Introduction and a bit of an explanation of my ideas

[ChuhuaZhu]

This is pretty much a reproduction of my blog post over at Sense of Life Objectivists, with some additional information interpolated.

First of all, I'll reproduce my "biography". It was written to sound exactly like something you'd read on the inside of a book cover, so it was written third person.

Chu-hua Zhū was born to Chinese-American parents in southern Oregon, where she attended private secondary and primary schools. During early high school she encountered the works of Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard and Friedrich Nietzsche and found instant resonance with her strong but until then inchoate individualist and meritocratic views. Through high school she continued to read many authors critical of the mainstream self-sacrificial and collectivist ideologies, such as Thomas Szasz and Murray Rothbard. She became a strong proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and individual liberty, to the point of anarchism.

Though she has a number of disagreements with the philosophy and organizations of Ayn Rand, she still largely considers herself an Objectivist and also practices Dianetics.

After highschool she attended the University of Oregon and achieved a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Economics. She presently lives in Oregon and works at a luxury automobile dealership.

I agree with most of Objectivism, such as an logic, self-interest, the harmony of rightly-understood interests, the degrading effects of altruism and collectivism both on the individual and civilization, and the ability of humans to know their world by using reason to examine experience. I am a staunch advocate laissez-faire capitalism, to the point of anarchism. This is one of (but not all of) my problem with the Ayn Rand Institute, which I think has basically become a shill for NeoCon war mongering.

I think Rand was conceited and sometimes lamentably confused rationalization of her pet interests with actual rationality, but despite her personal failings I would unhesitatingly recommend her to someone interested in philosophy or pulp fiction.

I am an atheist, but I am also a FreeZone Scientologist, as I believe the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard expressed in Dianetics and The Way to Happiness are compatible and complementary to reason and individualism. Indeed, Hubbard sometimes outdoes Rand, though in general he was nowhere near as consistent (or interested in) an advocacy of laissez-faire. However, just as the case with the ARI, I think the Church of Scientology has essentially perverted Hubbard's ideas. I find their use of intellectual property and libel lawsuits to attack their detractors to be entirely immoral.

Just as with Rand I do not hold the LRH was infallible of the apex of philosophy, and believe that there is much Objectivism and Dianetics can gain from one another, as well as from further developments in the fields of applied philosophy. Presently I am interested in exploring NeoTech, among other things.

One point which rages among libertarians and Objectivists these days is intellectual property. I simply do not think it is right to tell another man what he can do with his own property just because you thought of it first. We'd all be paying royalties to the inventor of the wheel if we went by that reasoning. I think that intellectual property is nothing but a state-created monopoly, a violation of individual rights which positively requires an interventionist State to enforce. In economic terms I also think it is highly counter-productive, for praxeological and empirical reasons.

As you might be able to tell, I am an advocate of Austrian economics as advanced by Mises and Rothbard. Despite some philosophical differences with these two thinkers I believe they were quite simply the greatest economists of the 20th century, and having their books to read is the only thing that kept me going through the awful pseudo-economics I encountered at the University.

I am, through reading Thomas Szasz and L. Ron Hubbard, extremely opposed to compulsory psychiatric treatments and the stigmatizing myth of 'mental illness'. I am also critical of Rand and Branden's views on psychiatry, the former took a somewhat dictatorial and unrealistic approach (all psychological difficulties stem from ideological confusions, an example of her foundationalist error) and I think Branden's self-esteem psychology is lacking in both content and applicability. That being said I have no personal animus against Branden.

That pretty much covers the outline, and let me just say 'Hello' to everyone.

[Selene]

Welcome to OL Ms. Zhu.

I know that you will enjoy the discussions and arguments that will flow from your clear enunciation of your positions.

I am interested, if you do not mind sharing, how were you treated at the university philosophy department as you expressed your ideas?

Additionally, were your parents or grandparents from mainland China or Taiwan?

