Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness


Recommended Posts

Judith:
First of all, I'm saying that daily baseball games among kids are, almost by definition, normal, repeatable, unremarkable events. It's what they do every day, with little differences among the daily games. Not much changes from game to game. Same players, same moves, pretty predictable. Kind of hard to get passionate about.

I would think that if you comprehend being passionate about doing your best at something, you would be able to see that there are many participants in sports that do it with passion--it really doesn't matter if it is your thing or not.

Actually, I do get it. I'm very intense about just about anything I do: riding, singing, shooting, etc. Im taking a break from choral singing right now both because of time commitment problems and because it finally drove me over the edge to sit around watching other people learn music that I had already learned, or to watch people making half-hearted attempts at singing when I was ready to give it my all but had no energy because I had spent the last hour sitting around watching other people learning music. There's nothing like the rush of dress rehearsal week with an orchestra. I just wish we could do it every second week instead of twice or three times a year. And as far as riding, most dressage riders are pretty obsessive: we spend weeks training to get a few seconds, or at times a few minutes of perfect harmony in movement. And when a shooter gets into a string of bad shooting, he or she tends to be pretty obsessive about figuring out what's happening.

That said, I don't see an inconsistency with my original statement. No matter how intense I am about any of the above activities, they're still daily things. They're not once-in-a-lifetime events. If someone were to interrupt a concert, or a tournament, or even a dress rehearsal or practice right before a tournament, it would be a different story. But what Michael described wasn't such an event. It would be comparable to a regular rehearsal, or a daily practice or training session. And in such a situation, while I might be "in the zone" with intensity, I would also be delighted by the opportunity to offer someone else the chance to have a unique experience in my chosen field of activity, knowing first hand what a joyous activity it is.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judith:

They're not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I am sorry Judith, I don't comprehend in what manner charity to a poor, pathetic kid could be a once-in-a-lifetime event. You know if you feel that way you could devote yourself to all the helpless people in your area, and create eureka moments every hour on the hour, instead of ho-hum, daily self-development. But you don't do that do you? Are you giving lip service?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don't think the child is pathetic, as if his condition were his fault. I just think he's a human being that got dealt a bad hand at birth.

If you check dictionary sources for "pathetic", a scornful take is usually the last of the definitions--I used it the term in the general, sympathetic way. I don't hold any fault with a person because of their handicap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every event in our lifetimes is "once in a lifetime." Every event is unique. Sometimes you have to dig pretty deep to find the uniqueness, but it is there, absolutely.

--Brant

I feel that way too. If I don't, I do what you mentioned, dig deeper, or if that doesn't work I change what I am doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Performing music is the same, (even when your sound in buried by cellos and trombones,) though, in that case there is more difference among people. Practices CAN get boring.

--Mindy

I guess so, maybe not soloists? I think they feel the intense pressure, which makes the practice precious.

One thing I was a little surprised by this thread is how passionate I feel about the subject.

Nice to meet you,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judith:
They're not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I am sorry Judith, I don't comprehend in what manner charity to a poor, pathetic kid could be a once-in-a-lifetime event. You know if you feel that way you could devote yourself to all the helpless people in your area, and create eureka moments every hour on the hour, instead of ho-hum, daily self-development. But you don't do that do you? Are you giving lip service?

Did you ever read Rand's essay that mentioned the play "The Miracle Worker", about Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller? About that "miracle", as Rand called it, when Keller "got it" about words referring to concepts? And Sullivan says, "She KNOWS!"

Did you ever read the play itself, or see it performed? If you did, and if you got pleasure from it, that was the vicarious pleasure of witnessing someone else's once-in-a-lifetime event.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. It's not the kind of thing you seek out. Those moments just come upon you throughout life, and you can either let them pass you by, or you can seize them and enjoy them.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judith:
They're not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I am sorry Judith, I don't comprehend in what manner charity to a poor, pathetic kid could be a once-in-a-lifetime event. You know if you feel that way you could devote yourself to all the helpless people in your area, and create eureka moments every hour on the hour, instead of ho-hum, daily self-development. But you don't do that do you? Are you giving lip service?

