Is the name 'SOLO' proper?

I'm a new member to this group and I do not think the name you have given to this group is true to its purpose. The name of the group should express what the group stands for, its purpose, its motive for existence. Now you can only fight for 'Objectivism' on conscious terms, for principles, not for feelings but for that which gives rise to them - the mind. Now a sense of life is the outcome of judgment of the mind about the nature of reality, it is not a primary. 'SOLO' states that you are fighting for a particular kind of sense of life, not for that which leads to it, not for the primaries. Hence my objection.

Post 1

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:01pm

Now you can only fight for 'Objectivism' on conscious terms, for principles, not for feelings but for that which gives rise to them - the mind.

I cannot agree with this.

How many of the people you see on the streets do you think would be moved to any change in their convictions simply by a reminder that A is A, or by an admonition to check their premises on the morality of selfishness, or by a propaganda flyer containing big words like �mind-body dichotomy�? How many of them would ever think again about a brief encounter with the raw principles of Objectivism? Few, if any. The lowest of them are driven by fear; their minds would shudder away from any challenge to their beliefs so profound as that offered by Objectivism. The best are too busy enjoying their lives to devote much attention to what name they give their implicit philosophy.

The principles of Objectivism, surely, are the foundation of an enduring conviction, and they cannot be dispensed with. But to learn them as anything other than floating abstractions, to gain a thorough understanding of their meaning and application, to truly take them to heart requires deliberate study and contemplation. No unsolicited encounter with an advocate of those principles is likely to motivate someone to go beyond that encounter and undertake the necessary study simply on the basis of something as abstract as �rational self-interest.� It takes the seed of passion to motivate them to voluntarily make the effort to study further.

How many Objectivists do you think were persuaded by the principled arguments of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand? How many do you think were inspired by the beauty of the vision of life she offered in Atlas Shrugged? If you took a survey, the proportion would be telling�especially if it includes not just the Objectivist elite who actually spend their time writing articles about Objectivism, but also the greater number of ordinary people who strive to live as Dagny Taggart lived but don't spend their Saturday nights arguing about psycho-epistemology.

If the war for our culture is to be won, it will not be by anyone telling people about the principles of Objectivism. It will be won by those people who live, think, and create on the basis of an applied Objectivism. It will be won by the works of art they create. It will be won by the dreams they realize in innovation and achievement. It will be won by the integrity and benevolence they exude in their interactions with everyone they encounter. It will be won by sense of life.

Post 2

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:33pm

If the war for our culture is to be won, it will not be by anyone telling people about the principles of Objectivism. It will be won by those people who live, think, and create on the basis of an applied Objectivism. It will be won by the works of art they create. It will be won by the dreams they realize in innovation and achievement. It will be won by the integrity and benevolence they exude in their interactions with everyone they encounter. It will be won by sense of life.

Nature Leseul, I regret that there are not enough Atlas points in the universe for me to applaud this statement with the fervor I feel at this moment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing out what so many fail to see. It is those who do, and not just talk, who will win the battle.

Well done.

Post 3

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:08pm

Now you can only fight for 'Objectivism' on conscious terms, for principles, not for feelings but for that which gives rise to them - the mind.

I cannot agree with this.

Neither can I. In order to change things, you have to change people on the emotional level as well. Emotions, motions, motive...as Nathaniel Branden writes, "Think, and you shall feel...but in order to think clearly, you must feel deeply." Two way street!

Post 4

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:48pm

I firmly believe that emotions are a secondary, every emotion arises as an affect of willfull exercise or neglection by the mind of the facts of reality. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying we should not fight for emotions. I'm saying we should fight for those emotions because they have a basis in reality. No emotion can be justified by itself, it cannot be upheld as 'good' or 'right' without upholding 'reality' as the standard. You cannot maintain a benevolent sense of life without identifying and upholding the primaries. I'm not saying the works of art do not help us fight our war. They do, and very effectively. But as far as our motive for fighting such war is concerned it is not primarily emotions but facts. In Ayn Rand's words - 'Let's name our primaries'. Lets declare that we are fighting for reason, for reality.

PS: I firmly disagree with the second part - "Think, and you shall feel...but in order to think clearly, you must feel deeply."

Post 5

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:41am

Hi Sumit Arora,
what you say is absolutely true, and irrefutable in logic. Unfortunately, you're saying it in the wrong place!!!!!
And, to whomever it was (I forget) who asked, in effect, how many people were changed to Objectivism through Ayn Rands works, constant surveys from reputable sources has Atlas Shrugged as the second most purchased and read book (for over 20 yrs) to the Bible, with huge numbers of people citing it as their number one elect of anything having had a substantial life change on them.
Cass

Post 6

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 6:17am

Sumit Arora,

I firmly believe that emotions are a secondary, every emotion arises as an affect of willfull exercise or neglection by the mind of the facts of reality. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying we should not fight for emotions. I'm saying we should fight for those emotions because they have a basis in reality.

In this you are absolutely correct, and I concur. I don't believe that emotions should lead the way in any manner, nor do I believe that to think clearly you must feel deeply -- in fact I believe it is quite the opposite.

I do think, however, that applying Objectivism in our lives, careers, and actions makes a more compelling case to the uninitiated as opposed to simply presenting it as a philosophy. I have more often won the battle by explaining why I am doing something -- by presenting the facts behind the actions. It catches a person's attention very effectively.

Cass, the survey you are referring to was conducted in 1991 by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club. It was a Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits sent to BOMC members, and approximately 2,000 responses were received. The survey asked members what books had most influenced their own lives.

Post 7

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 7:43am

I do not remember the precise figures, but I do remember "Atlas Shrugged" was a distant second to the Bible.