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Welcome to OL. That’s a funny picture you picked for your avatar, where’s it from? It looks like it could be a Harry Potter character.

I don’t think you’ll find much respect for Scientology among Rand fans, but you might want to seek out stuff by Monica Pignotti, she’s a former Scientologist and therapist who admires Rand and Branden. From my first hand reading I concluded very early that it was nonsense.

NeoTech had a reputation as a pyramid scheme, they used to flood Objectivist discussion groups with spam back in the mid-90’s, I thought they’d long since gone away. Just so you’re warned.

You regard Rand’s novels as “pulp fiction”? What do you regard as serious, quality literature?

[PDS]

The picture is obviously of one Ebeneezer Scrooge. Perhaps a metaphor?

Edited December 15, 2010 by PDS

[ChuhuaZhu]

That’s a funny picture you picked for your avatar, where’s it from? It looks like it could be a Harry Potter character.

As PDS points out, it's Ebeneezer Scrooge. I like him because despite Dickens' attempt to paint him as a bad guy, he comes out seeming like a decent, upstanding guy; if a bit surly.

I don’t think you’ll find much respect for Scientology among Rand fans, but you might want to seek out stuff by Monica Pignotti, she’s a former Scientologist and therapist who admires Rand and Branden.

I'll look into it.

NeoTech had a reputation as a pyramid scheme, they used to flood Objectivist discussion groups with spam back in the mid-90’s, I thought they’d long since gone away. Just so you’re warned.

Right, and I wasn't planning on paying for it. I was interested in seeing if there was anything valid to it, I have a couple of friends on the Internet who say there is good advice despite it being poorly written.

You regard Rand’s novels as “pulp fiction”? What do you regard as serious, quality literature?

I don't use the term 'pulp fiction' as to distinguish it from good fiction, I would say that pulp is America's prime contribution to literature. Roots in Poe and the Three Museketeers, going on to H.P. Lovecraft and Conan the Barbarian and finally the modern American comic book it tends to integrate many strongly American tropes: confident, competent individuals taking a stand against a world which is either confused or villainous, positive views of initiative and science, the belief that man can improve himself through understanding and dedication, and that in the end the only thing good has to do to win is not to surrender to evil because it is inherently superior and correct. Doc Savage, despite some of his altruistic tropes, is a prime example of this.

Atlas Shrugged, especially, with its megamillionaires rationalistic geniuses, shale oil, cloaking device, perpetual energy machine, supermetal and so on, not to mention death rays pretty well fits into the pulp genre, even if it is a bit more overtly philosophical than most pulp stories are (then again, pulp stories do often have a fairly strong philosophy behind them, even if it's not entirely without internal contradictions).

Additionally, were your parents or grandparents from mainland China or Taiwan?

All from mainland China (SE specifically). My mother is 3rd Gen-American and my father is 2nd Gen-American.

As far as how my philosophy was received while working on my degree, I mostly wrote on rather 'academic' topics such as ontology, and though I did criticize philosophers who I felt were wrong (when we had to write on certain subjects or intellectual figures) I never really got any flak. Economics (my minor) was MUCH worse.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Chu-hua Zhū

[BaalChatzaf]

That's a funny picture you picked for your avatar, where's it from? It looks like it could be a Harry Potter character.

As PDS points out, it's Ebeneezer Scrooge. I like him because despite Dickens' attempt to paint him as a bad guy, he comes out seeming like a decent, upstanding guy; if a bit surly.

The fact the Scrooge did not fire Bob Cratchett outright indicates that he was rational, if not nice. Cratchett did the work that Scrooge required and Scrooge paid him the agreed upon wage. Scrooge may have been a bit of a workaholic and more than a tad insensitive, but he was not evil.