Did you ever read Rand's essay that mentioned the play "The Miracle Worker", about Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller? About that "miracle", as Rand called it, when Keller "got it" about words referring to concepts? And Sullivan says, "She KNOWS!"

Did you ever read the play itself, or see it performed? If you did, and if you got pleasure from it, that was the vicarious pleasure of witnessing someone else's once-in-a-lifetime event.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. It's not the kind of thing you seek out. Those moments just come upon you throughout life, and you can either let them pass you by, or you can seize them and enjoy them.

Judith

Harking back to the question of why an event of this sort is touching, and should it be touching, I suggest that just maybe the boys, being at the end of the game, and knowing the outcome, looked for a moment, on this disabled kid, with his great desire to try, as being, not different from them, but the same as them. Maybe they reacted to the basic humanity that says take what you've got and do your best with it, "risk it on one turn of pitch and toss" as Kipling would have it. Maybe they felt psychological visibility from him in a way they didn't when they were watching one another play. In him, a little like in Quasimodo, there was the abstraction of desire to succeed put on view. So they felt a kinship with him which they wouldn't have been able to name, but which was the reason they all played ball. To see it played out, they "helped." In doing so they joined him, and perhaps it turned into a celebration of their own love of games and even of life.

--Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judith,

My simple puzzlement is this: you obvious work hard at activities and enjoy doing them well, and getting into the "zone". Why would some accidental experience, giving a kid a illusionary experience trump your own experiences? It takes little or no effort on your part, the result is not real. It just sounds like you romanticize a lie. I can only think that the effort you put into your stuff is not rewarding on a profound level.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harking back to the question of why an event of this sort is touching, and should it be touching, I suggest that just maybe the boys, being at the end of the game, and knowing the outcome, looked for a moment, on this disabled kid, with his great desire to try, as being, not different from them, but the same as them. Maybe they reacted to the basic humanity that says take what you've got and do your best with it, "risk it on one turn of pitch and toss" as Kipling would have it. Maybe they felt psychological visibility from him in a way they didn't when they were watching one another play. In him, a little like in Quasimodo, there was the abstraction of desire to succeed put on view. So they felt a kinship with him which they wouldn't have been able to name, but which was the reason they all played ball. To see it played out, they "helped." In doing so they joined him, and perhaps it turned into a celebration of their own love of games and even of life.

--Mindy

I know you won't find this funny, but that sounds absolutely sick to me. Perhaps there are very significant, and real differences between people? But that rings so false and hollow to me, I wouldn't be able to take five minutes of that kind of torture.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Some people can value both without contradiction. They don't think in terms of negation on their deepest level.

One experience at one moment does not annul or deny their experience (or commitment) at another.

They don't just give lip service, either. They live both. High achievement is an important value to them and so is generosity toward the weak.

I personally am gravitating more toward the image of the rugged individual (like a cowboy) who is competent as all get out, strong, mostly a loner, but also is polite, helps old ladies cross the street and makes short work of bullies who attack the weak, as my idea of a hero I wish to emulate. I used to have the lonely one-sided genius or achiever who holds no value for the members of his species (with the exception of one or another person) in that place.

Both achieve great things. I find greater happiness in the path I am now pursuing than I had before when I denied an important part of myself. I chose one type before. I choose the other now.

I have an interesting question for you. If art is supposed to be "a selective recreation of reality" to project an ideal that is not full reality, only partial reality, isn't that similar to what the boys did with Shaya when an unusual opportunity presented itself?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

Some people can value both without contradiction. They don't think in terms of negation on their deepest level.

One experience at one moment does not annul or deny their experience (or commitment) at another.

They don't just give lip service, either. They live both. High achievement is an important value to them and so is generosity toward the weak.

