Psychology and Objectivity

[tjohnson]

He did not take note of individual differences and even though "collective knowledge" says it's bad, if I found it beneficial to me regardless of whether it destroys my health.

You misunderstand David, the issue is not "do you have the right to eat unhealthy or smoke" - of course you do! The problem is that people are unaware of the health risks in many cases. Do you think most people would eat garbage or toxic chemicals on purpose? You may be suicidal but most people are not, I don't believe..

[Peter]

A psychologist or psychiatrist doesn’t write people off for having bad premises. They have empathy for people with mixed up minds. Unlike the fictional TV Doctor Gregory House, the psychologist should be able to diagnose without traumatizing, insulting, or disgusting the patient.

Which brings me to the TV psychologist, Doctor Phil. By having the patients diagnosed, ridiculed, and the solution dispensed in front of millions, isn’t he hurting the patients?

He may claim complete objectivity but do his methods contradict this?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, George. Are you still with us? And poor Newton, Mr. Contradiction. Thank God David wasn't around then or he would have been vaporized.

--Brant

Brant, why in the world would someone here try to "vaporize" another? I'm a bit confused, who vaporizes who? If by the victim, you meant me. I should not want to argue with Mr. Contradiction for my rational mind cannot win over his Zero sum mentality. If he was to be "vaporized" by me, I would choose not to because he'll probably do it to himself.

David,

Because of compartmentalization people are often irrational in one area and rational in another, usually in their work. We can call this self-victimization. They frequently team up with similar self-victimizers as in marriage and/or cults. This can easily last a lifetime and be passed on to the following generations, especially in religion. However you might characterize George's anarcho-capitalism or how many "victims" withdraw their sanction, he's no more going to self-destruct on that account than a rock.

This points out a fatal flaw in Rand's human cosmology: the separation of good and bad ("evil") into different people generally ignoring that because of free will the bifurcation--the capacity--is within each person, making it terribly difficult in reality to effectively withdraw sanction and let the impotence of evil do its job, much less accomplish what it did in Atlas Shrugged.

I find George's ideal political vision no more realistic than Ayn Rand's, but both are food for thought and should be treated that way. Peter's approach to George taken most broadly is essentially an ad hominem assault dressed up in supposed rationality which is why their dialogues keep breaking down as it reveals itself.

All of which begs the question of the nature of human beings and what people need for ethics and education and making a better world. That's my locus and why as an advocate of strictly delimited government I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion.

Lastly, George quite rationally would agree with me in the political realm it is desirable to move in the direction of more and more rationality and freedom over time and would be delighted to be living in such a world. Nothing wacko about that.

--Brant

Edited February 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[psychoanaleesis]

You misunderstand David, the issue is not "do you have the right to eat unhealthy or smoke" - of course you do! The problem is that people are unaware of the health risks in many cases. Do you think most people would eat garbage or toxic chemicals on purpose? You may be suicidal but most people are not, I don't believe..

So that all men here may know this much: I, am not replying nor do I ever intentionally go for a zero-sum.

I can never accept the premise that man is doomed to failure in grasping the reality around him or in any endeavor which he might pursue. If you cannot understand implications yet, I'll state it: I pointed that out to reiterate the fact that we always have choice and the best choices come first hand and by mean hand, your senses through perception.

As to what I think of people eating garbage deliberately... I do not know. I hope not but it is his choice. Ask them, ask them all at the same time and get all their replies at the same time. Tell me how that works out. You go to the masses for support and you believe that there is a common good. Meanwhile, I can only answer for myself which is... No. I'd never sacrifice my bodily integrity. Consuming cheese products?yes. Plastic? no. A Mcd's burger? yes, sometimes. bottle of bleach? no. Cigs? rarely, a good stick will be wasted on me though. It's that simple.