Scrooge was put in a bad light by his creator Charles Dickens who was a bit of a pinko stinko liberal and worse still, a sticky gooey sentimentalist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[ChuhuaZhu]

Scrooge was put in a bad light by his creator Charles Dickens who was a bit of a pinko stinko liberal and worse still, a sticky gooey sentimentalist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In defense of Dickens, though he had altruistic ethics and was under the sway of Christian mysticism, he never had any redistributive/interventionist schemes in mind. He thought people should be charitable voluntarily.

[BaalChatzaf]

Scrooge was put in a bad light by his creator Charles Dickens who was a bit of a pinko stinko liberal and worse still, a sticky gooey sentimentalist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In defense of Dickens, though he had altruistic ethics and was under the sway of Christian mysticism, he never had any redistributive/interventionist schemes in mind. He thought people should be charitable voluntarily.

Indeed. Dickens had not become a Statist.

I happen to believe in voluntary helpfulness and giving, primarily based on reason and rational self interest. One of the things I do, now that I am retired, is to record books for blind and dyslexic folk. I do it for two main reasons:

1. Someday I may become blind (perish the thought!) and I cannot see asking for help unless I have given it. I believe in Trade.

2. I record mostly math, physics and engineering text books and treatises. That is quite an intellectual challenge (I will spare you the details here), so doing the job well requires forethought and artistry. Since I am a mathematician by trade I get to share the benefits of my ability and experience with people who could put the information I record to good use.

Like HAL in -2001- I believe it is good to do useful things.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[ChuhuaZhu]

Indeed. Dickens had not become a Statist.

I happen to believe in voluntary helpfulness and giving, primarily based on reason and rational self interest. One of the things I do, now that I am retired, is to record books for blind and dyslexic folk. I do it for two main reasons:

1. Someday I may become blind (perish the thought!) and I cannot see asking for help unless I have given it. I believe in Trade.

2. I record mostly math, physics and engineering text books and treatises. That is quite an intellectual challenge (I will spare you the details here), so doing the job well requires forethought and artistry. Since I am a mathematician by trade I get to share the benefits of my ability and experience with people who could put the information I record to good use.

Like HAL in -2001- I believe it is good to do useful things.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't mind helping people I know or institutions whose contributions I value (such as the LvMI). However, I think charitable institutions have inherent problems in that they are not profit-maximizing and can't tell if they're doing any good except by the most hazy and questionable methods; and most of the money tends to get eaten up in overhead. I think that producing economically calculable goods in the market place is a better method, since it decreases the costs overall for innovation and increases opportunities for people to make themselves productive.

[BaalChatzaf]

Indeed. Dickens had not become a Statist.

I happen to believe in voluntary helpfulness and giving, primarily based on reason and rational self interest. One of the things I do, now that I am retired, is to record books for blind and dyslexic folk. I do it for two main reasons:

1. Someday I may become blind (perish the thought!) and I cannot see asking for help unless I have given it. I believe in Trade.

2. I record mostly math, physics and engineering text books and treatises. That is quite an intellectual challenge (I will spare you the details here), so doing the job well requires forethought and artistry. Since I am a mathematician by trade I get to share the benefits of my ability and experience with people who could put the information I record to good use.

Like HAL in -2001- I believe it is good to do useful things.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't mind helping people I know or institutions whose contributions I value (such as the LvMI). However, I think charitable institutions have inherent problems in that they are not profit-maximizing and can't tell if they're doing any good except by the most hazy and questionable methods; and most of the money tends to get eaten up in overhead. I think that producing economically calculable goods in the market place is a better method, since it decreases the costs overall for innovation and increases opportunities for people to make themselves productive.

Maximizing monetary profit is not necessarily congruent to magnifying one's values. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not. I believe in extending one's better values to the world. It promotes a constructive social ambiance, and if you believe in the Karma of honest trade good stuff out may bring good or better stuff in. Cast your bread upon the Waters and reap the harvest seven fold. I surely do not object to pursuing honest gain in honest business but sometimes that produces a narrow way of looking at things. Since I am no longer in the race to wealth (I am retired and I have sufficient for my needs), I can maximize my "profit" in a non-monetary coin, so to speak.