I was hearing it differently.

I personally am gravitating more toward the image of the rugged individual (like a cowboy) who is competent as all get out, strong, mostly a loner, but also is polite, helps old ladies cross the street and makes short work of bullies who attack the weak, as my idea of a hero I wish to emulate. I used to have the lonely one-sided genius or achiever who holds no value for the members of his species (with the exception of one or another person) in that place.

One thing you haven't been able to see on this thread is that there are several people here who hated the story, yet there is nothing cold hearted about them, which has been what you have implied--anyone who doesn't relate to the story is anti social, ruthless loner, that doesn't give a shit about people. That is why Laure left. Though online is hard to know about people's real lives, I love teaching, helping others in art and tennis, (but I have a reputation for being tough) I have a lot of love in my life, both intimately and in friendships. And that doesn't change that I still think the story is full of shit, and it's approach doesn't have anything to do with my interactions with friends, students, collectors, etc.

I find greater happiness in the path I am now pursuing than I had before when I denied an important part of myself. I chose one type before. I choose the other now.

Denying parts of oneself is not good. :)

I have an interesting question for you. If art is supposed to be "a selective recreation of reality" to project an ideal that is not full reality, only partial reality, isn't that similar to what the boys did with Shaya when an unusual opportunity presented itself?

I would agree that the story romanticized its moral beliefs.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My simple puzzlement is this: you obvious work hard at activities and enjoy doing them well, and getting into the "zone". Why would some accidental experience, giving a kid a illusionary experience trump your own experiences? It takes little or no effort on your part, the result is not real. It just sounds like you romanticize a lie. I can only think that the effort you put into your stuff is not rewarding on a profound level.

I never said it trumped my own experiences. I said it was different from, and less common than, my own experiences, which is what would make it worthwhile to stop what I was doing to pursue for its own sake. Both have great value.

I'm about to give up here. There are people reading this who see the issue in two drastically different ways, and we don't seem to be having any success in getting each other to understand our respective points of view. I've done my best; maybe somebody else can find better words to do it.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harking back to the question of why an event of this sort is touching, and should it be touching, I suggest that just maybe the boys, being at the end of the game, and knowing the outcome, looked for a moment, on this disabled kid, with his great desire to try, as being, not different from them, but the same as them. Maybe they reacted to the basic humanity that says take what you've got and do your best with it, "risk it on one turn of pitch and toss" as Kipling would have it. Maybe they felt psychological visibility from him in a way they didn't when they were watching one another play. In him, a little like in Quasimodo, there was the abstraction of desire to succeed put on view. So they felt a kinship with him which they wouldn't have been able to name, but which was the reason they all played ball. To see it played out, they "helped." In doing so they joined him, and perhaps it turned into a celebration of their own love of games and even of life.

--Mindy

I know you won't find this funny, but that sounds absolutely sick to me. Perhaps there are very significant, and real differences between people? But that rings so false and hollow to me, I wouldn't be able to take five minutes of that kind of torture.

Michael

As I just re-read my post, I don't think I made my point very well. What I'm thinking is that there is a much more abstract psychological visibility put on view when "the kid" tries to play. It isn't his disability that the other players identify with. (Yes, that would be sick.) It's his desire to try.

When these kids play, and watch one another, they have pro players to compare themselves to. And in that comparison, they are very much in the same position as the kid is when trying to play with them. Whatever their skills, they are trying to be the pro player they idolize. They dream of being as good as their heroes on the field, they argue with each other over who is best and about how good they are one day going to be. Striving is fundamental to playing.

It is a constant of children's existence that they are learning about the world, and learning to do things that adults know and do. This striving is a big part of their lives. Kids with younger siblings are constantly dealing with the relative ineptitude of those siblings. Sometimes they take a parental attitude and are helpful, sometimes they are bothered by it... But it isn't strange to them. Most will sometimes sincerely celebrate developmental achievements by their younger sibs. It's that attitude that I think may take hold in a situation such as the ball game anecdote. (Which, by the way, I also find contrived. I'm afraid I did not feel warm fuzzies from reading it.)