However, because biologically speaking, the human body in its carbonized form is decomposing as s and to live is to take a reasonable amount of risk, then, I will do so indeed live. Take for example, breathing - yes even that can go down to a choice, I'd rather breathe with what I have now than say, don't breathe at all - because the air is full of various gasses some of which is or potentially is bad for you but of course the lack of the same gasses will kill you and faster. By the way, Here's the composition of air based on scientific sudy.

"People are unaware of the health risks in many cases." Did you mean to say unaware of every possible factual data or not aware at all? If what you are talking about is the latter, then how would you make him aware if he was not to begin with?

You don't believe..? What power does your belief hold over others? Answer: nil.

Edited February 24, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

David,

Because of compartmentalization people are often irrational in one area and rational in another, usually in their work. We can call this self-victimization. They frequently team up with similar self-victimizers as in marriage and/or cults. This can easily last a lifetime and be passed on to the following generations, especially in religion. However you might characterize George's anarcho-capitalism or how many "victims" withdraw their sanction, he's no more going to self-destruct on that account than a rock.

This points out a fatal flaw in Rand's human cosmology: the separation of good and bad ("evil") into different people generally ignoring that because of free will the bifurcation--the capacity--is within each person, making it terribly difficult in reality to effectively withdraw sanction and let the impotence of evil do its job, much less accomplish what it did in Atlas Shrugged.

I find George's ideal political vision no more realistic than Ayn Rand's, but both are food for thought and should be treated that way. Peter's approach to George taken most broadly is essentially an ad hominem assault dressed up in supposed rationality which is why their dialogues keep breaking down as it reveals itself.

All of which begs the question of the nature of human beings and what people need for ethics and education and making a better world. That's my locus and why as an advocate of strictly delimited government I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion.

Lastly, George quite rationally would agree with me in the political realm it is desirable to move in the direction of more and more rationality and freedom over time and would be delighted to be living in such a world. Nothing wacko about that.

--Brant

Brant:

That gave me goosebumps. You left me with more questions than what I asked for when you quoted me.

Meanwhile, here is a fatal flaw in your thinking:"...I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion. "

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

That gave me goosebumps. You left me with more questions than what I asked for when you quoted me.

Meanwhile, here is a fatal flaw in your thinking:"...I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion. "

I wouldn't engage Ayn Rand either. I don't imagine Utopia except as a very transient and unstable place, should such ever be achieved. We need bad to keep the muscles of the good toned up. It's not that we therefore make bad to get good, it's that bad or the potential for bad is always there regardless.

--Brant

Edited February 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

However you might characterize George's anarcho-capitalism, he's no more going to self-destruct on that account than a rock . . . Meanwhile, here is a fatal flaw in your thinking:"...I never engage George on the issue of his anarchy for you can't actually get there from here. At least that's my opinion.

End quote

Agreed, Brant. That’s why I was not speaking particularly about him, nor to him. I am trying to bring an Objective microscope to *their* psychology without psychologizing *someone.*

Their “macho lemmings march to the sea of insanity” intrigues me.

The steps to going over the cliff:

From living in America,

to the Government is growing and someday it will be *inevitably grown* in an Orwellian fashion,

to there should be no government.

From living *well* in America,

to hoping for or helping with the collapse of its government,

to being on their own.

From History,

to Rand,

to Anarchy,

All manufactured from whole cloth while history has NO RECORD OF A PLANNED RATIONAL ANARCHISTIC CIVILIZATION, and Rand’s scathing disdain for its advocates!

By being on their own, I mean, protecting yourself, your family and keeping the streets you walk and drive on safe, fighting to get people to interpret contracts as you read them, fighting for food and a livelihood, worrying about food safety, helplessly watching someone abuse their wife, kids, or dog, protecting yourself from foreign invaders, etc.

