A Review of David Stewart's "John Galt Recants"
By Paul Hibbert
David Stewart, author of "John Galt Recants", seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth after the publication of his booklet, "John Galt Recants", in the late '70s or early '80s. In his 50 page speech, where he takes the place of the fictional hero of John Galt of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, he details his disagreements with the mainstream Objectivist dogma of the time. Apparently his views were then too radical to gain acceptance within the existing community. Perhaps the time has now come, when there is recognition that Objectivism need not be regarded as a closed, never-to-be-questioned philosophy, to reconsider and re-evaluate Stewart's views. As far as I can determine, there is no recollection of him by prominent members of that time. The booklet was published by LAGNAF but that publisher also seems to have vanished. Stewart tells us in the speech that he left the Objectivist movement but he continued his work as a philosopher, in private and for his own benefit. He set out to discover what the anti-rational principle was that had infected Objectivism. He became a doctor. "A doctor diagnoses disease." He did not wish to be found.
Stewart identifies the 'infection' of main-stream Objectivism as its "rational morality." According to him, the absence of a theory of experience leads to a theory of morality that is the cancer of Objectivist philosophy. It follows that the mind is not man's sole contact with reality.
"Because, you are told, you are you by choice—because your life is your life by choice—because its sustenance is its sustenance by choice—you need values. A code of values, you are told, is a code of morality.
"The truth is: You are you—your life is your life—its sustenance is its sustenance—life is an ~unconditional~ phenomenon—values depend upon real alternatives—and a "code" of values denies the individuality of the valuer. A code of values, a morality—in practice—diminishes experience, thwarts happiness, stifles expression, hampers action and cripples the very "values" it is designed to protect."
And:
"I told you in a previous report that man's mind is his basic tool of survival. I am now here to tell you the truth: Man's mind is man's mind. Man's stomach is man's stomach. A thing is itself. Your mind is no more basic to your survival than is your stomach. In reality, you need to exercise both.(emphasis mine) You are what you are, which is an integrated organism, a wholeness."
While mainstream Objectivism also emphatically rejects the Mind/Body dichotomy, according to Stewart, it neglects the phenomenon of 'experience.'
Stewart claims to have had a basic insight into an alternative, deeper interpretation of Aristotle's "A is A" dictum:
"A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of Aristotle's statement, nor, until recently, have I. I shall now complete it for you, this time with no slip-ups: Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Process; Logic is Identification".
According to the Law of Identity it follows that one cannot reason and not reason at the same time, therefore one cannot reason and be conscious at the same time — and one must unfocus the faculty of reason in order to be conscious. Consciousness is a means of knowledge other than logical identification; it is a means — the only means — of ostensive knowledge, and Objectivism has ignored consciousness.
Stewart goes further:
"Eastern philosophy, particularly Zen, has understood only consciousness — with predictable results. Objectivism has understood only rationality — with predictable results. Other philosophies have understood little of either — with tragically predictable results. Zen, which is a-rational, together with Objectivism, which is un-conscious, makes a good philosophical beginning. Neither philosophy has chosen to see the other side of the coin, the integrated wholeness which is man."
According to Stewart, if you were to try, for example, to compute the sum of the first 10 odd, positive integers, and simultaneously count the number of inhalations of breath that occurred during the exercise, you would probably fail. If you were, perchance, successful you would be constantly alternating between 'reason' mode and 'experience' mode. Thus, you cannot think and be fully aware at the same time and in the same respect.
Other statements of Stewart in this vein are: "You cannot value and experience at the same time, but you can value experience; you can value the state of being non-valuing", "Experience can be thought of as first-stage knowledge, concepts as second-stage knowledge and abstract concepts as third-stage knowledge" and "The choice you face ~at any given time~ is either to reason or to be aware."
He has other opinions on such subjects as:
· Subjective truth —There is no such thing as subjective truth — immediate knowledge is unverifiable; experience is process.
· Dualities — Good and evil do not exist; only existence exists.
· Individual responsibility — it is without limit.
· Capitalism — he sees the standard of big business increasingly becoming Utilitarianism, but this is in the context of our mixed economy.
· Meditation — Whoever experiences the reality of "now", "practices" the only reality that exists. And the reality that exists necessarily is perfect.
Stewart's final appeal is to his fellow outcasts — the victims who have "been driven underground, living in silence, unnamed, unhonored, the movement's unknown soldiers." "Do you hear me, Barbara Branden, in whose name and honor I speak?", "Do you hear me, Edith Efron, my fellow outcast?" Ms. Branden has no recollection of Stewart. Edith Efron died in 2001 at the age of 79.
I, personally, relate to much of what Stewart has to say and I recommend that others take a serious look at his 'radical' views. I would be pleased to e-mail the full article in MS Word format (323K) or in plain text to anyone who requests it at phibbert@comcast.net.
| 