So, at risk of being redundant: when the kid joins the game, and because he is hopeless as a player, the element of his striving to play is highlighted. The kid is totally vulnerable, he is no threat to anyone, he makes their own abilities stand out in comparison. But he really, really, wants to play. He wants to try. And that fact is brought into sharp relief by the situation. It reminds me of Roark's trial, when Rand writes about how the jurors feel about him, how he is rendered unthreatening, and the benevolence that takes hold, and with which they begin to listen to him.

Maybe because that one player goes out to help him, the seed of the idea is planted. When they help him, it is not ball that they are playing, it is life, and they are all on the same team! It spontaneously becomes a projective, performance-art experience. They give him a chance, because they, too want to be given a chance. The "engineering" of that chance doesn't matter, because the kid doesn't get it. He thinks he's playing ball, and they identify with his delight, and his determination. It is an abstract, a partial, a single-aspect view of the situation that excites everybody.

Observers of the game, while not naming to themselves the sort of abstraction I'm suggesting is at work, see the other players acting out a broad brotherhood that shows their "humanity." And that's worth a few shivers!

As to the debate, I think if the different abstractions this event relates to are laid out, we'd find out that there isn't as much disagreement as there is difference of emphasis. This event falls straight into the PC attitude of "main-streaming" retarded school children, etc. That is, I think we'd all agree, a terrible mistake, for the reasons Rand has stated, as well as what several people--the "cons" on this debate, have said.

Another abstraction that this event just as truly represents, however, is mine, above (unless someone shoots me down as to its plausibility.) And MSK, particularly, is not going to deny the value he finds in it.

Other abstractions may be there to find, but I would propose that the contentiousness of this thread has resulted from which "take" of the event the writer found salient.

I would like to know if anyone disagrees that both of these "takes" are legitimate, though they might still argue that one is more to the point than the other.

--Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing you haven't been able to see on this thread is that there are several people here who hated the story, yet there is nothing cold hearted about them, which has been what you have implied--anyone who doesn't relate to the story is anti social, ruthless loner, that doesn't give a shit about people.

Michael,

Actually that shoe fits in your foot, too, but from the other angle. You have stopped just slightly short of outright stating that people who responded positively to the story are evil and do not seek to achieve the best in life, they don't know what giving one's all is, they are lesser unheroic souls, etc., etc., etc.

That's simply wrong.

I have tried hard to maintain that two views are possible, but your aggressive tone in discussing this and condemning the story and practically anyone who values it make it hard. You even claimed you are surprised at how deep this cut in you. I can only go on what I observe, but such repeated wholesale aggressive condemnation leads me to believe you see the story (and those who like it) as a threat.

If you don't like the insinuation that you are cold-hearted, etc., (which, btw, I don't believe about you), you should take a look at how you describe the weak. I even mentioned that the handicapped person was not pathetic in the sense that he chose to be that way. When challenged, you back up, but first contact with your words not only conveys that message, it strongly conveys the message that you think such a person is not a human being, but something like a dog, but maybe a little lower. Maybe you don't feel that, but your words convey it.

As to your single-minded focus on one area in order to give it your best, and harshly condemning the rest, I don't see that view as a threat to me at all. I just don't agree with it in terms of completeness, so I will not advocate it as the best way for everybody to be. I used to believe that, but I changed. I don't mind saying it, either. I certainly will not be intimidated into bearing false witness to what goes on inside me, nor will I abstain from giving the reasons for my present choices. (Actually, you yourself are not 100% single-minded since you find time to post on forums and that ain't painting.)

You might notice that there are several respectable people on this thread who do respond positively to the story. Their commitment to achieving the best in their own lives, and their willingness to not bear false witness to their own views in the face of harsh condemnatory intimidation, should alert you to the fact "full of shit" and "absolutely sick" and "torture" and "romanticize a lie" and things like that do not apply to them.

