cares about the sport--which Barbara, Judith, and Michael don't comprehend.

I've seen plenty of great athletes who cared about their sports -- here in Minnesota, Oliva, Killebrew, Puckett and Hrbek, for example -- who I can't imagine acting like petulant infants and storming off from a pickup game in a park because a caring father asked them to let his learning-disabled boy play, and because the other players were sensitive enough to know that they'd have to hold back and give the kid special chances to score. I'm not sure, but Rod Carew might have been enough of an uptight dickweed to get seriously pissed off about something like that, though.

Let me change it around for Judith and Barbara. I can't sing nor carry a tune. Lets say I was 12 and my dad took me to a Met rehearsal and interrupted for an hour so that his tone deaf son could learn to sing on the stage. No that isn't right, lets say a highschool chorus--I can't imagine a worse night mare than to listening to a tone deaf person for more than five seconds, but imagine taking an hour away from the 20 or so people in the choir--it ain't going to happen, it is not based on reality, it is not a prescript to how to do it right.

I got the impression from the Shaya story that the kids were playing an unorganized pickup game in a park (organized league games don't allow last-minute additions to the roster, and even if they did, it wouldn't be up to the team members to allow a new player onto the field, but would be a decision made by the coaches and umpires), so it's not at all like interrupting a Met rehearsal or even a high school chorus. A better example might be some band members getting together to play at a casual social gathering that they were hosting, and, at the end of the evening, a parent asking if his learning-disabled child could be allowed to sit in with the band and play the drums during their final song. I've been in such situations, and I would not be able to comprehend the mindset of a band mate so puffed-up and full of his own self-importance that he'd feel that he'd have to quit the band, run off and try to find some "real musicians" to join up with if asked to let the kid sit in.

J

[Newberry]

ahhaahah,

I wondered where you had been J.

One thing I have come to learn from interaction with you is that we have virtually no connection. I am happy with that and I hope you are too.

Cheers,

Michael

[Jonathan]

True, I am in a bad mood today. I lost one of my fish last night in very upsetting circumstances.

Brant,

Sorry to hear about the loss of your fish.

This might cheer you up:

"And it went where ever Brant did go."

J

Edited June 13, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps it is a habit, but again you make an accusation against some floating "objectivists." For clarity I will assume you addressing me personally and/or George and Laure. That's fair.

Michael,

Really? See here:

But I have to mention something. I don't mind people not being moved by the story. I do mind people who think kindness is evil. People who believe this rarely say it and even deny it at times, but they show this belief clearly in their acts.

(For the record, I don't know of any poster on OL who fits that description.)

So actually, no. That is not fair.

I do admit that I consider the reactions of the posters you mentioned to border on overreaction (Laure getting mad, George nonstop baiting, you purposely ignoring the substance of the ideas I raised and even saying you did it on purpose, and so forth), but this has been lightweight compared to what I have been subjected to elsewhere.

You are stuck on one version of kindness, and you imply that because Laure, George, and I don't agree with your one version that we do not possess such things as benignity, benevolence, generosity, sympathy, compassion, and tenderness. And that we are terribly insecure.

Talk about forcing! Are you taking lessons from James Valliant?

To start with, I have discussed kindness to lesser minds and to geniuses alike. Look it up. It's even in the opening post.

Also, I have no idea where you got the implication you mentioned other than your own head. But let's talk a second about insecurity. When I specifically say I am not talking about you, and you say yes I am, and there are plenty chips on shoulders and thin skin to go around to boot, and you even proclaim that you are ignoring the ideas while going on about other things in an aggressive manner, I actually do start thinking about insecurity.

Is that what you want to project? Because that's the message I am now getting.

I find it interesting that you insist on competing here in a manner I have never seen you apply to your painting.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

nonstop baiting?! If you think all of my posts in this thread are baits then you are the one with the thin skin and chip, nay, boulder on your shoulder.

I don't know how Michael will take it but that last line in your last post reads like a very sly personal attack.

Michael, you insult, you misrepresent and you use underhanded tactics. It's disgusting.

I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know that your actions have convinced me to unsubscribe from your RSS feed, turn off all email notifications and take a long, if not permanent, break from this website.