Which way do you blow? Objectively speaking.
Not to start a flame war (I'm sure we can all be civilized), but I think it an issue of vital import to the efficacy of our political will and might as "Objectivists."
I would like to know (if you are willing to enter the fray), are you primarily or exclusively with ARI, The Atlas Society, some other? Or perhaps you see yourself as an equal opportunity consumer of Objectivism (I myself, though always exclusively ARI/Charles Tew like Dr. Hicks quite a bit, but on Nietzsche and Postmodernism not Objectivism (he holds another view).
So this is just about the meta-principle of systematic unity, all or nothing integration vs. ____ (I'll let you fill in the blank).
I would like to know (if you are willing to enter the fray), are you primarily or exclusively with ARI, The Atlas Society, some other? Or perhaps you see yourself as an equal opportunity consumer of Objectivism (I myself, though always exclusively ARI/Charles Tew like Dr. Hicks quite a bit, but on Nietzsche and Postmodernism not Objectivism (he holds another view).
So this is just about the meta-principle of systematic unity, all or nothing integration vs. ____ (I'll let you fill in the blank).
One should always keep an open mind and be ready to add new ideas and discard old when necessary.
If I do something for someone else it's because I believe they are worthy of my help. I don't tolerate whiners or the self-absorbed, but I do support those who have a downturn because of the actions of others against them, or because the forces of nature (illness, natural catastrophe, etc.) work against their own efforts on their own behalf.
A real Objectivist doesn't waste time pontificating or seeking converts like a religionist. Rather we gain support and interest from our actions and success as an example.
She's not alive to tell it to you to your face, and I have to restrain myself from giving it you in as harsh of terms as she would and nowadays get her banned from every platform but her own (adults only echo-chamber).
You talk the language of the counter-inquisition but you "logic" is entirely misplace. You flat up disagree and are not an Objectivist but a "borrower" (to put it politely). And I resent what I see as a dishonest (and disintegrating) motive in that.
To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "If this be 'zealotry' you may make the most of it!' and of Martin Luther: "In an Objectivist universe I live and breath, and I can literally do no other."
When Ayn Rand said "And I mean it" as postscript to Atlas Shrugged, SHE MEANT IT, every word of it ("[she] never had to change.") She also meant it when she said: "I'm not brave enough to be a coward -- I see the consequences too clearly," (make of that whatever hyper-pragmatic psycho-epistemological "babble" of that you please),
I actually happen to agree entirely with the only truly & consistently "Modern" Philosopher ever: make what VALID applications you will, her Objectivism is all or (it plays into the hands of) it is nothing (the reification-of-the-zero-in-the-many poisoning human minds, eating away at the first fully human civilization in history >>from within<< (hers is your only "out," your only exit from isolation or self-alienation, either) -- eroding the civilization of the Enlightenment, and every achievement in statecraft, art and science that of which Aristotle is the Father, Aquinas his younger Brother, of Ayn Rand the pure and perfect Daughter (in that Enlightened Trinity).
Your somewhat subdued, but still agitated response tells me you're very passionate about the purity of your Objectivist belief, much like the emotional response of a religious follower. I respect your positions, but pardon me if I think that bringing emotion into rational structure of thinking clouds the benefit of Objectivist life practices. I assume the insult of "borrower" is a substitute for "heretic?"
The more rational and benevolent your universe, the more true to your professed convictions you will be, the greater certainty with which you will hold them, the greater they will contribute to your happiness and flourishing (qualitatively if not quantitatively).
Benevolently yours,
Ego Priest,
Lord of Liberty of the
["it's only fictional"]:
John Galt Brigade [GS-106].
B-)
Why Ego. I define ego, after ten years of learning, research and recently writing, as an imitation identity, usually concocted with things one has done or accomplished or believe; instead of, simply, A unique Conscious Human Being, which is observable.
Why Priest. Automatically one would think of mysticism, ritual and one that considers himself above others.
Obviously, you think it means something different and it means something to you.
So I am asking, what does it mean to you...no judgements, just, as I stated: Curious.