They think with their own minds and they give it their best. Ditto for you. I respect both.

From your words, I get the message that you only respect one and don't like it when a person says the other is possible.

Well it is possible.

I know both intimately because I have chosen both at different times of my life. If you are interested in understanding the reasons for that choice, I am more than willing to discuss it. If your premise at the outset is that I am morally corrupt, that I am choosing evil on purpose, that makes it an insult to do so.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I too felt my eyes wet up with tears as I read the story.

I think I was touched by the simple portrayal of a group of people acting on their desires to see someone else experience joy. I even think I would have the same reaction to a story in which the recipient was more able than the group of supporters. Ya. What about a story in which a group of mentally challenged folk ban together to gratify the desires of a genius? I identify with the basic wish to gratify the desires of another. I see myself among the group of boys who gave joy to Shaya, and it feels really pleasant.

Contributing to the gratification of another's desires can give pleasure. I suspect most people are simply wired up that way, as supported by the evidence that pleasant chemicals flush the brain when engaging in such a contribution.

-Luke-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too felt my eyes wet up with tears as I read the story.

I think I was touched by the simple portrayal of a group of people acting on their desires to see someone else experience joy. I even think I would have the same reaction to a story in which the recipient was more able than the group of supporters. Ya. What about a story in which a group of mentally challenged folk ban together to gratify the desires of a genius? I identify with the basic wish to gratify the desires of another. I see myself among the group of boys who gave joy to Shaya, and it feels really pleasant.

Contributing to the gratification of another's desires can give pleasure. I suspect most people are simply wired up that way, as supported by the evidence that pleasant chemicals flush the brain when engaging in such a contribution.

-Luke-

Welcome, Luke!

Yes, but "pleasant chemicals" flush the brain when you solve a problem, come up with a new idea, serve up an ace, etc.,

When those chemicals get set loose depends largely on what your ideas are about goodness, success, etc. I don't think you should conclude that we are all "wired that way."

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you should conclude that we are all "wired that way."

= Mindy

I agree. And please don't worry. I won't conclude that all people are wired up the same way.

-Luke-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Something really interesting happened about this Shaya story.

It turns out that it is true. I just stumbled across it.

I have been studying the work of a man who is one of the world's greatest copywriters: Gary Bencivenga.

He was good friends with another of the world's greatest copywriters: Gary Halbert. Unfortunately, Halbert recently passed away.

Here is a link to The Gary Halbert Letter, somewhere "North of Jewfish Creek" at some unspecified date in 2004, where he presents an email he got from Bencivenga containing the Shaya story. Bencivenga mentioned a site "TruthOrFiction.com" that investigated the story and found it to be true. So I looked it up and sure enough the site exists and so does the corroboration. Here is the link:

"God's Perfection," the Story of Shaya, the Learning-Disabled Boy Who Hit The Grand-Slam Home-Run-Truth!

From that site:

This story has a source which TruthOrFiction.com has been able to trace. It's attributed to Rabbi Paysach Krohn, a popular lecturer and best-selling author of the ArtScroll Maggid series of short stories. In a message to TruthOrFiction.com, Rabbi Krohn said, "Every single word in the story is accurate. I heard it from Shaya's father himself - who is a close friend of mine"

Granted, this is on the word of a Rabbi, but I'll take that word.

Another interesting thing about Halbert's letter is that he mentions a seminar to be held in 2005 with Gary Bencivenga where the cream of the cream will be. It happened and I am studying an audio recording of it. To be honest, I am enchanted with this man. Listening to him is like the feeling I got when I read Rand's description of Europe before WWI as a "sun-filled universe." (if I remember her quote correctly). And, yes, from the tape it is evident that the best copywriters the world over are all there in attendance, as if sitting at the feet of a master.

