Self-Introduction of a semi-Objectivist

[dongrimme]

Hello!

My Facebook profile at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=112...iq=don%2Cgrimme provides some basic facts about me.

If you've bothered to open this post, you're probably wondering what I mean by semi-Objectivist. First, some background:

I was intrigued by

The Fountainhead

when I first read it at age 17 and was blown away by

Atlas Shrugged

when I first read it a year later (this was about 45 years ago). It was my new "religion" (a comment on me at that time, not on the philosophy) through college and the army.

After my military service in late 1970, I came to NYC to study acting and to immerse myself in Ayn Rand's world ... with mixed results. I actually worked for

The Objectivist

for three weeks in 1971, but was fired when I admitted to reading

The Psychology of Self-Esteem

and to seeing Roger Callahan for counseling (among other reasons, my tour of duty in Vietnam messed me up a bit). I did like some of the people I met in those days, e.g., Phil Smith (with whom I took a couple acting classes) and Kay Nolte Smith (who commented favorably on one of my performances). Unfortunately, I never met Ms. Rand.

The next few years were more positive (and healthier). I gradually gave up Objectivism as a religion and started (finally) thinking for myself. My quasi-Objectivist contacts centered around a monthly group session with Lee and Joyce Shulman and some amateur theatre work with Nell Robinson ... and included a weekend session with Nathaniel Branden and a helpful conversation with David Kelly. I've not met Barbara Branden. [FYI: I very much enjoyed

The Passion of Ayn Rand

: book and TV movie.] Professionally, I began my career in human resource management. In the late 70's I met my wife of 31 years, Sheryl (who is not an Objectivist at all, but whose sense of life and temperament are simpatico with mine).

I have been out of Objectivist circles for decades (ever since leaving New York City and moving to South Florida, 29 years ago).

So what do I mean by "semi"?

• I'm a bit wary of people who call themselves Objectivists - many I've met/read are narrow-minded and/or weird. Whereas some of the nicest people I know are Christians.
  
• I agree with the fundamental philosophy (and love her romanticism), but I don't agree with all of Ms. Rand's opinions/positions.
  
• I am a liberal-leaning libertarian, e.g., I hate George W. Bush (I understand that many Objectivists think well of him) and will probably vote for Obama.
  
• Reality is an objective absolute (obviously). But I'm not sure that material existence precedes spiritual consciousness. I suspect that there may be a "ground of being" beyond death.
  
• I think Ayn Rand sometimes confused character with temperament, e.g., Howard Roark is too cold for my tastes, I wish Dagny had made provisions for Eddie Willers' welfare.
  

I'm currently rereading Atlas Shrugged for the umpteenth time, which triggered an Internet search for "Objectivism" and I stumbled in here (and like what I've seen thus far).

Sheryl and I make our home in South Florida. For the past 10 years, we've had our own small training firm (management and interpersonal skills). We or (since Sheryl's MS diagnosis two years ago) I travel sporadically around the U.S. to deliver our training and speaking services. Our "groundbreaking book" on leading people in today's workplace, The New Manager's Tool Kit, published by AMACOM, hits bookshelves this November (and is available for pre-order on Amazon.com). Much of the contents are available (at no cost) as short articles at http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Don_Grimme.

I encourage/request any who are interested to reply to this post or write to me at Solutions@GHR-Training.com.

It's good to be here!

Don Grimme

[Chris Grieb]

Don; Welcome! A friend of mine and I have a phase for some of the people you refer to. TAO's. The first word is "tight".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don,

A very warm welcome. It sounds like you found the right place.

All you have to be is NOT BE an evading, subjectivistic, intrinsicistic, second-handerish, emotionalistic, out-of-focus, death-worshiping missing link of an anti-conceptual mentality.

If you can manage that, then you will not be pathetic. And don't ask for definitions, either.

Just joking. Make yourself at home. You sound like really good people.

And please feel free to promote your stuff all you want.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Don. You probably don't remember me as well as I do you. We both took Phil's acting class. You were more of a free, adventurous spirit than I was in those days. I always thought your being fired for honesty was a crock and was a factor in getting me out of that NY Objectivist culture too. Belated honesty was not acceptable. I'd guess if everybody had been as honest as you, Ayn Rand would have been instantly deprived of all her human relationships; none of them would have been good enough for her. That whole phony culture was both rotten with lies and held together by lies. It goes back to the artificialty of Atlas Shrugged pretended or willed into real human existence which demanded real world artificiality or lies to work--sort of work, that is.