I ask myself, who would willingly give up living in the greatest country ever to have existed, to live in A PLANNED Somalia, outlaw Mexico, or Russia (which, by many accounts, on the local level, is mafia run?) I am a capable human being, but I sure as hell don’t want to live a short, brutish life. Do you know how much work that would be, just staying alive? Imagine the daily dangers. I can’t point to one current or past Anarchic Utopia that tops the good old USA, and other civilized countries.

So, who is so sure of themselves, that they will risk it all, so that they may act on their every whim? Nihilistic Nietzschean Supermen: Rational Anarchists.

Another side of the psychological coin is how many women will willingly pick Anarchy over Constitutional Government? Most people and especially women want surety, more than they want to exercise their “Will.” They always have. It is theirs’ and our nature. They won’t willingly go to a battleground state of wills.

I have known one female Anarchist. Or so she said. Nope, it wasn’t a gun totin’ Sarah Palin. So, when we are talking about Rational Anarchists, we are talking about a bunch of macho, willful men. All alone. No women. Just men. Wanting to dominate, struggle, conquer and reign supreme. On top. Over other men.

If they are not consciously Nietzscheans or consciously wanting to live with few women, it is because they are blinded by faith. When you understand the enormity of what they want, and the enormity of their empty fraud, then you once again understand the wisdom of Hobbes’, and Rand’s definitions of Anarchy.

Oh well, I had offered this topic/idea to JARS but it does not look like they will tackle it.

Maybe Binswanger will. Now he would hook them up to electrodes, put them in sensory deprivation Skinner Boxes, water-board them, and discover the truth of their wicked, wicked ways 8-)

Nah. I’m not that mean.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Christopher]

David,

Unfortunately you are not yet aware of NB's assertion that man cannot know his values without knowing his deepest emotions. As an organism, I can subconsciously value living with others. The emotional experience is pleasure. NB would assert that the emotional experience is indicative of my valuation regardless of my cognitive assertion. However, I may arbitrarily decide consciously to continue pursuing or not pursuing life with others, and taking the reverse action to my arbitrary decision would be considered self-sacrificial but equally arbitrary.

In the case of a man choosing a career over marriage, his choice and conscious priorities do not fully constitute his value hierarchy. To understand his values and his value hierarchy, he must be aware of himself. In other words, he must be accuratey aware of his experience to his job versus his experience to his marriage along the full spectrum of his being. Repression, evasion, and suppression are forces that act to prevent such awareness. If this man chooses a job over marriage thinking that a marriage would constitute self-sacrifice, he may well be wrong. That is the point. To the degree he does not know himself, he does not know his values (regardless of what he thinks). To the degree he does not know his emotions, he does not know himself. Man as an organism is not a floating disembodied analytical mind, regardless of how much anyone believes otherwise.

Before continuing this discussion, you would do well to read NB's Disowned Self. You place too much emphasis on cognition, failing to recognize that cognition does not necessarily imply self-awareness. OL is a wonderful place to learn.

Christopher

[psychoanaleesis]

A psychologist or psychiatrist doesn’t write people off for having bad premises. They have empathy for people with mixed up minds. Unlike the fictional TV Doctor Gregory House, the psychologist should be able to diagnose without traumatizing, insulting, or disgusting the patient.

Which brings me to the TV psychologist, Doctor Phil. By having the patients diagnosed, ridiculed, and the solution dispensed in front of millions, isn’t he hurting the patients?

He may claim complete objectivity but do his methods contradict this?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter,

True, but it's actually not that they have empathy but rather they should have developed it - as professionals. I and my colleagues actually did a bit of research towards delineating empathy and sympathy where I think you confused the two. Empathy being defined by characteristics of being able to take a similar perspective with another person but is able to see other points of view to which he (as therapist) could help the patient understand and resolve an issue. Sympathy meanwhile states that one person has the same feeling and perspective which in a way, diminishes the effectiveness of a therapy since there will be a phenomenon called as counter-transference where both therapists and clients become emotionally entangled where objectivity is blurred. Basically, you are feeling for the patient instead of feeling with him.

