The Objectivist Iconoclast

Of Objectivist Advocates and Apologists

2011-06-09T01:32:00.000-07:00

Let me see if I have this correct! Person A is operating under the pretense of being an intellectual activist though she really wants to be a media mogul; meanwhile she’s still laying claim to the title of “philosopher.” On the other hand, Person B has been more of a media mogul by dint of day-to-day operations than Person A ever will be. Likewise, Person B has a more substantial track record of being an intellectual activist than that of Person A, and Person B’s activism is still only a comparative sideline to his philosophical work. Further, that philosophical work spans decades, and it substantially stems from first-hand information which Person A could never hope to have access to. To top it off, Person B is arguably the foremost philosopher of our age. (No need to invoke Person A by way of comparison in this respect!)

Now, Person A continues to allow for the idea that Person B has been undercutting an intellectual movement which he in no small part helped manage and broaden, and he’s arguably done more than anyone to propagate that movement today. Likewise, without that movement which he spear-headed, it could be argued that Person A’s involvement in the related philosophical work could not even exist. In turn, Person B’s credibility is to somehow be questioned while Person A’s credibility is to go largely unscathed even while withstanding the aforementioned considerations. Likewise, this credibility differential is to be considered without reference to the very epistemology that’s both required for credibility evaluation and is also among one of Person B’s specialties. At the same time, this epistemology has largely gone misunderstood by Person A who leveled charges against Person B’s credibility to begin with!

How’s that for irony?!?!

The Ground Zero mosque, part 1

2010-08-22T00:28:00.000-07:00

The essential question about the status of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who’s behind the “Ground Zero” Islamic center is plain and simple: Is the Imam an enemy of the state or not? Likewise, there are two further questions which hold the answer to the original question: 1) Does the Imam sanction Hamas or for the matter any other group that falls under the umbrella of Islamic Jihad such as Islamic Jihad itself, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa, et al.? 2) Does the Imam intend to foment insurrection by the manner the G(round) Z(ero) Islamic center is to be founded?

As of now, the Imam has yet to renounce his support for Hamas. (Apparently, Hamas has also recently expressed support for the Imam, so there can not possibly be any mistake as to his philosophical orientation and sentiments.) Likewise, A New York official recently offered the Imam the chance to move his proposed facility to state-controlled property away from GZ. (The current given status of _that_ property is irrelevant in this context.) Imam Rouf denied the offer made by the official. The Imam _still_ intends to open the Cordoba House at GZ, and he apparently also still plans on doing it on Sept. 11th, 2011. Support for Hamas itself makes a person a threat to America. Also, by establishing the mosque that the Imam wants at the location where thousands of Americans were killed in Lower Manhattan and on an anniversary date referencing the same 9/11 destruction, the Imam is clearly and obviously making a grave statement. That statement is unquestionably one of validating the 9/11 attacks. It is also no small coincidence that the doctrine of Jihad stipulates that the overtaking of enemy location is a highly prized conquest. No matter what the Imam and his sympathizers say, there are no legitimate grounds for interpreting this building process in any other way. The true Islamic believers will recognize the new dominance of their religious system over the American way of life, and they will celebrate that dominance while conspiring to generate more attacks on American soil.

Since the question of the Imam’s status is paramount, no other question raised about the mosque can change the status of the Imam or of the project in question. Some people have charged that denying the founding of such a facility is unfair discrimination. This is baseless since the concern that many Americans have is not yet remotely focused on mosques in general let alone on religious temples (though Americans _should_ at least be concerned about the implications of any such building!) The focus is squarely on _THIS_ Islamic center in _THIS_ location. The charge of the mosque's opponents harboring racism obviously is based on a non sequitur since the Muslim faith is practiced by people of myriad races. The charge that the center is only for peaceful means is further overturned by the fact that the Islamic radicals have been waging war on America and other nations for several decades. The war on America easily goes back as far as the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and further on.

