No more convincing others. Or whining here. Laser focused on finding like-minded people to associate and transact with
When I was new to Objectivism - in college - I became quite the proselytizer. Late night discussions in the dorm, campus events, starting a current events newspaper, buttons, stickers...
After college when the internet became more accessible, I created websites and spent a lot of time online trying to be a positive, effective, and persistent advocate for the ideas that form the basis of this unique community.
But those efforts started more than 20 years ago -- closer to 30.
While it provides significant motivation and rewards from the size of the challenge and the target-rich environment of opportunities, I also realized this humbling fact:
this work will NEVER be complete.
So how much time, effort, and money is rational for this effort? Especially when I consider that I see have many personal and family needs that are being directly compromised or threatened by unethical forces?
Then I considered who I associate with as friends,acquaintances, and business partners. If I wasn't entirely satisfied or proud of that, isn't that more important to change than strangers' philosophies who I haven't even met yet and probably never will?
I am grateful for having this online Gulch so that we can connect and interact with other like-minded people. Life is too short and precious to spend it with people who don't share your values and interests.
I've been absent here for the past few months because I've been laser-focused on taking care of some serious challenges to myself, my family, and our values.
Now I'm back - just briefly - to say that I'm re-committing to making my world into the one I want to live in. With people who share my values and orientation of the world. (The number of people not fully "awake" to what is happening around us has become a more essential issue and factor, IMO.)
We don't need the entire world to be objectivist-friendly. We can't - because it ain't ever going to happen.
After trying quite earnestly at it for many years - and watching many other people try a whole lot harder than me since the 1960s' - I can confidently say that we aren't ever going to even be close to a majority opinion.
So what is more rational - a goal achieve that ideal state of utopia?
Or - to create the best world of relationships and partnerships we can with the people who already share our world view and philosophy?
In darker or more stressful moments we may wonder when we will see a complete collapse as in Atlas Shrugged. Or another SHTF scenario that seems to have many varieties given all the threats and craziness in our world today.
If and when that happens, the smart (or "lucky") ones will have already prepared themselves and their families to have a place, a community, and a means to continue living.
That will be a Gulch of some type. Thanks to our internet, now it doesn't have to be 100% physical.
I've grown to believe that our biggest issue and need is not persuading more people that we need to live rational, productive, ethical, and peaceful lives. Rather, it is that we need to better identify and connect those of us who already share these values NOW so that we can build trust, success, and happiness amongst ourselves now - while we can enjoy all of these benefits. If and when things get more ugly - then we will all be better off too.
No fear. No regrets. And no time to waste.
If you live in northern California, or do business online and think you or others would be worth connecting with, I hope you'll reach out to me.
If you are on the Marketplace here, I know about you. :-) I encourage everyone to go to the Marketplace page, learn who is there, and think about how you can do business with them. I've done that and hope to see more people and businesses joining over time.
In future posts - possibly Marketplace listings - you'll likely hear from me again on topics related to this mission. High on my priority list is finding medical and health professionals who work on a DPC basis (Direct Primary Care). Outside of health insurance companies, in other words. They are out there, and there is a growing number of healthcare professionals who are sick and tired of becoming slaves to medical insurance companies and plans. Healthcare is something everyone has a rational reason to care about for themselves and their families too.
My name is Brett Hoffstadt. I am quite easy to find online other places if you want to. I'll be glad to hear from you here, but please understand I won't be spending much time here. Too much exciting and important work to do in other places...
My greatest enjoyment comes from making Galt's Gulch a practical reality for my life. Not for convincing others of this need or value. And there is a lot of fun work to do -- with a much more exciting and practical result.
After college when the internet became more accessible, I created websites and spent a lot of time online trying to be a positive, effective, and persistent advocate for the ideas that form the basis of this unique community.
But those efforts started more than 20 years ago -- closer to 30.
While it provides significant motivation and rewards from the size of the challenge and the target-rich environment of opportunities, I also realized this humbling fact:
this work will NEVER be complete.
So how much time, effort, and money is rational for this effort? Especially when I consider that I see have many personal and family needs that are being directly compromised or threatened by unethical forces?