Nonetheless, the effectiveness and methods are determined by which kind of therapy the practitioner subscribes to. In summation, most people have sympathy but empathy is an acquired skill.

For people with "mixed up minds", as a student of psychology, I don't recommend this approach since one may very well be dragged into another person's delusions a.k.a a potential Folie a'deux (Shared psychosis) although the chances of this happening is quite rare as far as the case studies I've read show.

As far as I know, if a patient/client asks for their professional services then, the shrink and the patient would have at least a verbal agreement between him and his patients or his legal guardians in cases of incapacity. There has to be a "therapeutic alliance", an understanding between doctor and patient as to where the sessions might or should lead and what areas can the practitioner delve into with him. If the therapy involves "writing off" someone as in an active-directive approach like in Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy of Albert Ellis where the practitioner questions and teaches the clients on taking a rational perspective of dealing with clients. A mentor of mine once even shared that when he witnessed this technique done by an expert, the therapist even shouts at his client for upholding irrational beliefs in the way he sees his adversities thereby warping his behavior. (If I have misunderstood the whole process of REBT, kindly enlighten me.)

As for Dr. Phil, I cannot say, try asking his patients if they do feel insulted and whether the good doctor asked their consent to perform it in front of millions. If his methods work in line with scientific findings or facts, then my hypothesis is that he was being objective. You may be able to ask him and he should be able to point out which variables he was able to identify and reasoned with.

As long as a psychologist/psychiatrist or any professional is giving his personally biased -non professional- opinions, and as long as he does not invoke the words, "As a 'pro'..." then I do see nothing (legally) wrong in writing other people off or even writing other people off in general to prevent irrational or aberrant influences from entering one's mind. What I mean to say is in the lines of: evil triumphs if the good does nothing at all to defeat it or stay away from it.

Edited February 25, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

Christopher,

Thank you for sharing that with me. I did not mean to imply that man's mind is an entirely separate entity from his body but rather ideally, it should always be consistent with the body and vice-versa. However, I am thinking along the lines of 'to the degree where he knows himself' instead of which he does not know. Of course, I take into consideration the fact that one may not be acutely aware of everything but that he must choose which among his values are in question.

One's emotions is still a product of one's mind -his only faculty of knowing. Emotions are subject to perception regardless of whether one can make full sense of it or not. Like for example, the levels of serotonin in the body is related to feelings of being elated or 'happy' but it does not actually describe how 'happy' a person is, as it is only correlated to it. If what you have been saying is in or somewhere along this line, then I'd agree.

Where does the Self actually lie? Isn't it possible that a man could either be just wrong or right with his decisions as long as he's happy about it? Who should care about it if not his selfish self?

Wise words I've read somewhere before (taken in the context of martial arts) says that a strong man does not doubt before he makes a choice. There's good intuition for you. I'd like to think of it as man's ability to be consistent in everything and not to imply that he move recklessly and regret his choice afterward but that he weigh his options confidently and courageously and as honestly as he can.

I should like to read NB's books or ideas for that matter although currently, I think I do not have the means of acquiring one (although I can actually avail of the means but personal biases in mind prevent me from intending or doing so) and since its value for now (among my literary choices) is below par. I know that he is popular here and in other subject matters but by nature as man, we have to choose or actually choose to choose.

OL truly is a great place to learn because one can present his ideas and be able to spar equally with others without reservations.

[psychoanaleesis]

I wouldn't engage Ayn Rand either. I don't imagine Utopia except as a very transient and unstable place, should such ever be achieved. We need bad to keep the muscles of the good toned up. It's not that we therefore make bad to get good, it's that bad or the potential for bad is always there regardless.

--Brant

Of course, the potential is always there but we should always keep that "bad" in place. That is, never use force unless in self-defense. There can be no private property for an anarchist since they'll always be the one to initiate the use of force once it becomes clear that their claims are denied. You never engage anyone anyway (unless perhaps there is a pragmatic reward) If that is your kind of Utopia, then you are an agent of chaos.

