RoR: Forum

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the answers.

Certainly the majority of out thoughts and actions, as adults, have been habituated; we really couldn't do anything much, from using language to driving a car if that were not so. But why would that be called "tacit?" What's the secret about it. All human habitual thoughts and actions are originally developed consciously, and we are always able to control them when we deem necessary (like checking our premises, as you suggested, or leaning to spell in new ways, like filosofy), if we really want to.

Metaphysical value judgments are core evaluations about oneself, and about one's relationship to reality and other people. These are concretized, according to Rand, in art.

Yes, your right, she did use that term. It's one that didn't stick, because I didn't like it. Still don't. I find the mixture of ethics and metaphysics conceptually jarring.

Emotional abstraction is, in Rand's words, the ability to classify things "according to the emotions they [e]voke." See her essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life."

Good grief! I don't recall that at all, and like it even less. After all the emphasis she puts on the fact the emotions are non-cognitive, what difference would the emotions a thing evokes make. Besides, things don't evoke emotions on their own, they only evoke emotions depending on what we think about them or the thoughts they evoke; our emotions are in response to our values and thoughts, not what we perceive. Two people seeing, or reading, or hearing the same thing will have completely different emotional experiences if their thoughts and values are different.

If two people see a snake, and one thinks they are all slimy and poisonous and the other thinks snakes are delightfully, beautiful, and interesting, the emotional reaction will be entirely different. Nothing can be classified, "according to the emotions they evoke, there is no way of knowing what they will be without knowing what an individual's thoughts and values are, unless Rand suddenly became a subjectivist.

(Do you know if she put this in context, like, "the kind of emotions that will be evoked in those who have this set of values? That would at least make it consistent.)

No wonder I'm not impressed with her aesthetics. I haven't read it much recently, but will have to go back and find the rest of her contradictions.

Thanks! Chris.

You never disappoint.

(I addressed you as Dr. to emphasize my respect. I feel perfectly free to call you whatever I like. You may not like what I call you next time. Count your blessings.)

Regi

Post 21

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 7:31pm

Reginald wrote,
�If two people see a snake, and one thinks they are all slimy and poisonous and the other thinks snakes are delightfully, beautiful, and interesting, the emotional reaction will be entirely different. Nothing�can be classified, "according to the emotions they evoke,� there is no way of knowing what they will be�without knowing what an individual's thoughts and values are, unless Rand suddenly became a subjectivist.

�(Do you know if she put this in context, like, "the kind of emotions that will be evoked in those who have this set of values? That would at least make it consistent.)�

Some of Rand's wilder statements can have the effect of overshadowing the significance of her views of the nature and purpose of art. She asserted, for example, that people of high self-esteem will respond with disgust or boredom to a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors and folk music, and that they will respond with admiration and exaltation to a heroic man, the skyline of New York, a sunlit landscape, pure colors, and ecstatic music. And, if I remember correctly, she claimed that visual clarity in paintings implies a healthy, active psycho-epistemology, while blurred images and non-representational paintings imply that an artist has (and/or advocates) an unfocused consciousness.

If such a brand of Romantic Realism is fundamental to Objectivist aesthetics, apparently all that a good Objectivist has to do is quickly glance at a few paintings to discover that Thomas Kinkade�s self-esteem is higher than Rembrandt�s was, and that Bob Ross� habitual methods of awareness were superior to Kandinsky�s.

Jonathan

Post 22

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:41pm

I just wanted to let everyone know about this fantastic posting technique I accidentally discovered while last passing comment in this article discussion section. What you do is not only fail to read the article being discussed before you post, but only read the first paragraph or so of the posts about it by everyone else. That way, you'll sometimes say in your own post that you hope it isn't off-topic even though it'll often be ever so on-topic, thereby giving the impression that you're an amazingly alert reader. And also, you might sometimes find yourself saying that someone should actually write an article about everything being discussed in this "article discussion" thread, which will make you look not just amazingly alert now but damn amazingly alert. Okay, so I didn't quite manage that latter feat in my last post, but I can certainly take credit for the former.

