Congratulations, Maritimus, for having made a full and good life. I would offer a tribute as well to the mother of your sons, whose participation surely contributed to the success and happiness of your family.

And I assure you that 80 is the new 60. May you have many more good and productive years improving the state of the world. And how about grandsons to carry your physical and intellectual legacy onto the tenth generation?

Thank you, puzzlelady!

As I said more than once, here in the Gulch, in a little more than 2 months, I will be 80 years old.

I sold my company about 8 years ago and it is still growing steadily, to my deep satisfaction.

When I was youngster, I consciously chose, as my top goal, having children and raising them to become better people than I am. We have two sons who are now in their forties. If you knew all three of us, you would know, without a doubt, that I succeeded. There is absolutely NOTHING in my life that has given me, and still does, as much satisfaction as being the father of these two men.

On that basis, I think that I fulfilled your request. Truly cloning humans, I think, will never be possible. Only making more or less proximate copies.

All the best.
Maritimus

Thanks for the further elucidation. Your efforts are admirable, and I wish you continued success in your expanding market. Soon you may find a need to clone yourself.

Thanks! I imagine we have had similar classroom experiences. Your 3-4 rule sounds about right to me.

As I thought I said, we try to outperform competition. Outperform means better quality of service, both technical and non-technical parts of it. We deliberately do not wish to be the low price participant in the market.

When the competitor we "swallowed" announced the closing of his business, we bought some of his equipment and hired a few of his former employees. He himself retired.

There was a third competitor several states to the West away, who also decided to close. We hired just the owner. He came to live in our community.

Even though I am intensive competitor, my ethical standards are impeccable. I enjoy our successes and do not gloat of others' lack of it. I see no moral failure in understanding the market conditions and changes in it better than my competitors and not sharing that understanding.

We overcame the size equality with the "cooperation" competitor by opening another facility several states further South form our primary facility. That increased our "reach" into the market. It also meant 60 flights a year for me, since the plans major value was in avoiding duplication of administrative functions.

Thanks, David, for a well written exposition on the subject of tolerance. I am a professor whom numerous Gulchers have politely chided for being too tolerant. I lean toward benevolence when dealing with people because often benevolence has been shown toward me, but when someone is both irritating and incorrect on more than three or four occasions, judgment kicks in, and even I have to say, "Enough".

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, puzzlelady. And thanks for citing my Contested Legacy book, with the chapter on tolerance.

As the person who gets the credit or blame for introducing this issue into Objectivism, I wanted to comment both on the background and the current discussion.

I was trained as a teacher, and that is still my instinctive outlook. Teachers have to be tolerant of student foibles. We more or less have to suffer fools gladly (though not knaves) and work to make them wiser. That’s the job description, and the attitude carries over partly, but not completely, to advocacy as a professional or personal avocation.

In that sphere, I don’t consider tolerance as a fundamental virtue, but rather as an aspect of justice, benevolence, and objectivity.

Justice: Tolerating someone whose ideas you disagree with is based in part on the fact that—with rare exceptions—you can’t tell just from the expression of the idea itself whether the person is honestly mistaken or culpably irrational. As others in this discussion have said, you have to know something about why he believes it—his reasoning (or lack thereof). In that respect, it’s a matter of justice in passing moral judgment. It requires, as Rand says, “the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought” on your part.

Benevolence: There’s a positive aspect to tolerance as well: the recognition and acceptance of the needs of a rational being, especially the recognition that rational knowledge is held contextually and acquired by independent thought. If we hope to persuade someone, we should try to understand his context and convey respect for his independence. To be tolerant, in short, is to acknowledge the virtue of rationality in others—indeed to value and admire it—even when it is exercised in the service of ideas we believe are false. The negative aspect of toleration is refusing to condemn people for errors that are honest; the positive aspect is valuing their honesty even when it is in error.

Objectivity: Engaging in open debate with others is a good way to test our own ideas. Critics are useful predators, culling our arguments to pick off the weak ones, deepening our understanding of the strongest reasons why our ideas are true. In addition, they may have seen things that we haven’t thought of, things that are consistent with our own perspective and would enrich it.

