Greetings.

First, I would like to thank Mr. Tingley, Mr. Schad, Mr. Bisno, and Mr. Cordero for their reasoned attempts in the resolution of this situation and in the honest expression of their opinions.

I will try to be brief here, for I do not wish to detract too greatly from the constructive discussions in which I am engaged. However, I take to heart Rand’s statement concerning the triumf of uncontested absurdities, which then come to tacitly permeate the mindsets of the more impressionable and less informed among us. Thus, I see it in my self-interest to dispute the vulgar and stereotypical attacks heaped upon me by Mr. Perigo and his foot soldiers (Lamont, Beck, and Pritchard being prime examples).

As for comparing Mr. Perigo’s post to a Communist Party brief against dissenters, I have lived in the Soviet Union during its milder last days; the Soviet Union was not all murder and outright barbarism. Nevertheless, even after its collapse, a multitude of arguments was presented by Communist sympathizers to justify the persecution and ostracism of the unlike-minded. Even in Soviet and post-Soviet kindergartens, those kids who thought that children (8-10 years old) should not have been drafted by the Red Army during the Russian Civil War were put in corners and reported to their parents as “mentally unstable troublemakers.” I recall being diagnosed by a Soviet pediatrician (at the age of three) as being “problematic” because I learned to read far ahead of the majority of children of my age (who usually could only half-mouth syllables at the age of seven, when they entered elementary school). Any difference, in convictions, abilities, and, especially, style, of any sort, including clothing (any kid who despised wearing the short shorts of the time was scrutinized as “abnormal”), hygienic habits (such as the unwillingness of kindergarten children to use communal toilets), and verbal expression (there was a slogan-esque twist put on every expression; anyone who deviated from it and spoke with “dispassion” was considered “antisocial.”)

I have demonstrated what I am talking about without resorting to argumentum ad experientiam, though I have in fact experienced the Soviet Union as it really was in its daily existence. When I see Perigo using the words he does (“pathological” being the worst of them), to condemn people for precisely the differences that should be their virtues, I recall the pure evil that I encountered in the USSR and that destroyed any “innocence of childhood” that I could ever have had.  

I will finish this later.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Greetings.

This will likely be my final post on this thread, as I see little point in protracting this "hearing." To conclude w.r.t. the Soviet Union reference, SOLO and Mr. Perigo do not equal The Soviet Union; I merely wished to point out that the arguments and words used by Mr. Perigo in his brief are eerily reminiscent of the arguments and words I had directly encountered as well as extensively read about during my childhood in the Soviet Union. My comparison was more of a warning than a direct equation, though I am greatly displeased at Mr. Perigo's language, more even than at his message.

As for the fact that we belong to two distinct organizations, I see nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact. Why not merely have stated: "Mr. Stolyarov's organization, The Rational Argumentator, and SOLO, often hold diverging views, even though at other times our views may coincide. What Mr. Stolyarov writes should not be automatically taken as SOLO's position on any given issue, though he and SOLO are also in agreement on certain issues." This would have been civil and I would not have objected to it. But calling a man "pathological" is the absolute worst insult anyone can direct toward a survivor of the Soviet Union, especially one who fled its ruins to escape a horrific past.

I am personally willing to advertise the fact of our two organizations' separateness by incorporating a link to The Rational Argumentator in my signature.

Now, concerning my style (though, what it has to do with advertising someone else's works in a store, I know not):

• I believe that form must follow function, always. In this regard, I am the Howard Roark of writing. No form is automatically off limits, and no a priori criteria (or other people's tastes) can determine what does or does not constitute good writing. Rather, the specific goals of a given piece should set the standards. (This means that any general requirements concerning length, format, structure, thesis location, and word simplicity/complexity are absolutely arbitrary and unwarranted.)  
• Many issues are so extremely complex, and common mistakes made concerning them so extremely subtle, that only a highly technical and precise use of words is able to distinguish precisely what one seeks to talk about, and how this differs from what one seeks to refute or differentiate oneself from.
• The task of filosofy is discovery as often as it is communication, and the more advanced, technical, and intellectually exacting realms have also been less often explored than the simpler, more rudimentary, more basically communicable ones. Thus, the potential for new discovery in these realms is far greater. (This does not mean, however, that the errors made in these advanced realms are less frequent or less important than more easily communicable mistakes! Quite the opposite is in fact the case.) Not every one of my works is aimed for a general audience, just like not every one of a scientist's papers is. A filosofer, in my opinion, must become increasingly like a scientist rather than a demagogue (this is necessary for filosofy to be recognized as a foundational science and a necessary complement to mathematics). A filosofer needs to work not only to communicate his present enlightenment to the masses (though, doubtless, this is important, and I have not excluded myself from such a task) but also to expand the horizons of his own and his specialist colleagues' knowledge. This means that dense, technical, ornate writing that is indeed somewhat reminiscent of a formulation of mathematics or fysics is precisely the sort of writing that fellow filosofers should direct at each other. If laymen understand it, more power to them. If they do not, at the early stages of their introduction to filosofy, this is not a requirement for them. If they are sufficiently interested and persistent, they will be up to the challenge eventually.

I should someday write a treatise on the necessity of formality as a tool in speech and writing, though this should not be taken as condemnation of all forms of informality. Style can only be judged as proper and improper within the context of a given work and its intended purpose, not within the context even as large as an individual. (There are, of course, some stylistic elements that are never appropriate, such as obscenities and expletives; you can build a house from brick, stone, or steel, but never garbage.)

A final note on the Ayn Rand Lexicon: Ayn Rand did not write it in entirety (which does not deny that it is valuable in some respects). Rather, it was "begun under Ayn Rand's personal supervision." (http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/bib/lexicon.html) It was published in the 1990s, not in Rand's lifetime, and its true author is its editor, one, Dr. Harry Binswanger of the ARI. It may contain certain excerpts from Rand's articles and writing, but there is no guarantee given that the passages on abortion, etc. actually came from any previously published Rand article. (Her personal journals and word-of-mouth statements, never intended for publication, do not count, just like my statements about preferring apple juice to grapefruit juice should not be taken by future Stolyarovians to imply a mandatory filosofical disdain for grapefruit juice.)  Thus, I still hold that positions on abortion, euthanasia, and marriage are negligible w.r.t. Rand's original Objectivism, and any position on these issues is acceptable for an Objectivist so long as he can consistently deduce it from the fundamentals. 

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store

Author, Eden against the Colossus

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store

Author, Eden against the Colossus

Thanks for that GS. This is a very moving account of your childhood. It does help me to understand your mentality better. You have obviously come a long way since then to shake off your past, both psychologically and philosophically. Keep up the good work!