One does what one can do and what one wishes to do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[ChuhuaZhu]

Maximizing monetary profit is not necessarily congruent to magnifying one's values. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not.

Right, but it's the only way to have any idea in regards to general subjective preferences and relative scarcity. When you help someone you know or give money to FEE it's a consumption expenditure, it's not an investment in social improvements in capital allocation. I use 'social' here to mean interpersonal organization, not the reified or collective sense.

Of course for any individual it is his psychic profit and not his monetary profit that he is after. Monetary profit is just a means to the end of psychic profit.

[George H. Smith]

This is pretty much a reproduction of my blog post over at Sense of Life Objectivists, with some additional information interpolated.

Welcome to OL. The atmosphere here is much more conducive to independent thinking than you will find on SOLO. What kind of reception did you get over there?

Ghs

[ChuhuaZhu]

Welcome to OL. The atmosphere here is much more conducive to independent thinking than you will find on SOLO. What kind of reception did you get over there?

Ghs

From a couple of folks, great. From the Randroids, not so much. Anarchists are evil and all that.

By the way, I am a huge fan of your work Mr. Smith. Atheism: The Case Against God is not only terrific on its subject, but it's a fantastic general work on epistemology, ontology and logic. I have been half-heartedly trying for a few years to find a way to contact you. Just my luck you respond to my introductory post!

[George H. Smith]

Welcome to OL. The atmosphere here is much more conducive to independent thinking than you will find on SOLO. What kind of reception did you get over there?

Ghs

From a couple of folks, great. From the Randroids, not so much. Anarchists are evil and all that.

By the way, I am a huge fan of your work Mr. Smith. Atheism: The Case Against God is not only terrific on its subject, but it's a fantastic general work on epistemology, ontology and logic. I have been half-heartedly trying for a few years to find a way to contact you. Just my luck you respond to my introductory post!

Thanks.

I've been involved in a number of debates on anarchism since I became active again on OL last February. This post, the first part of an unpublished essay, may interest you.

In addition, this article was compiled from some posts I contributed to a debate on anarchism on Old Atlantis in 1997.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chu-hua Zhū,

Welcome to OL.

I am glad to see you getting on well here.

I saw some of your posts on Solo Passion, so I feel I need to make a comment.

OL is a site for discussing ideas (as you have been doing so far), not for hate speech.

If you are in doubt, please consult the posting guidelines.

As for the rest, once again, welcome.

You will find quite a variety of highly intelligent thinkers here.

Not one of them agree on anything... (just joking...)

btw - What do you prefer to be called? Also, how did Oregon end up in Vancouver?

Michael

[ChuhuaZhu]

btw - What do you prefer to be called? Also, how did Oregon end up in Vancouver?

Michael

I forgot to change the text in my bio . I moved up here to work at a Mercedes dealership, across the water from Portland. I lived in south/central Oregon before that. Thanks for pointing this out.

I've been involved in a number of debates on anarchism since I became active again on OL last February. This post, the first part of an unpublished essay, may interest you.

In addition, this article was compiled from some posts I contributed to a debate on anarchism on Old Atlantis in 1997.

Thanks for the links, Mr. Smith.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Chu-hua Zhū

[sbeaulieu]

Welcome to OL!

I find it interesting that you have a liking for LRH. I find that man to be quite novel in his approach to Dianetics.

That man had some great accomplishsments. Scientology was something I looked into a while back where I seemed to have some of the same questions he did regarding religion (prior to concluding that no god existed). In my diggings, some of the findings were a bit quirky. But I admired his charge to seeking what was wrong with all the other religions in not finding complete spiritual enlightenment.