All of that said, tolerance is contextual, perhaps more so than any other practice. You can sometimes tell from a few back-and-forths that someone is not being rational, or not a source of any potential insight or value. In which case justice takes over: Move on, or confront, as the case may be. Still, I would caution against hasty judgments. I have had many, many discussions where patience led to persuasion, or at least to respect for the Objectivist outlook.

A final thought: I’ve been talking about individual, one-on-one exchanges. In foreign policy, as with the Obama deal with Iran, we are dealing with a different set of issues. But I for one cannot tolerate the anti-western, anti-Israel attitude of the Ayatollahs. Yes, I’m relying on secondary sources, but still, all the things they have been reported as saying since 1979 are grounds for intolerance or any giving them any quarter.

Thanks again, puzzlelady (and other contributors to this thread). I look forward to seeing you at the Atlas Summit. I want to get a puzzle for my nephew….

Thanks for reading and for your interesting comments, Maritimus. I'll answer the last one first. No, I don't think the Ayatollahs want a nuclear bomb, though they would like some protection against Israel attacking them unilaterally. We should sign the negotiated agreement. Iran is far less likely to break its promises than we are. Civilization depends on not having any more wars."No room for both on this planet" sounds too much like a prescription for genocide.

------------------

Let's see if I understand your business plan. You want to put your competitors out of business by offering your customers better service at a better price, and you succeeded with one. When you say "swallowed", do you mean you bought them out or just stepped in to service customers who used to deal with them? So there were too many suppliers in your market for three of you to prosper?

Now you don't think you can outdo the remaining competitor, which will keep both of you trying harder, and that's good for customers. They have a choice and they can play one against the other. If there is enough business to go around for both of you, all's well. If your competitor leaves the scene, your business may have to increase its capacity to pick up the slack. Or you can wait a little bit and Amazon will take everyone's business. (I'm not really joking; I buy my clothes and toothpaste from them.)

I would rather hear that you want to be the best and earn your customers' loyalty rather than to just want to destroy the other fellow. It's that unpleasant trait of Bobby Fischer's, who said, in chess tournaments, that he liked to wait for that moment when he could see "the opponent's ego crumble." It is not quite as bad as the Tonya Harding approach to competitiveness, but it just isn't noble. I have a small problem with Schadenfreude as a character trait.

If the existence of a competitor inspires you to be the best you can be, and thus prevail through superior performance, that's great. And there should still be room left in the market for second-best; and who knows, you may inspire him to become the best he can be. Either of you may thus innovate something unique the other doesn't do and open a whole new area of the market. (My own work is so unique that I have no competitors; that actually makes it more difficult for me because prospects lack a frame of reference.)

I am reminded of an old joke my father used to tell, about when the U.S. and the Russians were in a competition, and the U.S. won. The Russians reported the result as follows: "Russian came in second place. U.S came in next to last."

As for your future relations with the business you are trying to see go under, you two collaborated successfully on this one job. If you sink the other guy, would you have to hire all his people and buy his tools so on the next round of that customer you can handle the whole job alone?

Does your competitor harbor animosity towards you for possibly taking business away from him? Has he tried to hurt your business in any way? Does he steal your ideas or undercut your prices? How can each of you be distinctive enough to offer what the other does not? Who has been in business longer? Does he want to put you out of business? If his business fails, what will he do next-kill himself? Go on welfare? Start up his business elsewhere? Go to work for you? I think that latter was Ayn Rand's idea. But, hey, do what you think is right, Maritimus.

Thanks, Maritimus. Yes, I agree with your analysis. That's what I call the chameleon effect. Rationalizations piled on each other, obfuscations and the Alice in Wonderland trick that "words mean what I say they mean". And as with government, the bigger the lie, the more assertive till they believe it themselves.

Human brains are stranger than anything. As Data would say, "Fascinating." But once you know that person's modus operandi, it isn't interesting anymore. Bo-o-o-ring.