--Brant

edit: This post of mine was over-blown. I'm sure there was better than this in many of her relationships.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Don,

A very warm welcome. It sounds like you found the right place.

All you have to be is NOT BE an evading, subjectivistic, intrinsicistic, second-handerish, emotionalistic, out-of-focus, death-worshiping missing link of an anti-conceptual mentality.

If you can manage that, then you will not be pathetic. And don't ask for definitions, either.

Thank God I'm grandfathered in!

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Don,

Welcome!

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

Don -

Welcome to Objectivist Living! Come on in. This tends to be a pretty congenial group. You should expect to be challenged from time to time.

Browse around. Use the "View New Posts" (look in the top area of the page, a little to the right of center) to see what topics are getting a lot of very recent commentary. But also - browse the old threads in areas of your interest - there's a lot of good stuff here.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited July 15, 2008 by Bill P

[Alfonso Jones]

Don,

A very warm welcome. It sounds like you found the right place.

All you have to be is NOT BE an evading, subjectivistic, intrinsicistic, second-handerish, emotionalistic, out-of-focus, death-worshiping missing link of an anti-conceptual mentality.

If you can manage that, then you will not be pathetic. And don't ask for definitions, either.

Thank God I'm grandfathered in!

--Brant

Brant -

Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you.

Bill P (smiling)

[Barbara Branden]

From Bill P to Brant:

"Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you."

Sorry, Bill, but Michael and Kat are amateurs. It's my living room that Brant is to appear in. For that matter, I expect you to be there, too -- as well as that presumptuous newcomer, Don Grimme, who wilfully evaded the fact that The Psychology of Self-Esteem is an evil book (yes, I know that Ayn Rand said it was a work of genius, but that was before she discovered the true nature of Nathaniel Branden), that Roger Callahan, who took the side of the Brandens, was a conscious agent of evil, and that the Smiths, by allowing a line in The Night of January 16th to be changed, were out to destroy Objectivism; that he liked The Passion of Ayn Rand is too unspeakable an evil for me even to speak of.

I intend to see to it that the three of you are made aware of the social metaphysical nature of your epistemologies, of your craven acceptance of the Kantian ideology that is destroying the world, and of your hatred of the good for being the good. Out of my overflowing benevolence, I shall endeavor to bring you to virtue by demonstrating that you are worhless human beings,

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

I think these people should be required to show up in both living rooms simultaneously in opposite areas of the country.

That will show them.

And the chairs should be very uncomfortable and the thermostat turned up.

Make 'em sweat.

[Brant Gaede]

From Bill P to Brant:

"Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you."

Sorry, Bill, but Michael and Kat are amateurs. It's my living room that Brant is to appear in. For that matter, I expect you to be there, too -- as well as that presumptuous newcomer, Don Grimme, who wilfully evaded the fact that The Psychology of Self-Esteem is an evil book (yes, I know that Ayn Rand said it was a work of genius, but that was before she discovered the true nature of Nathaniel Branden), that Roger Callahan, who took the side of the Brandens, was a conscious agent of evil, and that the Smiths, by allowing a line in The Night of January 16th to be changed, were out to destroy Objectivism; that he liked The Passion of Ayn Rand is too unspeakable an evil for me even to speak of.

I intend to see to it that the three of you are made aware of the social metaphysical nature of your epistemologies, of your craven acceptance of the Kantian ideology that is destroying the world, and of your hatred of the good for being the good. Out of my overflowing benevolence, I shall endeavor to bring you to virtue by demonstrating that you are worhless human beings,

Barbara

Wake up Barbara! Wake up! You're having an Internetmare!

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

From Bill P to Brant:

"Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you."

Sorry, Bill, but Michael and Kat are amateurs. It's my living room that Brant is to appear in. For that matter, I expect you to be there, too -- as well as that presumptuous newcomer, Don Grimme, who wilfully evaded the fact that The Psychology of Self-Esteem is an evil book (yes, I know that Ayn Rand said it was a work of genius, but that was before she discovered the true nature of Nathaniel Branden), that Roger Callahan, who took the side of the Brandens, was a conscious agent of evil, and that the Smiths, by allowing a line in The Night of January 16th to be changed, were out to destroy Objectivism; that he liked The Passion of Ayn Rand is too unspeakable an evil for me even to speak of.