Now, the best way to ensure this happens is to not actually realize you're in the article discussion section to begin with when you post, which is easily achieved by first accessing the profile page of a random member while you're in whatever section you are before posting, and then clicking a previous post by this member, which takes you to the middle of some other thread altogether, wherein you do the same with another member again, and so on, until you're skipping back and forth through history like an intellectual skateboarder on heroin. And wherever you fall off the skateboard and damage your brain, read a fragment of every post and then post yourself. Then, later on, read the article that was being discussed by everyone, if the article section is where you ended up, and relish how amazingly harmonious your post somehow managed to be with the whole article and discussion, except for the advance apologies you added regarding topicality, which reveal you didn't really have a goddam clue what was central to the thread. It's such an admirable mixture. Try it out some time. It works fantastically.

Anyway, nice article, Linz. Very insightful. Although, due to my meager Objectivist vocabulary, or massive brain damage, I could only understand half of it. Perhaps I'll accidentally land back on the article in a few years and find that I understand the other half as well at that point, when I've upgraded from a skateboard to a surfboard, which works far better in cyberspace I hear.

-D

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 6/29, 5:44pm)

Post 23

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 3:51am

Actually, now that I've finally read an article in here, what's the deal with these things? Can anyone add them or what? I figure they first have to pass by someone's swear-word noticing eyes, or need to be Objectivism-oriented in some way, or at least the work of a select, designated few. I don't know. All I know is that I do have many ideas I could punch into my keyboard, and that they probably would be close to Objectivist thought if not exactly so. At the very least, they'd certainly be Libertarian. In fact, I still have, somewhere, in note form, a few ideas I wanted to flesh out into articles at one stage and submit to the Free Radical. Some might contradict what I believe now (I had these thoughts in my early 20's), but one thought, the only one I recall, is definitely still welcome. It has to do with the main reason people don't change their belief system when confronted with another. In my opinion, it comes down to emotion, to pleasure. Truth, even though most people claim to follow it, comes second in most cases. Peoples lust for whatever current view they have, which they're so used to that they can't see as a lust, influences their decision making. So, if you present them with a new way of thinking, a way of thinking that's different to the one that their current, unnoticed emotions are attached to, all they see is the raw reasoning of this new view, rather than the resultant emotional benefit it might bring them as well. When you tell them about wholly different social set-ups, they compare this state of affairs with what they currently believe in, but what they believe in carries pleasure, while the newer doesn't for them yet. And this leads to misjudgment and delusion on their part, because they think they're merely sizing up one thought process with another, rather than an emotion with an idea. Were they to feel the greater pleasure that better, newer outlooks would bring them, they'd become all giddy with excitement suddenly, and begin listening. But the problem is, such pleasure doesn't occur in a snap. It takes time. So, when trying to convert people, rather than just stating the facts to them, communication about emotion should also be included, because this is what drives people. You need to tell them that reality can be severely different in more ways than just intellectual outlook. And that's what one of my articles was about, in its jotted-down form. So, unless I'm too mystical or something for this forum, I'd be happy to add such thoughts in a fuller display sometime.

Post 24

Friday, July 16, 2004 - 1:53pm

as an artist, it was good that chris aptly spoke of Rand's essential four essays as the fundamentals of objectivist art... am well aware that there is a debate about whether or not these are truly fundamental and apply to all the art arenas, or just to literature... as an artist, I can assure you that it indeed CAN... and have taken that as my missive, so to speak, to clarifying that... there is, however, a parallel query being sought out, the issue of whether there is a difference between aesthetics and art, or are they interchangeable.. again, as an artist, I've come to the conclusion that, properly, aesthetics is the umbrella of beauty over the siblings of contemplation and utilitarian - art and craft... further, I would question whether Rand would disagree with that if it were clearly understood that beauty has nothing to do,properly, with mysticism, as so often it has been aligned with... and, as consequence, such arenas as photography and architecture are, properly, crafts, for all the aesthetics that may [or may not] appear within...

and I say all this as one of the 'old ones' ,tho not one from the 'inner circle', but one who met many of them in the sixties, and had the chance to independently evaluate her writings without the pressure of 'the power' that hung over those within the inner circle...