To quote Ms. Rand on her interview with Playboy magazine, 1964 (emphasis mine):

PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?

RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?

[Selene]

David:

There can be no private property for an anarchist since they'll always be the one to initiate the use of force once it becomes clear that their claims are denied

You should join one of the threads on anarchism.

I think your assertion above is challengeable.

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

David:

There can be no private property for an anarchist since they'll always be the one to initiate the use of force once it becomes clear that their claims are denied

You should join one of the threads on anarchism.

I think your assertion above is challengeable.

Adam

Of course it's open to challenge but I know exactly where that endeavor will be going. In anarchy - total anarchy, who's to say who owns what? Who's to stop a gang from taking what is mine? My gun? Is that what everything will be reduced to? I do not want to obliterate others as I do not want them to obliterate me. Gives me the creeps. I don't want to live in lawlessness where even the laws of nature are brushed aside.

Join the thread? I'm just going to have a look instead. Oh, wait, where is that? Could you please place link to that?

Edited February 25, 2010 by David Lee

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't engage Ayn Rand either. I don't imagine Utopia except as a very transient and unstable place, should such ever be achieved. We need bad to keep the muscles of the good toned up. It's not that we therefore make bad to get good, it's that bad or the potential for bad is always there regardless.

--Brant

Of course, the potential is always there but we should always keep that "bad" in place. That is, never use force unless in self-defense. There can be no private property for an anarchist since they'll always be the one to initiate the use of force once it becomes clear that their claims are denied. You never engage anyone anyway (unless perhaps there is a pragmatic reward) If that is your kind of Utopia, then you are an agent of chaos.

To quote Ms. Rand on her interview with Playboy magazine, 1964 (emphasis mine):

PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?

RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?

She did in AS. It was called Galt's Gultch with the rest implied.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

[

She did in AS. It was called Galt's Gultch with the rest implied.

--Brant

Galt's gulch or simply the gulch was not a utopia, it was a haven for the heroes from the havoc wreaking collectivists that were out to victimize those who still kept the flame of man burning. Sure, it was great but then, why did the heroes did come out of there in the end of the story? It is because a mere isolated place would not suffice for man. They sought to create a state where reason is the standard. Not purely good but rather a place where man is free to do anything within the bounds of his rights. Furthermore in detail, they even have Judge Naragansett on call to settle disputes - which because of rational standards has not yet happened.

Edited February 25, 2010 by David Lee

[Peter]

The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. -- Glaser and Way

David wrote to Brant:

. . . You never engage anyone anyway (unless perhaps there is a pragmatic reward) If that (*anarchy*) is your kind of Utopia, then you are an agent of chaos.

end quote

David, you are very perceptive. You could have been writing to me. After I posted that last letter on Anarchy responding to Brant, I said to myself, “I feel at peace. Mystery solved. The mental state of the Rational Anarchist was the final chapter in my quest.” If I do discuss Anarchy with anyone else (and I may not) it won’t be from a position of bewilderment. And what would be the reward?

David wrote:

To quote Ms. Rand on her interview with Playboy magazine, 1964 (emphasis mine):

PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?

RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?

End quote

What else has to be discussed, Ayn?

Ah, David is playing the Doctor. Taken out of context, that absolutist statement could be interpreted as an endorsement of Anarchism and big “ell” Libertarianism, both doctrines she loathed.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Brant wrote to David:

She did in AS. It was called Galt's Gulch with the rest implied.

End quote

David responded:

Galt's gulch or simply the gulch was not a utopia, it was a haven for the heroes from the havoc wreaking collectivists that were out to victimize those who still kept the flame of man burning. Sure, it was great but then, why did the heroes did come out of there in the end of the story? It is because a mere isolated place would not suffice for man. They sought to create a state where reason is the standard. Not purely good but rather a place where man is free to do anything within the bounds of his rights. Furthermore in detail, they even have Judge Naragansett on call to settle disputes - which because of rational standards has not yet happened.

