About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 100

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I like your idea of common ground.

I just submitted my rebuttal of Linz's article where I clarify the hard-sell/soft-sell thing (both are needed - and I even like the spectrum that the idea "common ground" implies between these two poles), but let me state one small issue here where something is creeping in.

Most hardworking religious people I have met in reality do not swallow religious principles whole - apparently the ones Stephen mentioned are very devout so they are more fundamentalists (or more true to the letter of the religious principle). Most people I have encountered adapt a principle like "turn the other cheek" to mean "not retaliate in kind against aggression" on a tactical level, to be used selectively. As I stated in my story, they say you have to "interpret" the Bible. Almost all the productive religious people I have met say that.

You have stated twice now that my purpose is to trick people into Objectivsm. That is not my purpose. I suppose you could do it dishonestly, but who on earth would? I don't know of anybody.
Just because there are some similarities between the actions done for a religious principle and the actions done by Objectivist heroes in Rand's fiction, but for a completely different purpose, I don't know why using that as a subject to break the ice and get the conversation going is necessarily dishonest. The honesty - the "tricking" - would depend greatly on the presentation. Don't you think?

A person who is already "interpreting" a principle is pretty much open to hearing another "interpretation." Where is the dishonesty or tricking?

I believe that my tactic is a good approach for these people, at least to introduce them to the ideas.

That tactic, though, like all tactics, is to be used for a strategy. It can be employed or discarded as needed.

Michael


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 101

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz - and anyone else who misinterpreted my sanction of MSK's article:

My sanction does not imply agreement. My personal reaction to those who write what I already think is not much different from boredom, except for the rare case when the position in backed by arguments and facts that I didn't yet know about. That happens so seldom that I don't often sanction articles I agree with. Same thing with Andy P or Robert D: their errors are so old and familiar they bore me. On the other hand...

A cogent argument with which I disagree, but which does not bend to counterarguments that I already know, is an occasion of great intellectual pleasure, and a rare opportunity to use the word "fucking" accurately. To examine my position in the light of new insights gives me a new perspective, a new way to solve problems, sometimes even an opportunity to correct one of the remaining (and after this many years, usually minor) errors in my previous position.

I should make it clear that I did not give much thought, while reading MSK's article, to his ideas about the supposed utility of appeasing believers. I have no interest in converting anyone stupid enough or dishonest enough to hold religious beliefs in the first place, whatever their other virtues might be. I do, however, look for effective tactics for dealing with the stupid and dishonest in everyday life. And MSK's radical take on "turning the other cheek," not as a "Christian virtue" but as a reality-based tactic, is a brilliant insight I had an immediate use for.

There are many real-life contexts in which the obscurantist, the altruist, the collectivist will be very effectively undone by their own evils and errors. Letting them defeat themselves, by overextending their errors until their contradictions are manifest, and their evil defeats their own evil designs, at the cost of a mere appearance of yielding, is brilliant and effective: just look up "Russian Winter." Only I would not have called it "turning the other cheek," because I know enough about Jesus' context to understand that he absolutely, positively did NOT mean it that way. I'd call it, perhaps, "The Law of Non-Contradiction As a Weapon." Or "Automated Justice." Or maybe, "The Way of the Lazy Hero." If the other guy has some reason and some honesty left in him, he will stop before he totally destroys himself. Otherwise, just let the Russian Winter do its work.

Anyway, Linz, my way is to pick the gold and not get overly concerned about the lint. MSK's tactical insight worked very effectively in the situation I applied it to. The pleasure of seeing it work is on its way to becoming, in my mind, an inspiring memory. I can only repeat what I said when MSK's insight hit me like a shot of twenty-year-old Armagnac: Brilliant, just fucking brilliant!


(Edited by Adam Reed
on 10/27, 1:19am)


Post 102

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You can find real common ground.  Not necessarily with their christian beliefs, but most people have a wider implicit belief system than what they learn in the Bible.  Most people can understand why killing someone is bad without having to say "The bible says so".  But also don't just tell them that they're wrong.  Provide an alternative.  Sometimes people believe something because they didn't realize there was an alternative.  And don't try to sneak one by them.  Clarity and reason are on our side.
Bingo, Joe.  I wish I had put it as well.

Andy


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 103

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My sanction does not imply agreement.
Brilliant, just fucking brilliant!