Then I considered who I associate with as friends,acquaintances, and business partners. If I wasn't entirely satisfied or proud of that, isn't that more important to change than strangers' philosophies who I haven't even met yet and probably never will?
I am grateful for having this online Gulch so that we can connect and interact with other like-minded people. Life is too short and precious to spend it with people who don't share your values and interests.
I've been absent here for the past few months because I've been laser-focused on taking care of some serious challenges to myself, my family, and our values.
Now I'm back - just briefly - to say that I'm re-committing to making my world into the one I want to live in. With people who share my values and orientation of the world. (The number of people not fully "awake" to what is happening around us has become a more essential issue and factor, IMO.)
We don't need the entire world to be objectivist-friendly. We can't - because it ain't ever going to happen.
After trying quite earnestly at it for many years - and watching many other people try a whole lot harder than me since the 1960s' - I can confidently say that we aren't ever going to even be close to a majority opinion.
So what is more rational - a goal achieve that ideal state of utopia?
Or - to create the best world of relationships and partnerships we can with the people who already share our world view and philosophy?
In darker or more stressful moments we may wonder when we will see a complete collapse as in Atlas Shrugged. Or another SHTF scenario that seems to have many varieties given all the threats and craziness in our world today.
If and when that happens, the smart (or "lucky") ones will have already prepared themselves and their families to have a place, a community, and a means to continue living.
That will be a Gulch of some type. Thanks to our internet, now it doesn't have to be 100% physical.
I've grown to believe that our biggest issue and need is not persuading more people that we need to live rational, productive, ethical, and peaceful lives. Rather, it is that we need to better identify and connect those of us who already share these values NOW so that we can build trust, success, and happiness amongst ourselves now - while we can enjoy all of these benefits. If and when things get more ugly - then we will all be better off too.
No fear. No regrets. And no time to waste.
If you live in northern California, or do business online and think you or others would be worth connecting with, I hope you'll reach out to me.
If you are on the Marketplace here, I know about you. :-) I encourage everyone to go to the Marketplace page, learn who is there, and think about how you can do business with them. I've done that and hope to see more people and businesses joining over time.
In future posts - possibly Marketplace listings - you'll likely hear from me again on topics related to this mission. High on my priority list is finding medical and health professionals who work on a DPC basis (Direct Primary Care). Outside of health insurance companies, in other words. They are out there, and there is a growing number of healthcare professionals who are sick and tired of becoming slaves to medical insurance companies and plans. Healthcare is something everyone has a rational reason to care about for themselves and their families too.
My name is Brett Hoffstadt. I am quite easy to find online other places if you want to. I'll be glad to hear from you here, but please understand I won't be spending much time here. Too much exciting and important work to do in other places...
My greatest enjoyment comes from making Galt's Gulch a practical reality for my life. Not for convincing others of this need or value. And there is a lot of fun work to do -- with a much more exciting and practical result.
It isn't true that Ayn Rand's ideas will never dominate. It depends on how they spread among rational people, one mind at a time. But it won't happen in the foreseeable future, such as this lifetime. The Dark Ages looked pretty bleak, too (and it was), but eventually Aristotle's influence resurfaced and we got the Enlightenment and this country. In the meantime, philosophy is necessary as a guide for the life of the individual, no matter what else happens around him that affects him in different ways. Having the right philosophy makes you better off, within the context of what is possible, no what what else happens, which is what you are doing now.
Not only are people different, with like-minded not meaning equivalent, no one should assume that just because someone likes Atlas Shrugged that it means you should be his friend. Yes, "just live your life as best you can" -- and don't depend on belonging to any group to do that. Still, Brett's quest to find like-minded people in important ways is a rational quest as important, but secondary to personal goals.
If you look at the history of the world, you will see that populations that did not compete for favored environment remained Paleo, Meso, Neolithic up to modern times. It is an error of perception to think that people inherently want to advance; they want 'their lives' to be like the ones before; they want their children to be like them.