End quote

From Atlas Shrugged:

"We're not a state here, not a society of any kind--we're just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man's self-interest." --Atlas Shrugged, p. 690 (35th Anniverery paperback edition).

Paraphrasing PT Galt’s correspondence to the old Atlantis site:

What systems did Galt’s Gulch possess?

Private arbitration (Judge Narraganset),

Private coining of currency (Midas Mulligan),

Foreign policy and defense (John Galt)

And it had a Laissez Faire style of a free economy.

That will cost you a gold nickel.

PT Galt also wrote in the same letter:

Of course Galt’s Gulch wasn't exactly realistic, in that such complete harmony among people, even those with above-average rationality and explicit commitment thereto, is pretty close to impossible. The Objectivist movement itself has demonstrated this empirically. Nonetheless, it represents Rand's ideal environment in which humans live together and engage in production and trade--and it was anarcho-capitalist in all but name.

End quote

Now that last sentence I do not agree with, since there has never been an anarcho-capitalist society, and never will be. Even a primitive, interim Anarchist society would not harbor Laissez Faire Capitalism, simply because Anarchy has no way to create a *civilization* because there is not way to insure multi-generational contracts. I don’t even combine the two word concepts in my thinking.

Bryan Caplan, Department of Economics at Princeton University wrote to the old Atlantis site, OWL, about competing defense agencies:

“First, a defense firm is really selling an insurance policy, a policy to defend the rights of their clients IF they are wronged. If word gets out that the firm abandons its clients when they come to demand the help they are entitled to, their insurance policy will be basically worthless. In essence, firms would want to protect clients even though the expected value of their case is negative, because otherwise their name brand would be seriously hurt. The second reason why the rich would have trouble securing unequal justice comes from the incentives of the rich person's firm. In insurance economics, there is a concept known as "adverse selection." This means that unless an insurer properly screens its customers, the most likely people to buy insurance are those who are most likely to demand benefits. For example, chronically sick people are most likely to buy health insurance, high-risk drivers are most likely (other things held constant) to buy auto insurance, and so on. But if most people buying insurance come from high-risk groups, then their premiums would have to be extremely high. Now what would happen if a defense firm acquired a reputation for defending wealthy clients to the death? It would face an adverse selection problem of the worst sort. Every criminally inclined wealthy person would want to sign up. The firm would have to pay out huge payoffs, either in the form of settlements to other firms, or to pay the cost of fighting wars with every honest firm. The cost of the policy would have to rise almost to the level of the cost of the crimes. However wealthy a client might be, there is a huge deterrent against accepting him as a customer regardless of his criminal behavior. In contrast, honest firms could sell very cheap policies, because the large majority of their clients would never require the services. This is just a standard application of insurance economics, which tells us that the firms that adequately monitor their clients can offer cheap premiums, even if benefits are high, since the probability of payout is low. Firms that indiscriminately defended wealthy criminals, in contrast, would have to charge very high premiums, since the probability of payout is high. Finally, since the number of honest people of ordinary means far exceeds the number of wealth criminals, the total number of trained police on the side of justice would vastly outnumber the number on the side of criminals.

End quote

To be fair I should mention that Professor Caplan went on to say, bizarrely enough, that, and I paraphrase:

One) An incentive system of free-market anarchism would be better able to control the problem of wealthy criminals than government.

Two) Political Philosophers need not assume everyone under anarchism is good. For any level of goodness, the incentives of anarchism are better than for Constitutional Government.

The reason I use the word “bizarrely” is because there is no anarchism. It is just something in someone’s noggin. And if it did exist he would still be wrong.

I have heard of pet insurance. Ayn Rand could be Objectivity Insurance. And for the bonus round, is there such a thing as psychological insurance?