Post 8

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:03am

Jennifer,

Sit down and shut up!

You seem to forget the context while thinking. Read my message again. You are offcourse objecting, but not to what I said. In fact you agreed with me while thinking that you are opposing me. Read your message again - "I have more often won the battle by explaining why I am doing something". That is exactly what I'm saying. State exactly why we want to exist and chose to exist. Uphold why the hell we are fighting and what for. We are not primarily fighting for Objectivist Sense of life, we are fighting for reason, for reality. Let there be no mistake about it.

The past (nineteenth century America) has suffered exactly because of this, because we did not state our primaries, that is when we allowed them to take advantage of this loophole, when we allowed them to state that there views are as floating as ours. Yes, we have a basis, and that is reality. Let there be no mistake about it. We cannot win the war without upholding our primaries. No less than this will be sufficient.

PS: In her journals there is a little mention about one of her last unpublished books - 'A philosophy for living on earth'. And the purpose of the book, she states, is to make the title of the book redundant.

(Edited by Sumit Arora on 11/18, 12:31pm)

(Edited by Sumit Arora on 11/18, 12:32pm)

Post 9

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:22pm

Summit said :Jennifer,
Sit down and shut up!

Hmmm. Is this an inside joke, or a rude turn of phrase?

Post 10

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:34pm

"Sumit Arora" (yeah right) has been banned. No one speaks to Jennifer in that way on my watch & gets away with it.

Linz

Post 11

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:39pm

BAM!

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:55pm

Wow...what happened in here??

I will answer Sumit Arora's post anyway, as he seems to have missed my point in shouting his instructions. :) He said:

[We must]...state exactly why we want to exist and chose to exist. Uphold why the hell we are fighting and what for. We are not primarily fighting for Objectivist Sense of life, we are fighting for reason, for reality. Let there be no mistake about it.

I didn't say we were primarily fighting for "Objectivist Sense of Life," I said the most effective way to win the battle was via said sense of life, first displayed then explained to the uninitiated. Leading by example is more effective than lecturing.

Post 13

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:58pm

Sumit,

Somehow I sense that I have spoken to you before. Your manner of speaking is very familiar, especially the overall tone.

The description you posted under your profile is fascinating, an interesting play on words. You said, "I'm what I want to be and I want to be Fransico D' Anconia". That line almost sounds like it is a response to a question more than a simple statement. I wonder what inspired you to use that particular wording?

Even your user name, 'Sumit Aurora' - has a familiar ring to it. Even the particular subject that you have chosen as to be your first post ever at Solo, is very interesting, a fascinating choice of a first topic. No doubt, you will prove to be quite a fascinating young man.

One thing you stated in your opening post that I whole heartily agree with was that a �sense of life� is an outcome of ones judgments. I cannot agree more. I have met people who display a malevolent, brooding, antagonistic, and pathetic �sense of life�. But as you so correctly pointed out, a sense of life is an effect not cause. And I must agree that it is not a �sense of life� that one must fight for, but the clarity and rationality of ones mind; if this is done properly, then a benevolent and respectful �sense of life will automatically follow. So you see, you and I agree completely on this.

Our having agreed on this topic, may I ask you a question? What would you say are the important �primaries� as you say, that a person has accepted into his thinking if his sense of life is that of an unhappy, angry, and especially lonely man?

At any rate, let me be among the first to extend a welcome to you at the Solo website. I hope your exchanges here are enlightening to all, and hopefully to you as well.

Sincerely,

George W. Cordero

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 11/18, 2:02pm)

Post 14

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:00pm

Linz says: "Sumit Arora" (yeah right)

ROFL

Linz, you pulled the trigger just as I was making that last post of mine!

George

Post 15

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:03pm

Hah,

I came back to post on Sumits true identity and discovered that you have already found a reason...er I mean.......

Post 16

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:20pm

" No one speaks to Jennifer in that way on my watch & gets away with it."

I can't believe Linz is offended when one of his friends is talked to in such tone as he uses so often on everyone else.

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

Post 17

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:52pm

Linz,

I actually think he was referring to my post on SOLO Romance, so he was not meaning to be insulting in the way you interpreted it. And while I do truly appreciate your coming to my defense, I'd be even more grateful if you would please rethink this.

Gentlemen,

I also do not believe this was necessarily Orion. This is someone who has communicated with me through other forums, long before the issues arose here with Orion. If I am wrong, then so be it, but until proven otherwise I'm not convinced.

Lastly, I want to point out that based upon a private e-mail exchange, the gentleman has proven himself to be correct, as I was addressing a completely different argument.

The context of the whole discussion was whether the name "SOLO" is true to the purpose the group stands for. It was not how we should go about achieving that purpose. From my first message I have been stating that our main motive is upholding reason and reality and not sense of life, which is only the outcome. While you were emphasizing on how that goal should be achieved. I was insisting on presenting our goal and you were stressing on how the goal has to be achieved. Did I miss the point of discussion or did you? Judge yourself? I think you missed it.

He is correct. I did miss the crux of the argument completely.

Jennifer

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 11/18, 4:24pm)

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 11/18, 4:50pm)

Post 18

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:53pm

Oh dear, Jennifer. I should have realised that when someone told you to "sit down & shut up" it was by "engraved invitation"! In future, I'll let the insults fly. I've already written about how I enjoy Fred Seddon's of me, after all. I had no idea *this* was in *that* spirit, since the person was grossly misrepresenting SOLO at the same time. I gather he's already signed up again under a different name, so we'll see if he shows up in *that* guise. If not, in response to overwhelming public demand, I'll reinstate him under the old one. :-)

Linz

Post 19

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:58pm