As a matter of fact, the Islamic war on America is the _only_ factor that properly elaborates on and determines the status of the Cordoba House project. That is, it is the general context of what America has had to sustain in the way of Muslim attacks that fundamentally sets the terms for how the Ground Zero mosque is to be evaluated. Absolutely nothing else is close to being as of substantial consequence in this regard. (It is ludicrous to evaluate the proposed GZ mosque in a cultural, historical, and philosophical vacuum.) Just as the attack on the USS Cole ship, the bombing of various embassies, the surprise attack on the Marines in Lebanon, and various other Muslim-promulgated atrocities leading up to the 2 bombings of the WTC center in downtown NYC are part of the same war, the Cordoba House project is simply another attempt to destroy America because of its generally pro-reason, pro-science, pro-technology, selfish, and Capitalist orientation which is rooted in the essential ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Islamic Jihad is defined as a cultural effort to bring about God’s will by force according to the Muslim faith. See here: http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

Jihad is a verbal noun with the literal meaning of "striving" or "determined effort." The active participle mujahid means "someone who strives" or "a participant in jihad."

The term jihad in many contexts means "fighting" (though there are other words in Arabic that more unambiguously refer to the act of making war, such as qital or harb). In the Qur'an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, "in the path of God."

By true Muslim faith, the entire point of Jihad is to render the goal of making the world more Islamic. Obviously, America represents the arch-rival and antithesis of Muslims and their faith, so it naturally follows that those of that faith would want to stop and overturn American progress. Lest anyone forget or even be ignorant of the facts, the 9/11 attacks occurred precisely because Washington D.C. and New York City respectively represent the foremost centers of political and economic value to America. The values and virtues as generally best expressed in those two cities are exactly what those of the Muslim faith have sworn to Allah to destroy. There’s every reason to naturally figure that those people behind the Cordoba House project are driven by the exact same philosophy. In war, philosophy isn’t just the fuel, it’s the very basis for a military campaign. The Cordoba House is perfectly consistent with the ever-growing and decades-long Muslim campaign to demolish America. The Cordoba House is a de facto act of war against America given the nature of war in general and the Muslim campaign in specific!

While the apologistic arguments for the Ground Zero mosque are fallacious and tangential, it is worth at least mentioning how they can be differentiated from my argument here. Some supporters say that there are other American mosques and actually there are some mosques in the nearby downtown area, so the GZ mosque is equivalent to the other American mosques and there’s nothing to fear in turn. This line of thinking is naturally wrong because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. Again, those other mosques are _in this context_ currently irrelevant because they are not specifically being founded at Ground Zero let alone on the anniversary of the 2nd WTC bombing attacks. Other people have the effrontery to say that the GZ mosque would actually provide greater sympathy and understanding even to the point of benefitting the Muslim faith. No real American would even have such a consideration since that motive is sacrificial in nature. Further still, as I’ve already indicated the last thing that Americans should be doing is trying to actually benefit Islamic agendas in this regard. If anything, Muslims in America should be humbled and go well out of their way to help wage war against the Jihadists. They should have a particularly grave concern for and fear of the Cordoba House since it obviously will make their own lives more difficult and endanger the very nation they claim as home. Also, arguing that other similar dubious though less threatening constructions exist simply is an attempt to misdirect attention from where it belongs i.e. it's a “bait and switch” tactic. There must be other silly arguments, but my point here is that they are neither remotely compelling, nor logical, nor relevant. It is _far_ more important to communicate a proper argument than to focus on refuting bad arguments let alone irrelevant arguments. That is, given the actual nature of the Cordoba House project, the focus of attention _must_ be on why _that_ mosque should not come to fruition.

The Value of the Tea Parties

2010-02-16T01:58:00.001-08:00

I haven’t personally attended a Tea Party event, but I’ve done some related tracking. To this day, there has not only not been much integrated organization for that group in general beyond some Internet linking; there hasn’t been an explicitly dominant guiding philosophy. As Ayn Rand indicated, simply opposing a position doesn’t fulfill the obligation(s) required of having a positive normative philosophy. In other words in this case, for the Tea Party movement to be anti-status quo in government in some superficial way isn’t nearly enough of a surrogate to carry the prospect for American freedom forward. Make no mistake at best, supposed American renegades are merely coasting currently. The Tea Party supporters have some idea of what to oppose, but they have little idea of what to be united by. They really don’t understand what they should be fighting _for_.

America was founded by an explicit guiding philosophy as elaborated in the Charters of Freedom. We haven’t seen anything along those lines in decades as far as the general populace has been concerned. In recent years, a faction of Americans have come to realize that there might be some political benefits to the ideas inside Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_. Still, it’s a long way to go from being merely aware of a potential value as against becoming throughly versed and immersed in a broad-based ideology. Whether someone is involved in the Tea Party movement or not, those Americans who seek greater freedom need to not only become more pro-active in politics, they also need to be more mindful as to the type of ideas that they subscribe to and promulgate.