Regarding Professor Caplan’s quote I forgot to mention my explicit reason for the quote:

Two) Political Philosophers need not assume everyone under anarchism is good. For any level of goodness, the incentives of anarchism are better than for Constitutional Government.

End quote

I wanted to show one of the best defenses of Anarchistic competing defense agencies that I have found, to see how an Objectivist and psychologist would handle that argument. His idea of defense insurance was quite ingenious, and purports to prove that the evil rich would prosper more under government than under Anarchism.

Innumerable counter examples could be shown, such as Columbia, and that Philosophical Anarchism does not exist, of course. But see the level of intellectual argument presented to defend *no referent in reality.* Bizarre!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited February 25, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

[

She did in AS. It was called Galt's Gultch with the rest implied.

--Brant

Galt's gulch or simply the gulch was not a utopia, it was a haven for the heroes from the havoc wreaking collectivists that were out to victimize those who still kept the flame of man burning. Sure, it was great but then, why did the heroes did come out of there in the end of the story? It is because a mere isolated place would not suffice for man. They sought to create a state where reason is the standard. Not purely good but rather a place where man is free to do anything within the bounds of his rights. Furthermore in detail, they even have Judge Naragansett on call to settle disputes - which because of rational standards has not yet happened.

It was a schematic for one plus more than the mere implication that it could be exported out to society at large. That's the ethics/politics. It is reflective also of the idea of the perfectibility of man. That's what Naziism and communism were all about too. For the last two it was congruent with their totalitarian philosophies. For Objectivism on the philosophical/psychological level it is in blatant contradiction to a philosophy of individualism which explains a lot of the nuttiness and insularity of Orthodox Objectivist culture going back even before the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Human being has always been and will always be a messy business.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

Okay, I think we're drifting off the main thread here but I should like to pursue to this... can MSK move this or someone else to another thread where this thing falls? I'm thinking somewhere in Politics? but I don't know yet if this was discussed before. Thanks!

Ha ha ha. Peter, thank you, for that compliment and also to that description i.e. I had some vague notion of what you meant by 'Playing Doctor' but I had to look it up. Well, taken from its origins, yes, I do admit to still having (and I'm quite not sure of giving it up) a "child-like" curiosity and in this sense, I have not yet matured. As you may have noticed, I'm still a rookie here (OL) but in this - what I perceive to be- a battle not of men but of philosophies i.e. The classic Aristotle v. Plato, I had my share of experience.

You were indeed correct in surmising that I was playing doctor but I am also biased to place high regard for Rand's words (at least in that quote) for as far I've known her works, she has stated her principle of (objectivist-rationalist man) so blatantly clearly and consistently that I cannot ignore her movement.

Suffice to say, I did not take it out of context, I placed the emphasis merely to refute and again I did the idea that Rand was creating social and political perfection or a perfectly homogeneous and harmonious society. No, she did have opinions but I cannot say that she is off creating schematics, she discusses principles which encompasses everything else in human activity or relations.

After where I emphasized, she stated that she is against the initiation of the use of force where in of course, private individuals are free to - but ideally not experts in. We seek to mind our own business and not worry about extraneous threats to our well-being and thus, the need for a government with objective laws. This is, as opposed to Anarchism where laws and government is overthrown exactly through the use thereof (Frankly, I've never seen or heard of anarchy that was done without bloodshed or looting of private property) or Libertarianism where anyone is yes, free to express anything even if it is slander or outright lies, essentially howling lunatics.

Since laissez-faire does not harbor equality but trade (in every sense of the word), Rand is correct in what she said about not building utopias. In a rational state which I think is ideal and achievable, you are still free to pursue whatever -ism you want to subscribe in and practice it to the best or worst that you can for that matter.

On a more personal note, should anyone like to take at least a glimpse of this trend, come (intellectually) to this country. Seriously, revolting.

