have I created a monster?

"Ed -- I never expected that an Objectivist would find astrology valid. Do you indeed hold that position? If so, would you please let me know what led you to that position?"

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/17, 9:48pm)

Post 41

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 3:50am

Ted,

Okay. I've listened to you before, and it worked out in my favor.

Kate,

The astrology reference was just a joke, not a serious explanation (about why I sometimes enjoy engaging trolls on public forums).

Ed

Post 42

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 3:59am

Afterthought

Kate, the fact that you had to ask whether I was caught up in the throws of astrology has me confounded. It's as if you do not understand what an Objectivist philosophy does for someone, holistically. Perhaps this is part of the special learning challenges you face (and have talked about). Here is a run-down. Being an Objectivist means ...

--never having to say that you are sorry (just kidding, but I could help saying that)

:-)

--being able to dispense with (rather than continually struggle with) systems of belief, such as astrology, based on decisively-bad premises
--having confidence in the ability of your mind to discover a final answer to many things
--understanding that politics isn't about the Left and the Right, but the Individual and the State
--understanding that ethics isn't (fundamentally) about how you treat other people
--understanding that the kind of epistemology you adopt affects the kind of metaphysics that you postulate or accept (this speaks to the astrology issue)
--and many, many other things ...

The big epiphany that you get, once you cross the Rubicon into the realm of Objectivism, is that you understand that everything is related (and, therefore, should be properly integrated).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/18, 4:02am)

Post 43

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 6:01am

Kate, read "Houseguests from Hell" and "Five Words That Spell Liberation" for inspiration in separating the wheat from the chaff.

"Benefactors versus Malefactors" will also help you to distinguish benevolent Objectivists from malevolent pseudo-Objectivists.

The bottom line is that your ex-friend has deliberately reshaped her own soul into that of a malevolent monster!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/18, 7:21am)

Post 44

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 8:11am

"Being an Objectivist means ...

--never having to say that you are sorry"

hmm

Post 45

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 9:15am

Kate:

Regarding Helen Keller being a socialist: Does the fact that she was deaf and blind cause any pause for thought at all before damning her for this? What would have been her fate if she had been born to a woman like your friend? Does it mean anything to her that HK's entire experience of and communication with other humans was through touch? Ayn Rand predicated an Objectivist code of ethics for Man based on his nature. Our individual conclusions about the nature of man are predicated on the data of our own personal experience. One of my favorite writers and thinkers, Thomas Sowell, was a Marxist up to and beyond earning his Phd in Economics. Later experience caused him to change his mind and adopt a much more guarded view of Man's nature with regard to political systems. My own view is that people do not change. The person that Dr. Sowell is did not change from the days when he was a Marxist student to this day. A broader set of data and the application of reason caused him to change his mind.

Your friend is an example of narrow minded provincialism distilled to its most potent essence. Willful ignorance combined with profound disdain for others. She doesn't deserve another thought from you. Though I can understand if you have some concern for her children.

Post 46

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 10:16am

Re astrology --

It surprised me greatly that an Objectivist even *appeared* to believe in astrology: I hadn't considered the possibility that it was a joke. What I wrote, I wrote as a politer substitute for what I first considered writing: "How on Earth can an Objectivist possibly believe in astrology?"

I will, indeed, read "Houseguests from Hell" and the other articles recommended. I'd definitely agree that my ex-friend has made her own soul malevolent -- and I rejoice that neither I nor Rand can bear the blame for this.

Re:

Regarding Helen Keller being a socialist: Does the fact that she was deaf and blind cause any pause for thought at all before damning her for this?

I don't damn Helen Keller (or anyone else I disagree with) for having reached whatever conclusions she reached, based on whatever experiences (or lack of experiences) she had. Plainly, someone I no longer respect *does* damn Keller -- and more for something that Keller didn't choose (the condition of her senses) than for anything that Keller did choose, or did achieve. (Keller's socialism bothers my ex-friend rather less than Keller's loss of two senses and known inpairment of two other senses: scarlet fever in infancy severely lessened Keller's senses of taste and smell, as well as removing her sight and hearing.)

Re:

What would have been her fate if she had been born to a woman like your friend?

I actually had raised this question to her once, right after she came out to me about her "hide-the-handicapped" notions and the evilness (in her view) of putting a poster of Helen Keller on a schoolroom wall: "If you had been the mother of Helen Keller, or if your own daughter had become blind and deaf in infancy like Keller, how would you have reared and educated her?" She responded -- and it was this response that sealed the end of our friendship -- "I would have educated her to the utmost of her very considerable intelligence and capability. This education would necessarily have included an education on why she or others like her must refrain from inflicting themselves on anyone except trained professionals or their own immediate family. If Helen Keller wanted to achieve anything, surely she could have achieved it by staying at home and writing letters and articles, which of course she did do to a great extent. She did not have to additionally go so far as to bring the spectacle of herself into public view."

Re:

Does it mean anything to her that HK's entire experience of and communication with other humans was through touch? Ayn Rand predicated an Objectivist code of ethics for Man based on his nature. Our individual conclusions about the nature of man are predicated on the data of our own personal experience.

Certainly -- I assume that Helen Keller, Ayn Rand, or anyone reaches a belief on the basis of experience. Different experiences will lead people to differing beliefs and conclusions. (Helen Keller herself wrote, in her autobiography and elsewhere, that her blindness and deafness had made it very easy for her to adopt a mystical brand of Christianity that required assigning top importance to things impossible to see or to hear.)

Re:

... Though I can understand if you have some concern for her children.

I do feel some concern for her only child (a daughter who will soon leave home for college) -- particularly if the daughter, or any romantic partner or child of this daughter, ever attracts maternal wrath by needing eyeglasses or a hearing aid. However, I have no way to do a thing about such possibilities.

