RoR: Forum

Michael, the gist of your article here seems to be that your detractors were somehow claiming, on the cognitive level, that Ayn Rand's heroes, in these various instances, were not "deciding against retaliation in kind." I think you missed their point.

Yes, on the purely "cognitive" (I believe a more appropriate word would be "metaphysical") level, Francisco literally "turns the other cheek." But evaluating that action, especially in light of the generally-accepted connotation of "turning one's cheek," requires that one move almost immediately into the realm of the normative. Indeed, one of Rand's key insights here was that the normative and cognitive realms are not nearly as discrete as they are generally believed to be ("so much for the is-ought gap," and all that jazz).

No one was arguing that Francisco literally did not turn the other cheek; they argued that, given his motivations and reasons for not striking Rearden in return, it was inappropriate to apply that phrase to his actions, loaded as it is with Christian and altruist baggage. In short, I don't see how any of the posters you mention somehow short-cutted past the cognitive stage in their discussion of those events from Rand's fiction.

Post 1

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 5:40am

Andrew,

You just wrote:

Michael, the gist of your article here seems to be that your detractors were somehow claiming...

I would not write a post on my own article so early, but you certainly did not get the gist of my article.

It is not about my detractors at all.

It is about objective truth and how that truth gets blinded by an overuse of jingoes and catchphrases. The process I wrote about is rampant in many things Objectivism-wise, going from rights, to ethics to the examples from my previous article.

You also wrote:

Yes, on the purely "cognitive" (I believe a more appropriate word would be "metaphysical") level...

Could you please explain to me what the difference is you mean? The cognitive exists to identify the metaphysical. The normative exists to judge it. I was talking about the psycho-epistemological process of identifying reality, so how would using a philosophical category, and not an epistemological category be "more appropriate?"

You may not see how people "short-cutted" the cognitive stage, but you, yourself are certainly admitting that these acts of Rand's heroes exist on a cognitive level with a great deal of reluctance.

That is exactly what my article is about. That kind of reluctance.

Michael

Edit - The article initially went up with an addition to the original title. I edited it back to the original.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/04, 5:58am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/04, 6:09am)

Post 2

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 7:10am

MSK: It is about objective truth and how that truth gets blinded by an overuse of jingoes and catchphrases. The process I wrote about is rampant in many things Objectivism-wise, going from rights, to ethics to the examples from my previous article.

This is interesting turf. I know you are also thinking about Robert B.'s writing about "stylized behavior", but I didn't want to go into it and ruin the skank that was that thread.

There's two things that I wonder if you have already brought into consideration in this. One would be the idea of automated functions (as it is looked at in our epistemology, and was developed further by Branden). I think what you wrote above involves this. One way of looking at it might involve awareness of the advantages/disadvantages of system-building. Systems always have limitations (think like Bruce Lee did when he wrote on combat, the Jeet Kune Do concept; "Using no way as way"). Along that line, that's about as far as I thought it out this morning.

The other one is that, what it seems to be about to me is what in my world we would call "grace". Grace is not a core virtue, I think, it is a more developed thing that serves core virtues.

Just my .02. I enjoyed the article, because you are going after something. I do not view it as some kind of defense in reference to other happenings hereabouts- I know that you are more about pursuing ideas than putting spin on things.

best,
rde

Post 3

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 8:32am

"To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Post 4

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 8:35am

MSK,

I understood exactly what you meant the first time and I still disagree with it. The problem is precisely because the normative concept of "turn the other cheek" would mean something different between Objectivists and Christians. It is not an attempt to find "common ground" at all. It's a deceptive stalking-horse.

On the other hand, if you wanted to explain to a Christian why "turning the other cheek," as properly understood by the Christian, is a bad idea then by all means go for it. Other than that I see no need to borrow this piece of religious language for something that could simply be normatively catagorized as "not dignifying the attack," or some such thing.

Eddie

Post 5

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 10:30am

I think I will keep an closer eye on this one this time to make sure that people are discussing what I actually wrote, and not attributing me with what I did not write.