There is a skeleton of a young boy found in Southern Siberia. His genes are ancestral to the Proto Indo Europeans (who traveled west) and to the American Indians (who traveled east). I think that there was a mutation that said "move" and that this low-incidence genetic trigger produced two major peoples who were unlike everyone else in that they wanted to see over the next hill.
The world does not need 'a lot' of us. They only need a few. In a beehive, 98% of the bees are workers; some fraction of the remaining 2% are scouts. We are the scouts.
The role of communication is not to try to convert the worker bees, it is to be sure that the other scouts hear a philosophy that matched their character, so that they do not blindly accept a life that is not meaningful to them.
So continue to communicate. We are all people who have been the recipient of someone reaching out and saying, "Try this philosophy - it's different from what you have heard before." But do not expect the population to convert. They should not. This is genuinely not what they want.
Jan
There are no innate ideas in an inevitable 'span of human character'. People advocate what they do in politics because of the premises they have learned and accepted. Ayn Rand advocated convincing people of the proper philosophical premises and explanation, not engaging in politics, other than when there is sufficient common sense and proper sense of life to support a specific position. She advocated that it is too early for an 'Objectivist politics' precisely because the general principles of reason and individualism supporting it are not widely understood or accepted. All of her political commentary was thoroughly integrated with a philosophical approach.
She urged that those who agree with her begin by ensuring that they understand what they are talking about themselves. The problem is not contending with impenetrable innate ideas, or stupidity, or 98% brainless worker bees, or -- as one anti-Ayn Rand conservative stated on this forum -- "self-absorbed imbeciles", but lack of understanding of philosophical premises and how to make the necessary connections.
In "What Can One Do?" Ayn Rand stressed:
"Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural-ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them?
"Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? Are you immune from the fallout of the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason—and can you provide others with antimissile missiles? A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.
"If you want to influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your knowledge and ability. This does not mean memorizing and reciting slogans and principles, Objectivist or otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply abstract principles to concrete problems, to recognize the principles in specific issues, to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent course of action. This does not require omniscience or omnipotence; it is the subconscious expectation of automatic omniscience in oneself and in others that defeats many would-be crusaders (and serves as an excuse for doing nothing). What is required is honesty—intellectual honesty, which consists in knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and never evading or failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of an active mind as a permanent attribute.
"When or if your convictions are in your conscious, orderly control, you will be able to communicate them to others. This does not mean that you must make philosophical speeches when unnecessary and inappropriate. You need philosophy to back you up and give you a consistent case when you deal with or discuss specific issues.
"If you like condensations (provided you bear in mind their full meaning), I will say: when you ask "What can one do?"—the answer is "SPEAK" (provided you know what you are saying)."
She followed with suggestions on what and what not to do.
The whole post stone age world was once in much worse shape than now because the ideas of superstition and mysticism were much more prevalent. If no one had rediscovered and advocated the more individualistic and realist ideas of Aristotelianism we would still be in a Dark Ages. But understanding and explaining what is required are not simple. After the collapse of western civilization It took centuries of groping and stumbling to reach the Enlightenment.
It is easier now because so much more knowledge is available to be potentially understood in contrast with the entrenched, widespread ignorance of medieval times, but understanding and knowledge do not come to anyone in a flash by magic, and bad premises and ideology for many adults are emotionally locked in like a religion, making it difficult to challenge false and poorly understood premises -- which is why education of the young, currently dominated by bad philosophy, is so important. But the honest of any age can understand.
Those who have given up on advocacy, thinking that it is by human nature impossible, should understand that success cannot be expected to come 'overnight' (measured in generations), understand what it requires rather than continuing to ignore basic principles and how to support them, and realize that one should not sacrifice his own personal life and values to an all-consuming full time emotional involvement in activism, which only defeats the purpose of living your own life.
Our difference in perspective is that I do not agree with your initial premise: "There are no innate ideas in an inevitable 'span of human character'."