I've only read a few things on Dianetics... my greatest takeaway was his advice on reading, that if you didn't understand the meaning of a word, further reading would be confusing, as you would be mentally distracted on that misunderstood word. I applied this to my teaching, telling my students that if you didn't understand a particular subject, you'd be stuck and progression would be difficult. In other words, if they had questions, ask them to fully understand the subject.

I also loved his book, Battlefield Earth (movie sucked!). I really liked how he got everyone to pull together, for reasons that were beneficial to the individual, with far-reaching benefits to society.

Anyway...again, welcome!

~ Shane

[bmacwilliam]

Welcome to OL!

I find it interesting that you have a liking for LRH. I find that man to be quite novel in his approach to Dianetics.

That man had some great accomplishsments.

"The organization [the Church of Scientology] clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements."

- Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., in his October 16, 1994 ruling against the Church of Scientology in the case of the Church of Scientology of California vs. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C 420153

[ChuhuaZhu]

You're taking the word of an judge from the Supreme Injustice arm of the People's Republic of California? What do you think he would say of Ayn Rand?

Anyways, whatever personal failings LRH may have had, and as problematic as the Church of Scientology can be at times, this is pretty irrelevant to the practical philosophy of Dianetics.

[bmacwilliam]

You're taking the word of an judge from the Supreme Injustice arm of the People's Republic of California? What do you think he would say of Ayn Rand?

Anyways, whatever personal failings LRH may have had, and as problematic as the Church of Scientology can be at times, this is pretty irrelevant to the practical philosophy of Dianetics.

Wow, twice in one day...

[George H. Smith]

You're taking the word of an judge from the Supreme Injustice arm of the People's Republic of California? What do you think he would say of Ayn Rand?

Anyways, whatever personal failings LRH may have had, and as problematic as the Church of Scientology can be at times, this is pretty irrelevant to the practical philosophy of Dianetics.

Wow, twice in one day...

[Cuckoo clock video deleted]

Jeeez...Why don't you give the woman a chance to stretch her arms a little on OL first before you nail them to a cross? She does have interests other than Scientology, you know.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chu-hua Zhū,

In the past, I have read up on Scientology. It sure has a colorful history and existence.

Despite the myths it is founded on (and to me, the thetan idea--for one example--is no more extravagant than Judeo-Christian myths), it does have an extremely useful anti-drug-abuse program: Narconon.

As Scientology has a poor reputation in the media, Scientology bashers tend to bash Narconon also. They claim that the Church is preying on vulnerable people in order to form future cult members. But from the non-partisan things I have read about it and the Narconon literature I have read, in my judgment, it is a very good program for helping addicts.

I speak as a former addict.

Michael

[ChuhuaZhu]

As Scientology has a poor reputation in the media, Scientology bashers tend to bash Narconon also. They claim that the Church is preying on vulnerable people in order to form future cult members. But from the non-partisan things I have read about it and the Narconon literature I have read, in my judgment, it is a very good program for helping addicts.

The procedures of Narconon are only a specific application of Dianetics, which were quite useful to me when I had some substance abuse problems in high school.

That aside, it does have a good record as far as addiction counseling and recovery centers go.

[sbeaulieu]

As Scientology has a poor reputation in the media, Scientology bashers tend to bash Narconon also. They claim that the Church is preying on vulnerable people in order to form future cult members. But from the non-partisan things I have read about it and the Narconon literature I have read, in my judgment, it is a very good program for helping addicts.

The procedures of Narconon are only a specific application of Dianetics, which were quite useful to me when I had some substance abuse problems in high school.

That aside, it does have a good record as far as addiction counseling and recovery centers go.

I specifically liked that he could address all psychological ailments so long as they weren't organic in nature.

~ Shane

[ChuhuaZhu]

I have not participated in forum/chat/blogs since late high school, basically because I found interacting with people on the internet to be pointless, and the interaction generally just tended to piss me off. About a week back online, spurred on only because I stare at a computer screen all day at work, has reminded me exactly why I stopped.

I won't be coming here again.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Chu-hua Zhū