Hello puzzlelady,

I read your piece and found it very interesting even though I did not understand all of what you say.

I would like to submit for your consideration a real life story (names excluded for privacy). I will succinctly explain only relevant facts.
I own a small technical service business. We do business in all 50 states and a dozen or so foreign countries. There is a very similar business, two towns down the road, competing with us. My strategy is to win over all his customers, outperform him and let him go bankrupt.

Then in comes an important perennial customer who does regular business with us and occasionally with the competitor (we are similar, but there are different very specialized skills). The customer suggests that I work, on an important big project, jointly with the competitor using one of those special skills. I soul search and decide to do it. We complete the project, the customer is happy and my strategy remains the same.

Actually there were two such competitors. The one which was just one town down the road we eventually swallowed. The other one is still around and we probably will never swallow him.

I think that the story relates to your theory somewhat. I learned quite a bit in those soul searching hours.

The future of the human civilization, in my opinion, depends whether Ayatollahs get the bomb or not. I think that it is a fight to death. Either them or us. Do you really think that there is room for both on this planet? I do not.

Thanks and all the best.
Maritimus

Tolerance is also not acceptance.

I love to provide some biblical context and views at times.

In the Bible God was "Tolerant" of man's behavior UNTIL...Noah, then dealt with it.

God was tolerant of Sodom and Gomorrah until the cry and outrage had grown so great, then he dealt with it.

God Tolerated, but did not accept certain things, and there was a limit to that tolerance.

I am tolerant of what Homosexuals choose to do, though I do not accept it as correct behavior; I accept it is THEIR choice and I have no place prohibiting their behavior UNLESS it impacts or affects me personally.

I have worked with Gay men some who were open about it, some who were not. I was always polite and tolerant, even having dinner with a Gay couple. Stan and Brian knew my personal views, I knew theirs, we were both tolerant of each others and agreed to disagree, and had a lot of fun hanging out together.

It is only when one persons views, or actions are FORCED on others is that tolerance tested and then becomes an issue.

Thanks, JB.

Eloquently stated, puzzlelady.

Allow me to share some thoughts that go beyond the irritant of one intolerable individual.

Tolerance or toleration is a measure of how individuals relate to each other. The scale goes from total acceptance to total rejection. The Greeks had a word for points along the scale:
Sympathy -- Apathy -- Antipathy.

Those who see only the terminal points ("If you're not with us, you are against us") leave no room for a neutral zone of indifference and disengagement. If it were a Venn diagram, unless there is a complete overlap, partial agreement counts for nothing and justifies even genocide. Yet it is in those partial regions of shared values and overlapping commonalities that humans can find ways of coexisting and eventually phasing out conflicts. Without a starting point of recognition of individual sovereignty, civilization becomes impossible.

How does all this happen? I have a theory which will most likely be highly controversial, but I'll put it out here anyway. It maps well onto Objectivist epistemology. It all comes down to "memes" (the human software, per Richard Dawkins), which constitute the building blocks of all thoughts, premises and values, with emotions as the diagnostics of how memes judge their own survival status.

Memes are, in effect, the energy counterparts of the physical microorganisms that make up a human being, and they (the memes) fight for their own survival even more so than for the survival of the physical machine they occupy.

So when a person senses that someone else disagrees or differs in the values held, the result is anger, hate, contempt, disapproval, or any of the thousand nuances of negative reaction we are capable of. At the extreme it leads to physical violence--destroying the host to destroy the idea.

Tolerance is the volitional attitude of "live and let live", of "agree to disagree", or even of exploring where the differences lie and how to resolve them, since "there is no conflict of interest between rational men".

Tolerance is the first step to finding the resolution of those conflicts, of reasoning from rational premises without immediately resorting to mutual destruction. And in those cases where neither can find the mutual "fit", to go their separate ways. With individuals who make a sport of being obtuse or contrarian, isolation or quarantine (the classic "shunning") is the last and best resort. Don't waste another drop of your precious energy in pursuing a fool's errand.

Teaching children, who don't as yet know how to think and reason on an adult level, is a separate topic.