So it is also something of an inside joke at my own expense (an inversion of my childhood and young adult insanity). It also has a lot to do with the arcane, stylistically druidic, way I write poetry expressive of my rational and wholly this-worldly egoism (tabula rasa, finite universe knowable only by reason, the works): e.g.,
"Cosmic barriers are cut and unfurled
by disciples of proof -- earthbound magic
spells marvels free of the mystical ruse." -Ego Priest (last name genera, first name differential)
And so from early on I was easily impressed with Andy Bernstein's way of coming at all the unjust cultural misappropriations of originally pagan, pre-secular honorifics (he has repeatedly stated his fondness for religious-sounding honorifics as cultural re-appropriation); and he took his lead from Ayn Rand herself who liked such expressions as God Bless America (as an expression of the best in man, a secular sense of the sacred in the sense of world-value, the beatification of "the ought."
You may call it "Franciscan Irony" (after d'Anconia not d'Assisi) but as a linguist (and one who has read all twelve volumes of Sir Simon Frazer's "The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion") I use the word priest in its original meaning connoting a wise man, a wise woman a priestess," or more specifically as an "elder advocate of a school of thought, religious or otherwise." (so high-priest of laissez-faire capitalism would not be amiss or imply a contradiction).
I am an atheist, a neo-Aristotlean Objectivist and do not even enter any longer into the hippiedom of Carl Jung or Jordan Peterson.
I also like the Lords and Ladies of Liberty terminology. I draw the line at the morally-nihilistic Game of Thrones however (much preferring The Princess Bride: "Objectivism...Objectivism is what bwings us two-gether...two-day. Objectivism, that bwessed awangement, that dweam within a dweam! LOL).
Yes, I love my moniker. I also like to refer to myself as a "Randista" (rhymes with Sandinista) especially to her detractors.
See? You get farther faster by doubling-down (and first with yourself). Before "94 my literary guru remained Ursula K. Le Guin (may she rest in peace, culturally, not literally).
In sum, "EgoPriest" is the one-in-the-many, a useful reminder of my earlier "primacy-of-autonomy," and, if you arrange the letters, it is inclusive of the Pre-Egoist, the acolyte or "potential" who having read Ayn Rand is beginning to grasp the axiomatic truth: That existence exists and ONLY existence exists, that A is A just like Man is Man."
Mine is more observational...laughing
I also like the notion that humans, living free, created personal freedom and wealth unthinkable to our ancestors. I have a hopeful notion of this continuing. In AS I see people unwilling to be denied. My reading is that great people are amazing, but people doing politics, living for some reaction in others undermines people's efforts to provide one another value in honest trades. If this gets bad enough, even the greatest person cannot overcome it.
I am only vaguely aware that there are different schools of Objectivist thought. Many people who claim to be fans of Ayn Rand seem to take away exactly the opposite of what I took away from it, 180 degrees opposite.
"Which way do you blow" sounds weird to my ear, but I think I got the meaning. :)
These various groups do not always agree with each other and sometimes outright disagree. It is for each reader of Ayn Rand to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with her philosophy in whole or in part and what that means for their involvement in promoting it or studying it.
The Rothbard Ancaps were a former sect of objectivism, and the people that follow them today only follow, they do not think for themselves. This is the result of abandoning the philosophy and picking sides and following your favourites.
Then you are a "Truthist" not an "Objectivist." Which is fine if you're honest enough to admit it. You can be a fine ally on a myriad of social issues. Mine is to convert you and others here to that method, that Aristotlean-devised mechanism of integration that powers our knowledge of all things that are true without extraction or or crypto-contrarian contradiction. There is no space for pluralism (or time for monism) in Objectivism if Ayn Rand's Revolution is to stand a chance of success in changing the culture (let alone your mind -- the one is an extension of the other, which way is up to you): https://youtu.be/hhwDQBVYuH8
Not to sound like a rationalist, but in my (and Ayn Rand's) view, her philosophy is a systematic integration of a specific set of principles that may be legitimately applied in limitless ways. That only works to define your existence on earth by being limited to the system she set forth in its entirety.
You have a different (pluralistic) "truth." Or a reification of something "outside" to be "open" to. I get that. I've had the ad hoc mentality myself driving my mental "hodgepodge." But homey don't play that game anymore. Now it's time to get focused, serious, integrated within the fortress of your soul if you want to be part of Ayn Rand's Cultural Revolution, in the "eye of the storm" as it were.