Though the Tea Party has not been a movement which has had a major power vacuum or usurpation as of yet (since there never was an established intellectual leadership), the movement is becoming ripe for manipulation to outside forces. Coincidentally and recently, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin has been in the news for courting the Tea Party movement. This may be unsurprising, but it’s certainly disturbing. It clearly indicates that Palin is looking for a vehicle to express her ideas; at the same time, it further reinforces that the Tea Party movement hasn’t been particularly aware of how it should be intellectually guided. If any political movement can so readily and easily be influenced by an outside interest which is expressly part of and representative of the very establishment which is supposed to be opposed, then that movement is to be questioned for its motives. The problems inherent of the movement in support of Ross Perot some several years ago come to mind here....

Likewise, it has been mentioned in the news that there may actually be a Tea Party in the form of a political party running in competition of the Democrats and Republicans. This is a decidedly different focus for the Tea Party movement to take. Again, it’s unsurprising that this movement would eventually seek to actualize and manifest ideas into practical reality. Still, the aforementioned intellectual vacuum makes for a further troubling turn of events given the potential rise of a related political party. It benefits no one for yet another political party to be raised if that party hasn’t even clearly differentiated itself in a way that would offer positive benefit to Americans.

The over-arching background for all of this of course is that the Republican Party continues to be bifurcated by the religious conservatives and everyone else who’s been left sidelined. The fact that this division has not been addressed by Republican politicians shows that the GOP hasn’t made any real headway since the days of Barry Goldwater running for the Presidential office. It used to be needless to say that if the Republicans didn’t stand up for individual protection, then no one would. Today, no one in politics stands for individualism or individual rights. This cavernous vacuum still stands as the greatest American issue to be dealt with today.

The recent news about the Tea Parties reveal ongoing issues that need to be dealt with if these organizations are to actually benefit American people. It should be obvious by now that the religious conservatives are overwhelmingly responsible for America’s demise. It is just as obvious that no appeal to that same faction will save or salvage America in any way. As per usual, what Americans must discover is that the very nature of their way of life depends on the identification of the virtue of independence. Americans must realize that to be American _is_ to necessarily be politically free from government tyranny in any shape or form. Americans have had a track record of knowing how to fend for themselves in an economic context. What has left those same people vulnerable to internal political turmoil is their lack of understanding of the importance of intellectual ability in the more fundamental context of rational politics.

Where the Founding Fathers failed to identify the proper intellectual nature of freedom, Ayn Rand managed to single-handedly succeed. She was the very person to signal to Americans what they must to do in order to protect themselves and their general way of life. Neither religion nor Socialism has ever offered the political benefits that the Founding Fathers hoped to leave behind for their successors. Still, the Founders were themselves disarmed by the very people who disarm us today: the philosophers. If Americans are ever to seriously resurrect their country, then they must realize that it is in rational philosophy that they must significantly start investing their time and energy into. The increased reading of _Atlas Shrugged_ is the one true bright spot in our current political landscape, but that book is a work of fiction that contends with politics in artistic terms. Americans must embolden themselves as colonists of early America did by studying the humanities. The important difference that new rational revolutionaries must be mindful of is that an adherence to reason in politics is not an expendable option.

How Not to Essentialize the Vote

2008-10-11T18:13:00.000-07:00

In Craig Biddle's article from _The Objective Standard_ Vol. 3, No. 3. entitled "McBama vs. America", he claims that the major Presidential candidates are fundamentally the same. Biddle considers the candidates' respective positions on major issues of recent concern. While it is very obviously true that both Barack Obama and John McCain count on the philosophies of altruism, pragmatism, and Socialism to form their respective policies, there is more to consider. For example, are the concerns over general foreign policy or general medical care _absolutely_ fundamental?

While there can be some tangential benefits in noting how two (or more) candidates are similar, that tactic belies the greatest importance of each of the respective candidates' policies. For example, seeing what those candidates agree on can indicate what the wider culture considers important. (No doubt that Americans largely accept altruism as morally valid despite the overwhelming preponderance of how dangerous that philosophy is.) It is incumbent on voters to at least try to find essential differences in candidates. I don't want to focus on mechanics, but if readers are curious, then they can follow-up by researching Ayn Rand's "measurement omission" technique which is required for proper essentialization. Some indications are here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html

From _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, page 59, here's some of what Ayn Rand has to say about evaluating fundamental concepts:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

"Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others."