I intend to see to it that the three of you are made aware of the social metaphysical nature of your epistemologies, of your craven acceptance of the Kantian ideology that is destroying the world, and of your hatred of the good for being the good. Out of my overflowing benevolence, I shall endeavor to bring you to virtue by demonstrating that you are worhless human beings,

Barbara

And when I show up, will I thereby be sanctioning the sanctioner who is withdrawing their sanction from me albeit having her own sanction previously withdrawn by . . . ? (I'm trying to do Schwartz-speak, but it is so very hard and so easy to get lost!!!)

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; Take the seats out of the chairs Brant and Don sit in. Let's really torture them. You might bring in Michael and Kat.

[Alfonso Jones]

Barbara; Take the seats out of the chairs Brant and Don sit in. Let's really torture them. You might bring in Michael and Kat.

Bill P wonders "What have I started here?"

And then he remembers: "Hey, wait a minute! I didn't start this!!!"

Bill P (Alfonso)

[dongrimme]

I am overwhelmed! Thank you all so much for the hearty (albeit somewhat confusing*) welcome!

Special thanks to:

• Michael for his encouragement to "promote [my] stuff." I won't abuse it.
  
• Brant for remembering me and his sanction of my behavior eons ago.
  
• Barbara ... just for making contact (I find that I can still be star struck).
  

* I've not yet explored this forum sufficiently to grasp the background of some of the bantering (e.g., what is serious, what is teasing). And, never having met or corresponded with Barbara, I had to read her post a couple times to appreciate her sarcasm. [i frequently have been criticized for my sarcasm, it's refreshing to see it used so freely.]

Thanks again!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don,

This is just my understanding, but I reserve the word sarcasm for a sneering kind of emotion. What you find here is poke-in-the-ribs friendly banter and teasing. (But, please, use the words as you wish. I am more concerned about meaning, anyway.)

I associate sarcasm with bad vibes and banter with good vibes. (And yes, I can get sarcastic when I need to. Thankfully, that is not very often.)

I'm a good vibes dude.

Michael

[dongrimme]

Don,

This is just my understanding, but I reserve the word sarcasm for a sneering kind of emotion. What you find here is poke-in-the-ribs friendly banter and teasing. (But, please, use the words as you wish. I am more concerned about meaning, anyway.)

I associate sarcasm with bad vibes and banter with good vibes. (And yes, I can get sarcastic when I need to. Thankfully, that is not very often.)

I'm a good vibes dude.

Michael

Michael,

Yes, I checked a dictionary and you are correct. What is the word for saying the opposite of what you mean (e.g., what Barbara Branden must have been doing in her post in this topic)?

Also, can you clarify the reference to "Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900"? Is this an actual online event? Is it appropriate for me to attend?

Thanks!

Don

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, I checked a dictionary and you are correct. What is the word for saying the opposite of what you mean (e.g., what Barbara Branden must have been doing in her post in this topic)?

Also, can you clarify the reference to "Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900"? Is this an actual online event? Is it appropriate for me to attend?

Don,

I think the word you want is irony. But I lean towards good natured lampoon or spoof.

The living room business is a spoof on what used to happen to insiders at Rand's apartment during NBI days when they fell out of favor. Barbara gives a pretty good description in The Passion of Ayn Rand.

Her own break with Rand was capped by an invitation for her to appear promptly at one of these meetings. She refused.

Nowadays, those who venerate Rand on the orthodox side (and a few boneheads who don't fit in anywhere) try to downplay these kangaroo court sessions and even deny that they ever happened. Those who hate Rand point to them as proof of cult and so forth.

Those who deeply admire Rand, but admit she did her own monkey-shines at times, see these as an unflattering quirk of a genius and nothing more. I fall into this category (as do many here on OL).

Like all quirks of geniuses, this particular one is a great subject for satire.