You can do it by an act of will, by turning your mind off (for a time) from everything else once you've seen the truth of my argument:
https://youtu.be/gkXlg0ypjqg
You are a very good man to admit it. I thank you and I happily withdraw the question of your honesty. :-)
Yes, we must each work within our existential limitations and aptitude to expand the "DIM Horizons" from within (and I am -- in some very important ways -- more limited than most). So I "capitalize" on what few strengths I still retain to be the best me I can be.
"Progress is perfection."
<|:)))--|--<
But given that, his voice during the hellish ordeal he instigated seems (understandably) wooden compared to my treasured recording of him reading the Galt Speech -- where he's thrilling (if you've read Valliant's "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens," then you'll know where I'm coming from).
David Kelley has also done good work, and I have his Evidence of the Senses on Kindle but haven't read very much of it yet (Peikoff's argument being generally sufficient). And I've expressed my admiration for Stephen Hicks' brilliantly-reasoned books and lectures (despite some odd, right, verbal ticks, right...o-kaay). But I love him, even if he's not happy. A couple years ago when I first made his acquaintance, he struck me as Galt's character personified, but seeing interviews I see sadness and firmness (because he never did "go Galt" he's got one foot in Peterson's corner, or so it seems to me).
There may be other great lectures or book I'm not aware of. My only caveat is that these individuals do not speak for Objectivism, the philosophic system of Ayn Rand, however well they embrace the principle at the root of their own insights and achievements in applying those principles.
Another way of saying this (at the risk of going on far too long) is that, had I read and embraced The Fountainhead first rather than Atlas Shrugged, I would have started out "in the life" acquainted with the meta-ethical principles of psychological and meta-ethical egoism (with rational and political egoism strongly implied but not quite as explicated as in Atlas) and with not the metaphysical and especially epistemological principle as explicated either in the action of the novel.
So my commitment has always been specifically to >the philosophic system< that integrates that set of validated principles as a whole (and any other principles that follow). If you're familiar with Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology then you should know that the human mind, its ignition volitional, is a "motor of integration" that ideally follows a set pattern (when the choice to think is made) from sense-perception to concepts to principles to wider principles to to a whole philosophic culture and way of life in an constitutional, not anarchic, "Atlantis."
I view most aspects of life through the lens of economics, meaning I judge any proposed policy by what behaviors it will reward or punish; and I have great, but not total faith in Adam Smith's invisible hand.
I am active on other forums too, but come here because it is an island of sanity.
For instance, did you know that Adam Smith was an altruist who conceded the meta-ethical argument of his "invisible hand's" moral purpose to Karl Marx a century before him? He gave the whole game away (not the whole game, because unlike Herr Marx, Mr. Smith was a champion of a this-world reason in his economic if not political or social theory).
The greatest book I can recommend to you in the area of your interests and mine would be George Reisman's "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics," and his website (which I'd not be at all surprised you were already aware of) has a whole course you can take for free, ad libitum: https://www.capitalism.net
I sometimes wonder what would have become of me had my first Objectivist friend in the early "90s not led me away from what I call "the hangers-on."
And I'll agree with you that those individuals you mention are moral...but dishonest.
(A...but non-A).
I'm trying to carry out -- not "a flame war" -- but "a controlled burn."
Benevolently,
B-)
Justice is the key virtue or motor driving Atlas Shrugged's plot-theme or "meta-narrative." ("Ayn Rand told me so," lol.)
B-)
"Who the hell am I?" -- I'm only the guy that started this entire thread (you may cry "click-bait" but nobody put a gun to your head and dragged you in here).
First I must state I am not the one who down voted your posts. I wish those who do such things would step up and say why.
I have obviously NOT renounced any right to be as “honestly forthright” as you claim for yourself. I don’t see how you could interpret my questions, which were blunt and to the point, as being less than honestly forthright. Reading some of your responses with the apparent threats impressed me that you may very well be a bully that came into this playground of free thinkers with the notion that you could somehow force everyone to think and react the same as you. I don’t buy the intimidation method and will always ask “Who the hell is this person?”, even if he/she may be correct in their assertion.