Certain issues _are_ more fundamental to any human than other issues. While personal context is always of major import to each voter, it would be utterly relativistic to figure that those personal concerns eliminate the interest in issues that are not only universal but are of sheer survival value. For example, American voter C may be particularly concerned about the growth of the welfare state while American voter D may be concerned about American military involvement in parts of Asia. Certainly, it can be argued that neither the welfare state should be allowed to grow unabated nor should military be funded to go anywhere and everywhere in the world when (noting AR's recognition of the rule of fundamentality again) certain countries pose greater foreign threats to Americans than others. (Today, the greatest foreign threat is still Iran of course. See Dr. Leonard Peikoff's writing on Islamic terrorism for more information on this subject.) The rights to self-protection and self-preservation are so wholly basic to human survival that any talk of other issues necessarily begs this question of fundamentality as Ayn Rand indicated.

Since _I_ am not willing to overlook them, I'm highlighting some of the differences on a fundamental issue of freedom that hits closer to a person than many other issues do...

Note the dates...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm

"Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)"
"Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)"
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

"Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)"
"Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)"
"Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)"

What this indicates is that while there may appear to be some common ground between the candidates even on the issue of abortion, the truth exists elsewhere: It is in the basic differences where a voter can begin to establish comparative value between McCain and Obama. Note that Obama has continued to affirm the individual woman's right to abortion. At the same time, McCain has a history of ignoring and even expressly attempting to violate that most basic right of an individual to control their body.

Also of relevance, it wasn't an Islamicist (or an atheist) that did the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm

"A doctor was shot to death outside his abortion clinic here today when a man who prayed for the physician's soul stepped forward from a group of antiabortion protesters and opened fire, according to police and witnesses..."

Skeptics might want to review what Ayn Rand said about abortion as a political issue (and in particular for elections.) Also, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan (and the Christian Coalition), America is at the cultural point which it is at today.

Of further note, here is an excerpt from an Ayn Rand interview: Again, note the date.....

The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_

"Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain?

A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens.

The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society...."

Ayn Rand died in 1982, so it's very likely that the interview I just excerpted is the last or certainly among the most recent interviews she ever gave. She gave that interview at the very time when American Christians were starting to engage politics in a more serious way. With the greater affluence of Americans in the 1970's and the follow-up of President Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, it's not so surprising that conservatives would think that the time was right for them to swing into action. That they did.......and Christianity is here in this country as a major factor _now_ still to this very day.

If anyone doubts this, then they can ask Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason weblog if abortion opponents strike him as rational. A few weeks ago, Provenzo discussed what he thought of Sarah Palin's attempts to elevate her raising of a disabled infant to the level of great moral virtue. The religious zealots came out in droves and not only scolded him for his position, several dozen of them went as far as offering Mr. Provenzo death threats. Did as many supposedly even-handed religious advocates come out to offer him sympathetic support for what their cohorts had done? As far as I can tell, hardly any of the supporters of Palin's rhetoric offered consideration for him. They also did not substantiate their arguments with reasonable premises though they certainly resorted to blind faith and emotionalism! My point here is that we are a long way from seeing religious Americans come across as believable when they supposedly advocate peaceful living.

Considering that Craig Biddle's essay notes the similarities between McCain and Obama while neglecting the differences, one would have to figure that he would expect us to figure that those similarities to be of greater (or even greatest) significance when it comes to comparative moral evaluation. Given that a mother who is prohibited from exercising her right to abortion will hardly be able to live the life she would have otherwise figured on, there is little reason to argue that she (or her significant romantic other) would consider other issues as being equal or even greater in value. If Biddle would have maintained proper context, then his argument would have at least come off as plausible. If he would have focused on how Americans are actually required to live their lives in terms of their respective hierarchy of values, then he would have been able to see that his warning is misdirected.

If he had shown contextual consideration for the ramifications of the very policy positions he did note, then he would have been able to offer a proper and more immediately identifiable perspective. As it is, it would seem that Craig Biddle needs to check _his_ premises. Let's get really practical here: In reality, there are actual women who have foreign policy concerns who are also facing the prospect of bearing and raising children. If someone is in the situation where she found out that she is pregnant and she wants to further her career, then will ANYTHING that a foreign politician says be of greater immediate concern to her over and above her attempt to reconcile her pregnancy? In reality, even under the most dire circumstances, if another nation threatens America, then it will have to engage in some long-term planning in attacking us. Meanwhile... that woman (and untold thousands of others) will have to deal with whether or not they are even allowed to utilize a perfectly moral and medically viable option for terminating pregnancy.