Post 47

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:16am

Hi Ted,

Where did you get that demographics chart from? It's great. Very amusing to figure out who I (and probably most others here) most closely resemble. Because I don't buy into any of that stuff, the stats tell us I most resemble white males, 65 or older, who graduated college, and are Republican, Conservative, Protestant, white evanglical weekly churchgoers. Funny. Scary.

Jordan

Post 48

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:25am

See this thread.

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 6:17am

Jordan confessed: "I most resemble white males, 65 or older, who graduated college, and are Republican, Conservative, Protestant, white evanglical weekly churchgoers. Funny. Scary."

That would describe the run-of-the-mill middle class business/professional achievers who are the transmitters production in a commercial society, the hard-headed, moralistic, realistic, old, college-educated (but not over-educated) white guy.

Also, as a social scientist, I repect the Pew organization for its good work.

That said, once you get beyond the folksy conservatism, a lot of questions are begged. Christians go to great lengths to separate themselves from other "pagan" mysticisms. Of course, at root, they share fundamental agreements, if not on particulars. "Reincarnation" means coming back to Earth in material form but with the spirit from a previous lifetime. That is different from living happily ever after in heaven with God and Jesus. If you can parse that, then, yes, our old WASP with a bachelor's degree is likely not a Wiccan, whereas the African-American female high school drop out is likely to fear the "evil eye." However, any understanding of the principles of Objectivism allows us to subsume all of those variants under the same rubric.

Post 50

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 11:40am

let her observe the benevolence of the handicapped. Some are not fortuntate enough to have children of their own.

Post 51

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 2:15pm

Re:

let her observe the benevolence of the handicapped. Some are not fortuntate enough to have children of their own.

I don't understand some important things in, and about, your message.

Does "her" in your first sentence refer to me, or to my ex-friend?
In either case, please give a specific example of the "benevolence of the handicapped" that you wish either her or me to look at, and please explain how "observing the benevolence of the handicapped" would help either her or me. (When you wrote "observe the benevolence of the handicapped," did you mean "look at the benevolent actions that some handicapped people perform," or "look at the benevolent actions that some handicapped people are the recipients of," or did you mean something else?)

Please also explain how your second sentence follows from your first. (My ex-friend has a child, I have no children, and I fail to see what either of these has to do with the kind of handicap that my ex-friend had in mind.)

Post 52

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 3:03pm

Kate, much of what Harley writes is as inscrutable as what you write is improbable.

Post 53

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 4:04pm

Kate,

Imagine being in a dimly-lit art gallery. The finest in the world. All of the world's best art is there. Even in the dim light, the magnificence and unprecedented beauty of the art is so great that it is bringing people to tears. People are turning to each other to remark:

"I didn't know that life could be this wonderful."

It is really such a special experience for everyone. Seeing all of the beauty, all of the wonder, all of the inspiration.

Then, all of a sudden, the lights are fixed and all of this wondrous beauty is now available in full light. Some people pass out because there is too much joy to experience all at one time. Being in the fully-lit art gallery is like Nirvana.

Then, at this moment where everyone was trying to take in all of the beauty in the gallery -- your ex-friend complains, in a loud and nasty tone, that one of the pictures is hanging slightly crooked.

The others pay her no attention, because what she has to say -- her inappropriate and over-zealous criticism -- really doesn't have any import regarding their experience of the most beautiful things in the world.

My advice to you about your ex-friend is to pay her no attention.

Ed

Post 54

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 8:48pm

Kate,
I'm sure Mr. Brunton was referring to your ex-friend. I'm not sure exactly what he meant.

My understanding is the disabled support the democratic party overwhelmingly, placing a great deal of reliance on government benefits rather than private philanthropy. If there were ever an attempt to repeal the Americans with Disability Act there would be a parade of disabled in Washington DC that would rival the Tea Party. I think Mr. Brunton was suggesting your friend be tossed to the mercy of this crowd.

Forgot to say: Good one Ed.
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 12/19, 8:49pm)

Post 55

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 9:23pm

Re:

My understanding is the disabled support the democratic party overwhelmingly,

For the record, I'm no Democrat -- in fact, fora/listservs putatively "established for all people with disabilities" have excommunicated me when this made itself evident (despite forum/listserv rules declaring that "all political and social viewpoints are equally welcome -- no member may be expelled for disagreeing with other members on social, political, or other issues" -- then, when a few non-Democrat, non-socialist disabled folks showed up, the moderators made it overwhelmingly clear that "all" actually meant "all viewpoints not condemned by the majority.")
So I definitely see your point -- and wouldn't much mind seeing my ex-friend run into some organization of very angry disabled people, out on a protest-march or parade of any sort.

Re another comment:
The improbability of an event does not guarantee its nonexistence.

Post 56

Saturday, December 19, 2009 - 10:03pm

No, it does not. :)

Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 5:48am

KG: ... no member may be expelled for disagreeing with other members on social, political, or other issues" -- then, when a few non-Democrat, non-socialist disabled folks showed up, the moderators made it overwhelmingly clear that "all" actually meant "all viewpoints not condemned by the majority.")

Been there. Back in 1993, I wrote an article for Loompanics, "Censorship in Cyberspace." If you google or bing that phrase, you will find several excerpts on different sites, such as
Computer Underground Digest or Objectivist Living.

It is not just a matter of property rights. Sure, the sysop has the right to control content. That said, the question is: How much control do they feel is necessary? It is not so much a political issue, as a psychological one. In your specific case, the problems with listserv are muddied by the semi-public, quasi-private nature of the medium. Back in 1992, also, when on a list for numismatics, we had to work around the fact that the Internet was mandated to be "non-commercial."

Post 58

Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 10:01am