P.S. Again, the term Rational Anarchists is a contradiction. Reason would entail logic and anarchy to disorder. How could anyone be logical and disorganized at the same time? Either - or my friends.

Edited February 26, 2010 by David Lee

[Peter]

David wrote:

Well, taken from its origins, yes, I do admit to still having (and I'm quite not sure of giving it up) a "child-like" curiosity and in this sense, I have not yet matured.

end quote

David, I honestly did not mean it in the Child-Like sense, though I hope you do retain it. It did NOT occur to me. Rather I was thinking that you might be providing therapy to individuals while arguing a point, kind of like working psychotherapeutic voodoo on a person without their knowledge.

I agree with your label of oxymoron for Rational Anarchist, but it is someone's title (I think his name is something like Gordo Humpty Smythe) to distinguish themselves from unintentional anarchists. I will not dwell on it, here on this thread, or from now on, on any thread. Can you beat five “on’s ” in one sentence?

David wrote about his country’s multicultural “isms”:

On a more personal note, should anyone like to take at least a glimpse of this trend, come (intellectually) to this country. Seriously, revolting.

end quote

I have never been to the Philippines, though in that general region I have lived in Hawaii, Japan, and Free Korea. My Dad liked Subic Bay, The Philippines a lot. I remember the depiction of your country from the movie, “An Officer and a Gentleman,” where it seemed all Philippinos knew some type of hand to hand combat, and beat up a young Richard Gere. I may travel there intellectually as you suggest, for my own safety.

I worked with an immigrant from the Philippines in Hawaii. He despised two Samoans who worked at the same place. He would pretend to stuff his mouth with bananas like an ape to make fun of them. The massive Samoans avoided him like the plague, whereas they would try to bully others.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[psychoanaleesis]

Peter,

On playing doctor: Oh, that? Yeah, I still long to lose that habit. It's part of me being stubbornly persuasive- dare I say optimistic as well?- that I occasionally fall into the enemy's trap of actively consenting to their arguments. On a positive note, I learn. As a student of psychology, I, of course do want the full knowledge and consent of people before I give them advice or help. Wait! What specific set of words where I was playing doctor? I relied on my understanding.

In my response (in whole), I was pointing to the basic concretes to refute his statement of the gulch being implicitly a utopia. If it was implied, I was thinking: then let it be expressed! Sadly, but not regrettably, reason and facts as - I said as Rand said as an Objectivist will agree - will not work on the irrational.

I did say I am not working for a zero-sum nor will I ever will, I addressed... Me for my own sake and for those who will listen/look. That is, I just re-affirmed my stand and my self.

On anarchism: Distinguish themselves? They are embodiments of contradictions through and through! Anarchists are a disorganized lump much like malignant tumor; All mutated/different variants of the same bs. Don't dwell on it. Good point. Maybe because I rarely encounter that kind of Toohey before.

Ah! I would like to correct myself since I have not made it clear or rather, an errata in paragraph placement: the trend in this country to which I speak of is both Anarchy and Libertarianism. Anarchy for the zombified masses, Libertarianism for those obnoxious elitist bastards. I would not take part in their charade. Here, you are not free to choose your -isms, your parents or society does it for you. Thanks to certain men of reason who raised me, I retained my reason and most of my integrity and am now here in OL. ;) ;)

On the Philippines: Yes, this is a great place - geographically speaking. Much to build upon but dry in opportunity. Hand to hand combat? Gee, that could refer to a lot. I'll give you a few that existed at that time and the sport that it closely resembles for reference: "Bak-bakan" (Boxing/Street Fighting), "Sikaran" (Taekwondo), "Arnis-sinawali" (Fencing).

I see the glaring error in both the Phillie and the Samoans story. Sure, he avoided being bullied but he made a fool of himself in the process. That's a common behavior and a predominant mentality here. Kill yourself before you get killed by others. Morons.

Edited February 26, 2010 by David Lee