Shall we wait until things get even culturally worse? Given that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the current Republican President has gone farther than anyone to strong-arm legislators into supporting a massive bail-out which is of course an example of naked Socialism, are people still convinced that there are no _fundamental_ differences between the two major Presidential candidates and their respective parties in 2008?

From Homeschooling to No Schooling

2008-03-10T02:47:00.000-07:00

In recent insanity, the Second District Court of Appeal of California has made a new ruling that prohibits parents from controlling their children's education. On the contrary and to put it positively, a parent has the right and obligation to control how their children are raised. End of story. To put it negatively, no one else has any authority over this parental right. The new resolution runs entirely contrary to the basic decency and good sense of proper child development. The act of requiring a child to go to a public school (or any day school for the matter) against his family's desires entails (among other things) that: 1) That child is prohibited from receiving his guardian(s)' provision for physical well-being viz. the parent's concern for the child as it involves safety, exercise, food, nutrition, and special medical needs 2) That child can not refer to his parents/guardians for conceptual points of comparison and other follow-up questions. It isn't entirely unusual for a teacher to offer up a subject matter in a manner that is offensive to both the child and his parents. Consider the trend of giving sexual education to increasingly younger children with greater explication and frequency. 3) Further, consider the extra burden that this involves. A parent who invariably already has his and his child's daily routine set, now has to disorganize that and start over. The parent would have to take additional time for scheduling and come up with requisite transportation. He'd also have to consult with a variety of public school agents for his own comprehension of how the school administers its programming. Plus, he would have to further consult with school staff in meetings instigated by their whims and arbitrary scheduling. 4) Then, there's additional financial costs. The public school scheme as we know it is more of a 20th century manifestation of multi-tentacled Modernism than anything the American Founding Fathers could have envisioned. That is, it amounts to an excuse for greater taxation which in itself will likely beget more taxation and regulation as it always has. Obviously, all of the aforementioned would invoke sudden psychological turmoil for the members of an affected family as well.

It should be noted that any legislative Constitution can only acknowledge and protect individual rights. It's a total and fundamental self-contradiction for legislators to write laws that "give" rights. Rights are not given by a legislative body or anyone else for the matter. Rights are derived from an individual human's nature i.e. his conceptually-oriented ability to negotiate reality, and those rights exist prior to society. In fact, as Ayn Rand indicated, society is held back by rights so that any individual may live according to his own respective consciousness as he sees fit so long as he doesn't violate others' rights.

A parent raising his own child in no way violates anyone's rights. Again, a parent is, if anything, morally obligated to look after a child's education. Legislators most certainly do not know of and couldn't possibly keep track of every parent's particular pedagogical agenda. It's simply off-the-charts ludicrous to suggest that a governmental bureaucracy could even begin to have a hope of properly raising children. Consider the track record of modern government these days. Governments around the world constantly violate individual rights even while they operate under the color of supposedly objective laws. (The laws themselves are to be questioned as well as the execution of the laws.) This new court opinion leads to nothing more than another trial balloon and naked power grab.

Politics is derived from ethics. Does the State of California attempt to substantiate its claim with rational morality? No, not at all. What California government has instead given us is an edict from on high via rationalizations i.e. an initiation of force based on the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The appellate court is apparently resting its argument at least in part on the following excerpt from the California Constitution: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement." Really now? This is entirely presumptuous. Again, leaving aside the complete impossibility and the abject ineptitude of a governmental body in attempting to provide any of the previous enumerated values, the law is illogical. (...so much for the intellect, ethics and science!)

Note the bait and switch here: If there is an "authority" to be concerned with, then it would be of a pedagogical nature, but that is in using the term authority in the sense of being an expert. When the government claims authority, those agents are entirely depending on the threat of force to coerce parents to follow orders. Also, who decides what educational paradigms and practitioners are best? Caveat emptor! Education, as is the case with every other commodity, must be traded commercially for everyone involved to get the values they seek to obtain. The California government is not only insulting the intelligence of parents by suggesting that they don't have rights to educate their children but that even if they were allowed freedom to choose among competing private educational institutions, those parents wouldn't have the intelligence to decide which organization is best in aiding their children's education.