The notion that I speak for my position “against principled conviction” is a false assumption on your part as there is no statement of my position in my post. I questioned your position or rather your method.
I agree with “YOUR LIFE AND MIND ARE YOURS, AND YOURS ALONE” entirely.
“…you need me to be fearful of being misunderstood!?” Uh, no. I don’t! No matter how many times you may stamp your feet and say “And I mean it!”.
“This is passion but NOT mysticism…” I’m not questioning your passion nor am I suggesting you are a mystic. You may have misunderstood my use of the phrase “mystically appointed as some grand inquisitor”. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, you had enough knowledge of European history to have picked up on the meaning of the Papacy giving dispensation to inquisitors to perpetrate otherwise unlawful acts upon the people to make sure they towed the Churches line. My question was simply “from whence came your dispensation?” and was mainly a taunt to a perceived bully as I know it came from nowhere.
Yes, you’re the guy that started this thread and certainly nobody dragged me in here. However, when you post in a forum such as this you must realize that some of the responses you receive may be “honestly forthright” different than you expect.
OK, now you know why I posted my questions to you. If I have somehow totally misinterpreted the dialog, please clarify. I do believe you have much to offer this forum and I expect I will learn from you as well. Gosh, I’ve called you a bully and may be far off the mark. I don’t normally indulge in such ad hominem behavior, but I couldn’t think of another way to describe my impression of your cleansing and burning remarks.
Well I've spent the last couple years trying to fit the Galt Address in "my mouth" but can utter only about a quarter of it, to paragraph 106. And I've actually been on hold for the past year while I try to pull myself back together after a serious illness.
So I'm doing my best to fight the Fire of doubt or fear With the Fire of my passionate pursuit of my contextually-defined desires: https://youtu.be/3FV2ILnnTa0
Get well, I hope you have a full recovery.
Ideally, I would be running my own language school on my own principles (based on actual linguistic principles rather than statistics, Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation and my love of inspiring drama and literature as the performance model: poetic monologue, dialogue on up to group improv).
Chamber music is "conversational" too and has lessons for modeling that linguists could learn from also. But they love their "corpus studies" because then they don't have to think.
Do not be a second-hander, own your life and double down. The fate of our civilization hangs in the balance, and you need me to be fearful of being misunderstood!? But I will only yell it out louder and prouder than before: "And I mean it!"
This is passion but NOT mysticism, or if it is then so was John Galt a mystic, and so was Patrick Henry. And if that is your considered conclusion then all the more reason to proudly call myself Priest (i.e., Elder) Egoist, an absolutist for reason, life and freedom. (And, yes, to each their own once force is banished from human affairs completely -- but not a second sooner).
I don't "Believe" anything, I observe and I do so as objectively as humanly possible; for "There is some value in all things, good, bad and ugly, if only to recognize, that which is not." (The Fight for Conscious Human Life, author...yours truly).
I am, however, a fan of Neothink (Mark Hamilton) for it was he that introduced me to Ayn Rand and Julian Jaynes. I am an active member of all three along with several scientific groups.
You are welcome, Stormi, to join my "John Galt Brigade" any time and fly into the eye of the hurricane.
When I was a kid I was being made by my dad to memorize the Ten Commandments and discuss theology and prophecy, that and athletic rigor and discipline were his two obsessions outside his passion for being a salesman.
But had he not "ghosted" me when I was 10 or 11 and left me with a mystically babbling, emotionalist and often absentee mother, I'd never have fallen apart completely at 13 and needed Ayn Rand to eventually provide me the means of putting myself back together again (from the age of 22).
I'm almost 47 now, and feel my journey has still just begun, only we're historically entering into dangerously precipitous and very "DIM" terrain (if you get the reference).
Ego-Priest of the
John Galt Brigade [GSS-106]
By the way, Ms. Rand excoriated Nietzsche but never made a big deal of it.
In the end, I suppose what matters is what one DOES. If the decisions are based on pure emotion, they are likely to be the wrong decisions. Collectivists I think make this mistake and then use collectivism to justify what they already did.