Post 104

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It means he got off on it on some level. I don't know about Adam, but I value that. You don't have to agree with an article to sanction it... Right? Huh?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 105

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I want to make a correction to your thinking. You wrote:
I should make it clear that I did not give much thought, while reading MSK's article, to his ideas about the supposed utility of appeasing believers.
You didn't have to give much thought to that. It wasn't in the article. That was Linz's oversimplification - then the idea sort of got planted in the discussions.

Sort of like the 14 year old thing. I never said I was 14 years old when the story I wrote about happened (but it was around that time). Still, people started writing as if that were something I wrote. The old gossip-line routine.

My idea was to find a non-hostile manner of talking to believers about philosophy. Merely a common ground to break the ice for going on to other issues.

That's a far cry from appeasement. And thank you very much for your appraisal. After some of our online hostility, that was fucking big of you.

And it means a lot to me.

Michael


Post 106

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

I think you do if you are going to call it brilliant.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 107

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK said: "Do you want to change the world? Then learn how to talk to people in a manner that they can understand. Rand did it."

Yes, AR's writing style was clear, crisp, and structured. The style of "To Turn or Not to Turn" was anything but that. It was a vague, meandering piece. It seemed like a series of disintegrated thoughts poured out on paper (or on screen). That's not a "conversational" style; it's a "stream-of-consciousness" style. Anyone can read The Art of Nonfiction and find out what AR thought of that.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Nah. Stay on the ideas you don't like, not the style. You will do a lot better.

(Unsolicited suggestion for learning: Read some James Joyce and discover what "stream of consciousness" writing means, then go to Post 97 on this thread and look up my outline for the article and see, in addition to the style, the structure.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/27, 11:50am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 109

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps a list can be confused as being an outline... or vice versa...

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 110

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anyone can read The Art of Nonfiction and find out what AR thought of that.
 
So much easier than reading Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and especially not Ulysses. Perish the thought.

And stay off the Emerson, too. Small mind. Mom said.

rde
Mom said tap-dancing is OK, it has developmental potential.



(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/27, 1:48pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 111

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will "do a lot better" in what way?

I'v been a journalist and a copyeditor for a large publisher, so I think I can comment on writing style. I've also carefully read AR's The Art of Nonfiction, and your article was not in keeping with it, as evidenced by the fact that several intelligent SOLOists struggled to grasp exactly what you were trying to say.

Generally, I prefer to discuss the content of an article and not the form. But if you're going to write a tortuous piece like that last one and then blithely say "It is really hard to write simply and clearly. Try it sometime," I'll make an exception.



Post 112

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
""It is really hard to write simply and clearly."

There is a famous Thomas Jefferson quote. He wrote someone a very long-winded letter. He apologized at the end: "This would have been shorter if I had had more time."

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 113

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

I don't know your work, but if you identify my style of writing as stream of consciousness, then you are wrong. Period.

If that is indicative of your own work, then I am not interested.

Michael


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 114

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK, my point was that your piece was very unfocused, not that it was exactly like James Joyce. And it's cool if you're not interested in my work. I'll go on.

Rich, what the heck are you even doing here?? I've been following some topics on SOLO for a while, but I haven't read one post of yours that displayed any grasp of Objectivism whatsoever. And your earlier post about being a "tough guy" just made me feel pity for you. I think you might be standing too close to your amplifier when you play guitar; it's scrambling your mind. 


Post 115

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Jon, that's it, you've found me out- I stand in front of a big amp, and sear myself with it. .

I  have no burden to pass your Objectivism litmus test. But, to clarify, over the last 25 years, I've read virtually everything AR ever wrote, down to all the old Objectivist newsletters I could get my hands on.

Sorry I don't fit your mold properly! :)  


Post 116

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew Bissell:
     Slap...SLAP...SLAP !!!
 
LLAP
J:D



Post 117

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 1:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You were misunderstood because you wrote your article in terms that were open to misunderstanding. There have been times when I spent some effort to try to disambiguate everything you wrote in an article, and failed. Now I use what is obviously useful, and give compliments where due; the parts that you leave open to misunderstanding I just pass over.

Linz is taking a reasonable step: if what you write can be reasonably interpreted as dissent from the principles of SOLO, then either you remove the ambiguities, or it goes on the dissent board. I don't care where the good parts are posted; whatever you do, or don't do, is your business.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 118

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 9:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Emerson


Post 119

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Yeah, Ciro --- man, I know just exactly how they felt.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.