That is what I consider a 'blank slate' premise which attributes most or all of character to environment. I think that genetics has a lot to do with character. Per Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, Richard Dawson and others, I think that we have 'onboard' a number of basic 'software modules' that are genetically loaded into our brains: Linguistic aptitude (but not language per se), fair trading, social conformity, counting 1-2 or 3,...there are several others postulated.
I think that most people have a much higher innate tendency towards 'social conformity' than the people in the Gulch. Were there a whole lot of us, then we might be able to swing the 'conformists' into 'our camp' the way the liberal education system has swung the recent generations from the political views of the 1950's to the current POVs (good and bad). But that would not make these people independent thinkers; they would just be another flavor of conformists.
So, if you reason from a 'blank slate' perspective, your approach is logical. If, like me, you think that there is innate inherited tendencies, then the metaphor to the bee-scouts stands as a paradigm. (Yes, there are a lot more shades of grey than I am painting, but these emails are pretty long already.)
Jan
Jan
It would be easier if the Hillary supporters would wear an armband with the arrow on it which was her campaign logo. That way I can tell from afar.
Call me bigoted, racist, a woman hater, whatever. BUT, in my experience this is not a bad way to pick out good people from a large pool of very bad people. I might miss a few good apples, but I avoid a LOT of bad apples.
if you have not read "Creature from Jekyll Island", I highly recommend it...it an excellent work on where the globalists are taking us and what we are up against...
again ...good hunting...john kelly
To the proselytizers I care about, I invite them to imagine they have convinced the world of their all their points of contention, and ask what they would do? Many cannot answer because bickering has become their life. Others sit back and come up with something. To which I answer, why not go do that now?
Moabites and Hittites could never get along, they struggled constantly, and to my knowledge none of them survived. I've never seen one anyway...
Did any of you connect? Either way please contact me, I would be interested.
My own views can be found at https://quberoot.wordpress.com/
Summary, if you don't want to read the whole thing:
1) Get together with like minded people ( I have defined what like minded is).
2) Work on projects for mutual benefit.
As you can see there is nothing novel about it really (partly the theme of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged ) , but the big challenge appears that often relatively independent thinking people also come with their quirks, for example a near complete lack of effort in putting aside minor differences to co-operate with other like-minded people for mutual benefit. Independence of thought (which is good) tends to foster loner (which is bad) like tendencies.
the Main Library is limited (though mainly, apparently, for computer use), and not as much as before. But at least I can use the computers some now.
Interesting thread you started! Lots of philosophical debate, but not so many answering your original query. Yes. Let's connect!!!
We are urban homesteaders of sorts in the middle of Las Vegas! (yes!). I am also an author and nutritionist.
My husband and I will be speaking at the National Heirloom Exposition in Santa Rosa, CA, this month (on 9-11- and 9-13). Are you aware of this event? And if so do you attend this event? It is an amazing place to network with other incredibly productive people ~ not necessarily all with Objectivist thinking sadly ~ but still, many with amazing self-sustaining Producer-level knowledge. We'll personally be talking about growing food in harsh conditions, managing micro-climates and eating raw food for better energy. Please let me know if you'd like to meet up?
~anand
P.S.
I also highly recommend the Creature from Jeckyl Island. And visit Jeckyl Island sometime - It's quite a beautiful place :-)
P.P.S.
If anyone is ever interested to see what an Objectivist Urban Homestead in the desert looks like, you are welcomed to visit.
http://www.wholewayhome.com
https://theheirloomexpo.com/
With my original post and some other efforts I'm doing, I'm broadcasting to target audiences that Brett Hoffstadt is putting his money and his relationships where his philosophy is. I welcome anyone interested (and qualified) to come on board with me.
To hell with those who don't have the vision, appreciation, and respect for our great human potential. It's up to each of us to achieve our individual and collective greatness, and love doing it. And also protecting ourselves from their nastiness... thanks to our passion (philosophy), cleverness (reason), and modern technologies we have a lot going for us!
I think of collectivism as similarly working for bands of hunter-gathers. It stayed in place after agriculture. The value was in the land, and religious people taught that we find ourselves on this world with limited resources and the good people among us will share those resources, putting others ahead of themselves.
