| | I have stated my thanks recently and in the past. I know how much work this is. I have been the webmaster of www.michigancoinclub.org for the past two years, a task for which I am paid. That site is fairly easy to maintain, and it nonethless work. So, I appreciate everything you have done here.
JR: "One problem is the popular view that SoloHQ is an entertainment site." I do not know where you get that "popular view" from. Do you go to other Objectivist sites and read the gossip? I only come here for Objectivism, so I know of no "popular view" of SOLO.
JR: "People write articles that have next to no connection to Objectivism. The best rewarded articles (in terms of sanctions) tend to be personal stories, often involving hardships and strong emotions, and with no substantial tie into Objectivism or even philosophy. People found it was easier to get sanctions by detailing every sordid detail of their lives. Activism was nowhere to be seen."
1. You can crusade for Microsoft and Martha Stewart, but you have to keep your own house in order. Ayn Rand worked as a waitress while writing. Karl Marx lived off Friedrich Engels -- and Engels was stingy at that: poor Mrs. Marx! Objectivism is a personal philosophy. If it does not work for one person, it will not work for a million. The sanctions do indicate that these confessions resonate with many of us here.
1.A. Of all the sordid stories, the threads I never bothered with were the "Passionate Critics" unnested loops.
I wanted to call the last one POPWHNLOTO ("Pop when lotto") The Passion of People Who Have No Life of Their Own.
2. But, you are right, in that whatever "it" is, the popular view of "it" tends to be a least common denonminator. I found it curious and wryly amusing that my Article about Mary Reibey was rejected by the Editor. Then, I posted it to the Entrepreneur Forum where it was ignored. Yet, off the cuff quips get Atlases, even as Mary languishes on the banks of the Hawkesbury. I know no way around that. If anyone attempts to impose their "editorial judgment," they create less of a product. As an editor myself, I have yet to reject any work. Maybe I just have been lucky.
3. "Activism" does not interest me. Perhaps we simply use the word in different ways. Witnessing for Reason, passing out leaflets in support of Microsoft, picketing the local Federal Bldg. against taxes, and writing letters to the editor in support of romantic art are all of limited value. I believe that the people who are attracted to the ideas of Objectivism and the works of Ayn Rand tend to be a self-selected special subset. This is not for "everyone." Getting to that one or another special person does require continuously "broadcasting the signal."
But what signal is that? Do we, like Cato the Elder, have to end every observation with the same message: "Read Atlas Shrugged." Perhaps so. I have mentioned the class I am taking in Law Enforcement Ethics. These are black-and-white moralists, every one of them. The only problem is that of the 25, there are 25 different "blacks" and "whites." After the third presentation on police corruption, I said that if the police did not have to enforce victimless crime laws against drugs and gambling, there would be less corruption. (I failed to say, "... so read Atlas Shrugged.") Some people agreed; others did not. People have ideas of their own, at least, thinking people do. If what you wanted was "activism" then more stories of your own successful proselytizing ("How I made my friend, Bill, an Objectivist") might have sparked others.
JR: "We've created widespread recognition of the SOLO name. SOLO has achieved status as one of the "big three" Objectivist organizations. We've created an archive of over 1500 articles, with over 175 authors. Membership is well over 2000. We have a very open forum where people are free to voice their own ideas. We've attracted some exceptional people."
The secret to Galt's Motor was "do nothing."
"We... we... we..."? Don't you mean "You... you... you..."? Robert Malcom's "Trading" and "Taking" essays are outstanding. I came here for "Sense of Life" Objectivism. The Food Forum was symbolic of that. I don't care about food, personally. I think it is a waste of time and effort. But I appreciate people who do love enjoying the living daylights out of themselves -- and the Food forum exemplified that. "We" helped put The Incredibles in Newsweek. That is an example of the value in "entertainment activism." SOLO has been an important part of my working day. Writing here was a choice I made. I paid myself $100 for the original placement of "Mary Reibey." I can write for other venues. I choose to write here because I value what I read here.
I look forward to the next incarnation.
Thanks, again, for all the fish.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/27, 7:20pm)
|
|