Rich - You got the gist of what I was talking about perfectly with "automated functions" in epistemology. Specifically the integration of the cognitive into the normative. What is intriguing to me is when the normative is used so much and in such a manner that it causes a cognitive "blank-out."

Robert D - I couldn't agree with you more. Check premises. That is precisely what I am writing about.

Ed W - Your post is typical of what I want to keep an eye on. I did not write an article about how to approach religious people, although I did mention it. I wrote an article on cognitive blindness caused by... er... let's call it excessive zeal in dealing with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Her philosophy is a system of principles, not rules or jingoes. It requires thought. That means correctly identifying facts (reality), then evaluating them - not the contrary.

You mentioned that you disagreed with me, but then agreed with me that Christians and Objectivists hold very different normative concepts for the same acts. Strange.

Then you tried to "detour" the focus to a discussion of how to talk to religious people about Objectivism. I think I made it pretty clear, when I did cover this matter in the article, that you can use this approach or not. Just as you are free to even talk to religious people or not. As a secondary and minor issue, I think this approach is good for breaking the ice and I have been successful in using it. You don't. So don't use it.

If you are really interested in what I was saying (which I doubt), my article is about psycho-epistemology, not the politics of persuasion.

Michael

Post 6

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 12:06pm

MSK-

We could discuss it further, and maybe we're both going to be amateur armchair psychologists when we do so. We could be looking at cognitive psychology at this point, for instance. There are a lot of studies that relate to this coming from many fronts.

What do you think about, hell, what I'd call a compromise, in terms of operant strategy. Meaning, automated functions exist whether or not we are involved with their making or not, they will still form, and so on. That being said, that it would be good to temper that automation with situational awareness. To be mindful, and in the moment.

To cultivate both, all the time, of course, but with the lead being awareness. Then, it can be tempered. This is all old and simple stuff, I suppose. I guess it comes down to what you run with every day. What you run with will determine the actions you take. I said over and over baby and bathwater but it didn't come across all that well.

I know that most people cannot sit still without an associative thought crossing their mind within under a half-minute or so. That interests me.

It also interests me that the epistemological model we use here is top-down, meaning, brain, emotions, body, more or less. I find that to be limited. NB got it to a certain extent, where he countered the "emotions are not tools of cognition" statement by gently saying, yes, that is so, but they contain valuable information and that needs to be checked out. From there, you could look at Dr. Daniel Golman's work (e.g. Emotional Intelligence, Working With Emotional Intelligence, and so on).

In studying the (gasp) work of Gurdjieff (which will lead to Ken Wilber, which will lead to a firefight), I find there is a case to be made for alignment of intellectual, emotional, and physical centers. In other words, emotions are tools of cognition, as is the body, we are simply not familiar with them.

See, it goes to dark waters, and sword-fights. People cling to things, whether they be knowledge or otherwise. Man plans, God smiles. :) Reality is a harsh mistress...

best,
rde

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/04, 12:11pm)

Post 7

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 11:40pm

I must make a protest. The very minimum respect paid to any author is with respect to the title of his work. This article has the title "Understanding Is and Ought."

It was changed to "Understanding Is and Ought - a Personal View" without consulting me and without my consent.

I changed it back to the original and then I just saw that it was changed back to the wrong title again. Once again I have changed it back. And now it must bear the wrong title by editorial decision.

On another article of mine, Linz extended me the courtesy of asking my approval for a title change, which I granted.

I cannot condone this kind of arbitrary modification of my work.

Truth is not personal. It is universal. I am being attributed with ideas that are not mine. I highly resent that.

I also find it strange that since my ideas cannot be refuted, they must be mischaracterized. Solo is supposed to be better than that.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/04, 11:42pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/05, 12:26am)

Post 8

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 1:04am

Michael—It was I who insisted on the title change, & it was I who insisted that it be reinstated after you unilaterally deleted it. After the "cheek-turning" debacle, & given your purveying of the arbitrary on another thread, & in light of your stated intention to write an article saying that rights are "social conventions," I'm not prepared to have it appear that SOLO endorses your views as representing Objectivism. We're not shutting you up, just making it clear that you speak for yourself, not SOLO. Your ideas remain intact, exactly as you presented them. I can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that, but if you do, remember you're under no obligation to present your views here at all.