and I say it also as one who is a member of TOC and here, and not ARI, precisely because in this, my chosen field, there has always been a parth of interest in it, and have watched several of my fellow aesthetic creators fall by the wayside in utter fustration at the lack thereof... and the 'woe-betide' view of ARI to any independent thoughts on this matter...

but as for the rest - who, and why, should any one 'give a flying fart' over the sexual qualities of a person? her philosophy was for the HUMAN among us - period!! and those who are raising a stink, for or against, seem to have too much time on their hands and not enough to be thinking on - there are FAR more important matter to be concerned with...so let's get on with it, and quit counting angels on the heads of pins!!

Post 25

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 10:06am

Lindsay, hello. When I read Atlas, 25 years ago, my heart quickened and my face I am sure was flushed. Finally, in print was a philosophy for LIVING, that exhalted man and the possibilities of existence.

I felt connected, and alive for the first time in my life.

Finding SOLO some years back, and then rediscovering it this month in its new and sexier format, I feel much the same as I did discovering Rand. This particular article sums up, for me, my own evolution. An example was me going from reading Rand on Aristotle, to actually reading Aristotle; from having a somewhat Randroid perspective, a la ARI, to supporting TOC, and now, to visiting daily, SOLO HQ.

Thank you for this article, and thank you, for your energy, and your time.

John N

Post 26

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 4:09pm

Well done, John. :)

Welcome...and welcome back.

Post 27

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 8:50pm

John - you're very welcome. And thank *you* for taking the time to say "thank you."

Linz

Post 28

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:34am

Linz,

I am very glad this article was re-posted. I had not read it yet. It is always good to review basics from time to time. Your basic list of what Objectivism is in essentials defines it much better than most attempts I have seen (even, shock!, Ayn Rand's own standing-on-one-foot description).

I also read some of the comments. I hope this time around people will see it more as an affirmation of what SOLO is than as an indictment of ARI or TOC.

(Buzz buzz buzz. Does Linz prefer ARI or TOC? Buzz buzz buzz. False dichotomy. Not applicable. Linz prefers SOLO.)

I know it is always more fun to trounce than to build for most people, but your list of Objectivism essentials deserves more emphasis. Let me be one to say, "Bravo." I give more value to that list than to any argument against anyone.

You wrote something intriguing in the preface to the new version of your article, though:

SOLO has again been charged, just recently, with wanting to "rewrite" Objectivism by yet another ARI supporter who, notwithstanding his allegiance to that woeful repository of religiosity, rancour & rationalism, cannot seem to leave SOLOHQ alone!

I think I missed something. Who is this?

(There I go, wanting to trounce again, too...)

Michael

Post 29

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 10:54am

Darin,

You make an interesting point. There are 2 kinds of Objectivists both know that it is a valid worldview. The difference is that some embrace Objectivism out of guilt and some out of joy.

Linz,

Great article as always. I am happy you defend Chris.

I agree with Barbara that you do not disagree with Kelley about open, closed. You are both saying the same thing.

Post 30

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:31pm

MSK�you ask:

You wrote something intriguing in the preface to the new version of your article, though:

'SOLO has again been charged, just recently, with wanting to "rewrite" Objectivism by yet another ARI supporter who, notwithstanding his allegiance to that woeful repository of religiosity, rancour & rationalism, cannot seem to leave SOLOHQ alone!'

I think I missed something. Who is this?

That's not a new comment�it's part of the reprised article. Maybe *that* was a reprise also. And you know, I honestly can't remember to whom that comment refers. I initially thought maybe Regi, who certainly accused us of wanting to rewrite Objectivism, but he's not an ARI supporter as far as I know.

Thanks for the plaudits for the article. :-)

Linz

Post 31

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:40pm

Linz,

Dayaamm! I got tripped!