Gaqry Halbert, evidently, felt as I do. Here is a quote from his letter (the same one linked above):

You know, as you walk through life you cannot help but be aware of all the corrupt business men, thieves, sex offenders, crooked politicians, war lords, murderers, greedy religious leaders, lying CEO's, and just plain jerks. But, every once in a while on this path through life, you come across "a Gary Bencivenga". A person...

Who Restores Your Faith In The Decency Of Mankind!

Gary Halbert also feels as I do in another matter and it is reflected in his PS to the letter:

P.S. I'm feeling especially grateful for all the blessings I have in my personal life... but...

Don't Expect That To Continue!

Unlike Gary Bencivenga, I am unable to sustain kindness, integrity and decency over any prolonged period of time. Therefore, I can pretty much assure you that in the almost immediate future I will, once again, be obnoxious, rude, chauvinistic and 100% politically incorrect. I'm sorry. I just can't help it!

Peace.

I love these guys.

(And yes, I love the Shaya story. I feel good when I let a lesser blessed being than I have a taste of the food I eat regularly at my banquet of life. And I feel moral doing it.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another comment, but a bit beyond the scope of this thread. I want it on record, though.

For those interested in salesmanship, please take a look at Gary Bencivenga's BULLET #29 - The Secret of How to Sell Anything.

Do you know who he thinks is one of the greatest sales teachers in the world?

Harry Browne!

Dayaamm!

This is like getting an endorsement from Mike Tyson if you are a boxer.

Here's a quote from that bullet:

Harry Browne's Masterpiece on Salesmanship

This undiscovered treasure is called The Secret of Selling Anything: A road map to success for the salesman who is not aggressive, who is not a 'smooth talker' and who is not an extrovert.

This unpublished gem was written years ago by one of the most brilliant salespeople, investment advisers, and writers of all time, Harry Browne.

I have no financial interest—zero!—in recommending it. I bring it up here because I am convinced that this is one of the greatest little books (an ebook actually) ever published on effective salesmanship. If you could read only one book in your life on how to sell anything to anybody, and do so without relying on high pressure, manipulation, exaggeration, or even an extroverted personality, this would be the book.

. . .

... he had discovered a remarkably powerful and easy method for selling anything. His approach was so simple that he believed that anyone could fairly quickly become a master salesperson without being aggressive, manipulative, dishonest, persistent, extroverted, glib, confident, or even hardworking.

And he proved it! When he recruited and trained his own salespeople, he preferred to hire shy introverts, not outgoing backslappers, and he would teach them how to let his "almost effortless" method do all the heavy lifting of opening and closing a sale.

Harry died in 2006 without ever publishing the secrets of his much easier method of salesmanship. His widow Pamela recently decided to create an ebook out of two unpublished manuscripts he had written revealing this selling magic. And thus was born the ebook The Secret of Selling Anything: A road map to success for the salesman who is not aggressive, who is not a 'smooth talker' and who is not an extrovert.

. . .

All the chapters are short and fast-reading. The first six chapters review Browne's libertarian way of thinking and how it applies to salesmanship. But the good, specific stuff really starts to rock 'n roll in Chapter 7 and every chapter thereafter, where Browne spells out, with utter simplicity, the secrets of selling anything almost effortlessly. He tells you exactly how to allow your prospects to tap into their preexisting motivation to almost completely sell themselves.

And the foundation of it all is…

His Secret of Selling Anything

Browne's secret is virtually identical to that of Dale Carnegie, author of How to Win Friends and Influence People, who said, "The only way to influence someone is to find out what they want, and show them how to get it."

Here is the link if anyone is interested in buying it.

The Secret of Selling ~ Anything

That's not an affiliate link, either. I just think it's a great book. And with an endorsement like Bencivenga's, I believe this work should get a hell of a lot of traction in the Objectivist/libertarian world. So this is my contribution to that idea.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

A semi-tongue in cheek question would be:

Did he not employ this system with the Libertarian Party?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now