Linz

Post 9

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 1:37am

Linz,

In order not to be further mischaracterized, a few points:

1. I do not purvey the arbitrary on the other thread, merely point out a misuse of the term "evidence."

2. I have already explained what "convention" means in a private e-mail to you, and you know what that is. Stating it the way you do makes it sound like something it is not. Trying to attribute wrong things to me has started to become a quite habit recently.

3. Where on earth does it say in my original title that I represent Objectivism? Objectivism is not even mentioned in my original title.

4. My real beef is that the title was changed without my knowledge and it does not represent my views.

5. I have always made it clear that I speak for myself.

6. Nonetheless, I maintain a great deal of gratitude for what is being done here on Solo.

btw - One question. Is there anything in the present article that conflicts with Objectivism?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/05, 2:19am)

Post 10

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 6:09am

MSK,

I also find it strange that since my ideas cannot be refuted, they must be mischaracterized.

Clearly you consider yourself a great intellect, most here do not agree.

First, your ideas have been refuted over and over again. It is your befuddlement/stubborness that prevents you from recognizing it. I gently tried to tell you that in Post #3, unfortunately it requires a sledge hammer which I don't have an interest in wielding.

Second, how are your 'ideas' being mischaracterized by adding ' a personal view'? Is this article not your personal view or do you presume to speak ex cathedra for all Objectivists everywhere?

Post 11

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 8:37am

Linz,

You might have also pointed out that publishers have never recognized an author's entitlement to title his work, especially in the magazine world which this site is most akin to. MSK is unreasonably throwing a fit over SOLO's refusal to buck convention.

Andy

Post 12

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 9:43am

MSK wrote:

"3. Where on earth does it say in my original title that I represent Objectivism? Objectivism is not even mentioned in my original title."

Look above the article title to the webpage banner. It reads SOLO - Sense of life Objectivists.

A publisher has the right to point out where they stand on the views expressed in an article they publish. And if you don't like that then you are at liberty to publish it somewhere else. Get used to that! It is a given in every profession that puts text on pages.

It has even happened to me. An article we wrote was recently rejected by PNAS because an experiment we performed wasn't appropriate - in their expert opinion - for the hypothesis we presented. The conclusion: Stiff shit!
It doesn't matter that 10 years of work went into the paper and that bar that one experiment, everything else was perfect. PNAS reserves the right (correctly) to maintain a strict standard on the quality of work that gets presented under their banner. So we have two choices, support our hypothesis with a better experiment or take our wares elsewhere.

In your case, the owners of SOLO have chosen to add three simple words to your title rather than add a legalese paragraph or disperse comments throughout the text thus: [you're getting your knickers in a twist over standard editorial practice - Ed]

Post 13

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 10:48am

Robert D,

I normally do not engage you because I do not consider you as an "idea" person. Despite a nice article once in a while about some remote political affair like Audubon Society assets, too many of your posts descend to mere name-calling.

I see you as one who normally values making a splash over discussing ideas. As evidence, I merely need to see when you arrived with your boneheaded Don Quixote attack against Mario Lanza, all the way up to your recent behavior in defending intelligent design. I normally don't like "fuck you" type arguments because they go nowhere. (I have been guilty at times, however, and I now make efforts to resist this.)

Still, you are entitled to your completely wrong opinion of me, but I do beg to differ that you speak for most on Solo. You might speak for some. But were you elected or appointed by the majority and I missed that somewhere?

Robert W,

Good point about editors and taken under consideration. To be fair, I was given the choice, either use that title or delete the article. I chose not to delete the article and I stated my agreement to his property rights in a private e-mail to Linz.

As you are more objective than most in your comments, I will give you what I don't like about that addition. My article is mostly what I would call a "cognitive" article, merely identifying and defining what already exists based on Rand's own definitions. There is not all that much normative in it to get personal over.