But I like your list so much that I want to re-post it here for those who have not read the article, but still read the posts. From your article (on the fundamentals of Objectivism - as you said, not an exhaustive list, but to me pretty damn close to being exhaustive as a summary):

- The reality of reality.
- The primacy of existence.
- The axiomatic status of existence, identity & consciousness.
- The laws of identity & causality.
- The validity of the senses.
- The efficacy of reason, including logic & concept-formation.
- Objectivity as opposed to intrinsicism or subjectivism, rationalism or empiricism.
- The reality of free will (the choice to focus & think).
- Freedom as an imperative of man's nature; the prohibition of the initiation of force.
- Individualism & rational self-interest as the appropriate ethics for man (entailing the repudiation of the traditional ethics of self-sacrifice).
- Capitalism/limited constitutional government as man's appropriate economic/political system.
- Art as a requirement of man's existence & Romantic Realism as his appropriate kind of art.

Michael

Post 32

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 3:43pm

Thanks Michael. But you left out the real fun part: the *real* reasons Sciabarra should be excommunicated! :-)

Post 33

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:45pm

A great article. This is exactly the kind of substantive, forward-looking, original content that is necessary for the progress and intellectual health of SOLO, in contrast to the repetitive (and thus trite) self-worship that has dismayed me recently.

There is a sample of everything in this important article, including a significant distinction and clarification on the definition of "closed system" and Peikovian inconsistency. There's also real humor, which has a way of exposing anal prudes, as the beggining of this discussion thread shows.

I look forward to more fresh material like this, new rather than reprised.

Alec
(Edited by Alec Mouhibian
on 8/26, 5:46pm)

Post 34

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:13pm

Why thank you, Master Mouhibian. Now that I'm an unemployed layabout, you may just get your wish. :-)

Linz

Post 35

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:43pm

Thanks Chris, Lindsay and others like you who have the incredible courage to not hide your sexual orientation. I hid mine for quite a while and suffered the consequences. Upon reading "The Fountainhead," I found my courage! It is a pleasure to participate in SOLO where I feel at home.

As to ARI's negative attitudes on homosexuality, what do they know about it? How much do they think they know about sex, anyway? Why do some enjoy rough sex, others sweet and gentle sex? Why do some of us prefer blondes and others redheads? Having been bi for quite some time now, what I don't know about sex could fill volumes -- and I introspect fairly well.

In one of my articles I paraphrased Rand's "judge ..." I should have added, "Judge carefully and only when appropriate." There is a valid criticism "you are judgmental." This applies, for example, to a person who makes a huge stink about someone's sexual orientation when it just doesn't matter. It applies to an ignorant objectivist who dismisses a fellow who is wearing an earring, the latter possible being a physicist, a composer, or a great potential friend.

Thanks Lindsay for your article and for re-posting it.

-Marty

Post 36

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:42pm

Some of my best friends wear ear-rings. It's the nose-rings I can't abide. :-)

Marty, have you bought SOLO's very own monograph by Chris, Ayn Rand, Homosexualty and Human Liberation? You can find it here:

http://solohq.com/Store/Author_0.shtml

As for a reminder as to why such a monograph was necessary, try this (barfbucket & incredulity tablets required):

http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles7/homo2.html

Linz :-)

Post 37

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 10:58pm

Pity the woman married to a homosexual who has renounced his homosexuality and convinced himself he is a heterosexual.

Since man is born "tabula rasa" (Objectivist doctrine) he chooses his sexual orientation? Let me see--"Son, you have come of age. What's is gonna be? Homo, hetero, bi, murderer, industrialist, dictator, composer, humanist, antidisestablishmentarian? Well, come on, kid. What is it? We have to go to the store!"

--Brant

Post 38

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 12:42am

I don't think questioning the orthodoxy that Homosexuality is exclusively biologically determined is intolerant or ridiculous.

I know of one very active Objectivst who lived in Toronto. He was a homosexual and an ARI supporter. He even defended ARI on many occasions when I was critical of their approach. I now think ARI, despite it's faults, is doing better work than TOC.

I'll place my experience of reality over Sciabarra's and Perigo's views. I've heard John Ridpath answer a question about Objectivism's view of homosexuality and in no way was it a condemnation of homosexuality. There are reasons to criticize ARI, and TOC for that matter (for different reasons), but the issue of homosexuality is so over-blown (pun intended) and not one of them.

(Edited by Wayne Simmons on 8/28, 12:44am)

Post 39

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:24am