On the larger scale, man cannot live on paranoia and psychopathy nor build successful societies on those motivators. Make no mistake: killing the body always has the goal of turning off the machine that hosts the unwanted ideas. Every conflict can be seen as a collision of memes, a war on the electromagnetic level of reality. That is the level where "values" and all information are encoded. All else is infrastructure.

For the preservation of life, liberty and happiness, and the advancement of human intelligence and innovation, I plead for maintaining the neutral zone of non-aggression and eventual conciliation on rational premises, lest we remain unwitting slaves of our programming, with the resulting tragedy of a world run amok with the destruction of life and life support. To preserve a sane and productive consciousness as the vehicle of preserving life is the highest value.

See also David Kelley's "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism": http://www.amazon.com/Contested-Legacy-A...

This is precisely why I am coming down now on the side of tolerance not being a virtue.

it's not in mine, either. hmmmm.

I did not go into this thread seeking a reaction from you or anyone else, CG. However, I did expect precisely the reaction I got from you. I went into this thread to say that I am sick and tired of tolerating error. I did so in a way that I will call politely intolerant, as if to say "Enough." When I got the reaction that I expected in that you only sort of realized that I was saying that I was no longer going to be tolerant, I switched from being polite to impolite. You routinely exhibit views that are not consistent with the objectives of this web site. I tried to be polite multiple times and tell you this privately. I even tried to convince others in private conversations that you don't know about that perhaps you would some day come to realize the ways of Galt. It is clear now to me that you will not.

I am not calling you evil. President Obama is evil because he knowingly violates our rights to self-determination. Instead, I am calling you errant. My tolerance for error is high, but limited, and you have exceeded it.

Hello puzzlelady,

You got my +1.

I think, though, that there is another dimension. If you engage him in a more extended exchange, the contradictions pop up. When you point them out, back comes a denial of having made one of the contradictory statements, or a "corrective modification" with a claim that what was "meant" is something else. I concluded that at least one of such statements is a conscious lie. The dimension I see is dishonesty.

Just my opinion.

Stay well!
Maritimus

And I also say, "enough".

Agreed. +1.

Roark's response is appropriate on an individual level, but ignoring, contradictions, lies and obfuscations is giving them tacit approval. We can not ignore them.

Excellent analysis, puzzlelady.

"CG is a compulsive contrarian"
This stuff you say about me is categorically wrong and not very nice.

Consider this thread. I was not the one who got involved seeking a reaction from others. That was jbrenner. This is bizarre since as recently as this year Jim and I had talked about me helping him build his Atlantis-like community.

The post asks about tolerance. I said tolerance is critically important for living in a free society, but it should not be confused with *acceptance*. Most of the responses say tolerance is bad, but they seem to be defining tolerance as I define acceptance. So I agree with most of the discussion if you substitute tolerance with acceptances.

I can only speculate why you see me as "retreating" and "advancing". I think you see talking about stuff as fighting, and you think ideas come in broad bundles that must be accepted or rejected as a whole, not a la carte. So it's frustrating as hell to figure out which bundle of ideas I'm fighting for. I'm not fighting, and the bundle thing makes no sense to me.

I completely agree with not wasting your time if you think I'm this manipulative fencing clown. At best you could just focus on the ideas instead of assigning evil motivations to me. Please don't soft-pedal it: If I were seeking a reaction from others as Peter Keeting got a thrill from getting some fired, getting him a job somewhere else, or getting a reaction from the janitor, that would be evil. You are calling me evil.

Just kidding, that is what we get for weather now.

Atlas Summit is late June.

About the best time of year to do it.

June is the month where New England puts on its happy face and tries to make you forget the winters past, and convince you that the upcoming ones will be mild.

Trees will have leafed out, flowers in bloom. Temps in the mid 70s to low 80s normally, could go a little warmer depending on weather fronts. Sunny or partly cloudy most days. Cooling at night down to the 60s.

In other words, one of the most physically comfortable times of the year to gather outdoors. At the Atlas Summit welcoming cookout for instance

not in my skinny book of life..