I would have vastly preferred another kind of qualification, if separating my thought from Solo thought was so important. I doubt that I will reprint it anywhere (I intend to take the core idea - how misuse of normative thinking leads to cognitive "blank out" - and transform this into a much larger work), but if I ever do, I will remove the words I did not write.

So, to be clear, I withdraw any insinuation that Linz acted incorrectly in his own house, with due apologies for any such insinuations made, and I would like to clarify that I do not like the title change that was made for technical reasons. I wish I had been consulted first so I could come up with a better one.

Now, any thoughts on any of the ideas presented in the article? So far the ideas have not been discussed.

Michael

Post 14

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 10:17am

Frisco blew a man's head off who was trying to kill Hank. Or was it two men? (It was a wonder Hank didn't get tinnitus.:-)) I DON'T THINK AYN RAND EVER TURNED THE OTHER CHEEK. Much less her heroes. Turning the other cheek sanctions the existence of evil.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 11/05, 12:14pm)

Post 15

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 11:31am

"Cognitive concepts" is a redundancy. A normative concept is in a subcategory of concepts.

Rand's heroes didn't retaliate when there was no need to. Gratuitous retaliation would have sanctioned the existence of the retaliated and compounded the first offense.

--Brant

Post 16

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 12:28pm

"I would have vastly preferred another kind of qualification, if separating my thought from Solo thought was so important. I doubt that I will reprint it anywhere (I intend to take the core idea - how misuse of normative thinking leads to cognitive "blank out" - and transform this into a much larger work), but if I ever do, I will remove the words I did not write.

So, to be clear, I withdraw any insinuation that Linz acted incorrectly in his own house"

What you have just experienced Michael is the give-and-take of a collaborative effort to produce something. You have the article but nowhere to publish it and SOLO has the publishing house but (of late) very little to publish.

Congratulations both of you have succeeded in voluntary produced something through your collective effort. Unfortunately, that normally involves compromises from both sides. Now, it might be argued that the negotiations could have been handled better and yielded a result that would have given you more satisfaction, but not being party to them I won't & can't comment. In fact, I would argue that that is something that you should take up privately with Andrew and Lindsay!

If for nothing else than your public expression of dissatisfaction at the editing of your article is deflecting the discussion away from the ideas presented in the article and that is what you desire is it not?

"Now, any thoughts on any of the ideas presented in the article? So far the ideas have not been discussed."

'Fraid not, not yet anyway. I'm a bit busy figuring out how to identify and determine the quantity of particular gene products in Tumor cells with the tools Kansas University has at hand. I don't mean to belittle your effort, I merely want to point out that you that the absence of an argument isn't a personal snub or a signal that your argument represents a trump-hand. It probably means that on this cool Autumn Saturday afternoon, people have more important things on their minds. Have patience! Arguments will come; assuming Jerry Springer doesn't hijack the forums again that is.

Now my tea has brewed it's back to my tryptic-peptides...

TTFN

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 11/05, 12:30pm)

Post 17

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 1:21pm

Michael,

Just to set the record straight, I did not 'defend intelligent design' I defended the right of those speaking on the subject to be heard. This is what I mean by muddle-headedness.

This latest post is vintage Michael. You puff yourself up like an enraged blow-fish striking a macho pose on some issue but if any opposition presents itself, in a post or two later you are hat in hat apologizing for living. The approval of others always seems more inportant to you that what you believe.

Post 18

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 2:29pm

Brant, you wrote:

Cognitive concepts" is a redundancy.

You may take the issue up with Ayn Rand's writings. This is her terminology, not mine. Please read my article to see the appropriate quote. (Also, this is a good case of cognitive "blank-out.")

Robert D,

Still talking crap. I remember your first quote on intelligent design. It was about 2000 words, all in caps or large font (I don't remember which) and was nothing but quotes of people trying to debunk Darwin. You went on and on against evolution for a long time, then backpedaled, just like you did with Lanza.

Like I said, you're still talking crap. Rarely ideas.

Michael

Post 19

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 3:30pm