On a serious note, good-natured spoofing of great people is discouraged by up-tight sourpuss Objectivists (not all Objectivists, just the up-tight sourpuss ones). They call this form of play denigrating genius out of envy, hatred of the good for being the good, etc. I personally think this highlights a very serious sense of life issue.

I actually pity a person who does not understand the difference between a playful poke in the ribs and belittling mockery or scathing put-downs. I think people like that live in a very dark universe.

A spoof of Rand's kangaroo courts is seen by such folks as a vicious attack against her (and you should read some of the sanctimonious boneheaded crap written in this vein), but by others it is a mischievous lampoon with tenderness for her underneath that often borders on love.

It's not a matter of a trying to make a heroine have clay feet. It's more a matter of the feeling you get when you tell someone you care about, "Oh, stop it."

Michael

[william.scherk]

Also, can you clarify the reference to "Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900"? Is this an actual online event? Is it appropriate for me to attend?

Perhaps a veiled reference to the upcoming OL Chat instantiation?

[Roger Bissell]

What is the word for saying the opposite of what you mean (e.g., what Barbara Branden must have been doing in her post in this topic)?

Don

Hi, Don! I'm an old-timer, too, though I never made it to NYC to hang out with the Inner Circle before the 68 Split sent folks scurrying for cover and/or freedom. So, I continue to be somewhat of an "outsider" Objectivist, "independent" Objectivist, what have you.

In answer to your question, I'd say that the best ~phrase~ for saying the opposite of what you mean -- in the context of Barbara's post -- is "pulling your leg." You are now welcome to pull your socks back up to their original position.

Best,

REB, sexagenarian crank

[dongrimme]

Those who deeply admire Rand, but admit she did her own monkey-shines at times, see these as an unflattering quirk of a genius and nothing more. I fall into this category (as do many here on OL).

Michael

Micheal, I think you've nailed it. Count me into this category as well.

By the way, you are a wonderful host. Warm and patient with my naïveté. [FYI: There is no irony in that statement.]

Thanks!

Don

[Alfonso Jones]

Don -

Hopefully it's clear that the flurry I started with Brant about being summoned to Michael and Kat's living room is just us having fun here.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[dongrimme]

What is the word for saying the opposite of what you mean (e.g., what Barbara Branden must have been doing in her post in this topic)?

Don

Hi, Don! I'm an old-timer, too, though I never made it to NYC to hang out with the Inner Circle before the 68 Split sent folks scurrying for cover and/or freedom. So, I continue to be somewhat of an "outsider" Objectivist, "independent" Objectivist, what have you.

In answer to your question, I'd say that the best ~phrase~ for saying the opposite of what you mean -- in the context of Barbara's post -- is "pulling your leg." You are now welcome to pull your socks back up to their original position.

Best,

REB, sexagenarian crank

Roger,

Thank you for your warm welcome! Although watch who you call "old." If 60 is the new 40, I am only 42.

I also was not in NYC until the 70's. In fact, I didn't find out about the split until well after the fact. [between college and the army, my Objectivist subscription fell into a black hole.] A couple years later (after I was fired from my short-term job there), my exboss, Nathaniel Branden's sister (I forget her name), cancelled my subscription to the Ayn Rand Letter (she did refund payment).

Don

[Kat]

Hi Don,

It is nice to meet you. Welcome to Objectivist Living. I'd guess you'd say I'm a semi-Objectivist too as I certainly don't agree with the orthoOist views on things such as the war, art and music. I have my own views and my own tastes, and in my book, that is what individualism is all about.

I'm Kat, Michael's kitten. I generally stay pretty quiet and sit quietly on Michael's lap purring as he does the intellectual heavy lifting. Michael and I call ourselves renegade Objectivists. I hope you enjoy it here and find time to participate in the discussions.

Kat

[Barbara Branden]

Brant: "Wake up Barbara! Wake up! You're having an Internetmare!"

Phew! Thanks, Brant. It was an Intertnetmare.

Don: "I've not yet explored this forum sufficiently to grasp the background of some of the bantering (e.g., what is serious, what is teasing). And, never having met or corresponded with Barbara, I had to read her post a couple times to appreciate her sarcasm."

Sorry, Don, if I gave you some bad moments. Let me assure you that the whole of my post was intended as teasing. And let me join in welcoming you to Objectivist Living.

Barbara