This system is incompatible with reason and doesn't work in a world of plenty where people can save some of what they produce, mix it with hard work, and create unlimited wealth. But the religions of the world carry on preaching selflessness. Selfishness is up against millennia of tradition.
When I observe that the Enlightenment didn't lead to widespread Objectivism, I accept that it's a slow process. Even compared to 100 years ago, the average person today understand better than their life is theirs, they are free to make stuff and keep it for themselves, it's wrong to hit and steal, and it's wrong to deny someone these rights on account of their physical attributes.
Also, some of the collectivist bromides are things people say without meaning them. Someone who says, “you should always put others before yourself in a business deal,” may actually mean, “you should be honest and not cheat or steal.” It's similar to people saying, “maybe it's part of God's plan,” even though they know the rational explanation.
So I think you're absolutely right to find the people who appear to be operating rationally and selfishly (in the Ayn Rand way) and not focus on problems. The collapse at the end of AS is an allegory, not something happening in our world. Despite the evil in the world, people are generally freer now, and it's leading to amazing prosperity.
If you find physical or virtual communities of people using the amazing freedom and opportunity in the world to their own benefit and not spending too much time bemoaning the problems, invite me to visit.
If you want some other virtual communities I have some suggestions for you. Best for us to talk over phone or video first so I can understand more about you and what would appeal to you. Let me know if you are interested in following up on that.
This is the story of human existence, is it not? The never-ending battle of people to realize their fullest potential while battling against forces opposed to it - both natural and man made.
There hasn't been a never-ending battle of people to realize their fullest potential. Most people don't, for example in the thousand years of the Dark and Middle Ages. It's a matter of choice that requires rationality with conceptual thought.
Long before I found Rand, I've gone to politicians' fundraisers for networking, fun, and to get to know politicians and their staff. Those are perfectly good reasons, but the level irrationality has increase, and I think by going I'm partly participating in evil. When I engage in discussions with people getting their jollies off other people making some other people look bad in meetings, I'm possibly encouraging it. It's time I could have been doing something else.
Finding Ayn Rand set me on a personal journey of sorts. But I don't see her fans possess a selfish joy for life that I got from the books more than the average person I know. The average person who occasionally utters collectivist platitudes is probably more selfish and less Second Hander than the average proclaimed Ayn Rand fan. It's possible I misunderstand them and/or misunderstand Rand's writings.
But your post resonates with me: "No Fear. No regrets. And no time to waste.
There's a lot of fun work to do with exciting results... lots of disappointments too, which is what makes successes exciting. The computer gives me a window from my world of freedom and plenty into a miserable world where life is so bad it's bound to fall apart and anything would be better. I can't do anything for the people on the miserable side, and just looking with no purpose is gawking.
As you say, thanks to the Internet, we have unlimited windows to look through and communicate.
I wouldn't even begin to want to be around political fund-raisers and staffs and never have. I used to think politics was something that 'someone has to do', but because of the kind of people I saw in it -- an alien world I wanted no part of -- thought it could be ignored to pursue a productive life. Government action subsequently demonstrated otherwise. I have met a few good people in government but generally regard dealing with it as nothing but self defense. It's not just that I don't want to encourage them by being around them, I don't enjoy or want to be around them. Participation in evil can be deeper than just politics.
But the mentality you describe of people seeking reactions from others and nothing rational for personal goals of their own is not restricted to government. You see that everywhere, though you can safely ignore such people as long as they are not exercising destructive power. It's Howard Roark in comparison with Peter Keating -- the essence of it is not political at all, though it also shows up there. The Fountainhead is not a political novel, and the essence of Atlas Shrugged isn't either -- when I first read it it didn't even occur to me to think of it that way.
Perhaps what we both are talking about is that we can pursue success in many efforts. And achieve success, within those contexts. But in the bigger picture, are those pursuits really the ones we should be going after?
Peter Drucker emphasizes that effective leadership is doing the right things effectively. Figuring out what those "right things" are is probably the biggest challenge in life. That's where a rational, reality-based, and life-affirming philosophy becomes unbeatable. :-)