There's another logical fallacy that the state's argument rests on, and that is that of an anti-concept. In this case, the anti-concept in question is "group rights". In particular, the appellate court invokes that specious idea of public welfare. What is this welfare? For that matter, what is the public? These terms are themselves anti-conceptual. That is, "public" and "public welfare" are undefinable, and they are only used to obfuscate issues. As Ayn Rand indicated in her _The Virtue of Selfishness_ book on page 102,

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob …

The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectiverights.html

...so the idea of "group rights" is used to mutually reinforce the state's authority (the group's supposed agent) as that authority is used to prop up "group rights". Also, "public welfare" merely skirts the essential issue which is that of man's rights. In effect, the state is saying: "You, the parent, must cede your right to parent to the whim of a nebulous idea of society... because we, the state, say so." Education is not a right in the sense that it's something to be extricated from others by force. There isn't any such "right". As the Founding Fathers noted, a person qua parent has the right to _pursue_ values e.g. the value of education as against having the value handed over to the child at the expense of someone else's life. This itself involves still another logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, the state's argument is a circular and baseless argument. The state legislature is ultimately counting on a conceptual shell game to keep parents confused and preventing them from identifying the root cause of the decline of American education.

A child stands to benefit more from greater interaction with his parent(s). Why punish a parent for trying to offer his child more support? There's a larger context at play here. Along with the problems that the recent appellate court resolution involves, there's the fact that education has been up for grabs in political circles for decades. There are pressure groups including those of the teachers' unions that wish to gain ever greater authority over the decision-making possibilities that are yielded by past governmental encroachment.

From the related San Francisco Chronicle article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL, we have this:

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

Of course, this further begs the question of "What is the basis of teachers' credentials?" It just so happens that I personally was raised in a family of teachers. I know from hearing stories from my family and their co-workers that there's entirely too many parties pulling at teachers for them to do their job properly these days. ...and that is leaving aside the condition of school curricula.

What's also disheartening is that the teachers themselves are unlikely to fight the trend of greater state control. They are beholden to the state for their jobs since the state has what nearly amounts to being a monopoly. In recent decades, it isn't as if homeschooling parents have ever represented the numerical majority of parents, so neither homeschooling parents nor the teachers who are sympathetic to those parents have much leverage in this situation (unless they protest the infernal legislation which the several courts depend on of course!)

Parents and teachers alike need to understand that if they are sincere in having children receive proper education they must not get in the way of laissez-faire Capitalism. That is, everyone involved must take responsibility for their own respective role (and only that personal role!) in educating children. They must also understand that government has no value to offer; it can only take away values if it's improperly directed. At best, government can only protect an ideal educational system... rather an educational _industry_ if it's ever allowed to develop. Parents must continue to fight for greater recognition of the fact that they are the first and last authority in respect to their own children's development. That means, parents must have a minimal understanding of the basis for laissez-faire, and they must be willing to speak out in support of such a theory.

On the precipice of American Sobriety

2008-02-04T21:29:00.000-08:00

1 October, 2007

Yes, I am about to actually make a (potentially unfounded) speculation. (Gasp!) Far be it for I to be someone to make too much of the recent press references to Ayn Rand. (Watch me as I rub my hands together.) After all, anyone could figure that the major press (as the collective that they truly are!) would in their infinite Leftism find that they would feel guilty if they didn't at least pay such a literary nemesis some lip service for fear of being "derelict of duty". Oh irony, sometimes I can not but help love you! (In case someone is slow on the uptake, Ayn Rand equals sales.) What the Hell am I _really_ on about? Well, leaving aside that no fundamental cultural change is likely to happen in the next decade, and it will take at least part of another decade for all of those students who have been getting ARI's book donations to get to that age where they really get serious about politics (due to having established careers, houses, families, etc.), I think we have good evidence that the intellectual vacuum will get filled in the near future! (No, no one could even begin to know specifically when...)

This is, of course, no small matter. If we are to have a political revolution (which apparently many sentient people are longing for), then that can _only_ come after an intellectual revolution has gone into full swing. You don't get a Mussolini or Hitler without a Marx going to work beforehand, for example. Likewise, you will never get another American revolution without a substantial American minority becoming well-aquainted with Ayn Rand's work. (Yes, please do refer to Dr. Peikoff's _Ominous Parallels_...) What I am getting at is the realization that there truly is "no alternative" circa 2020 or thereabouts. Okay, America is not lead by a papacy now, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is yielded by the aftermath of Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Jr. It's not hard NOW ..after so much has transpired legally! Also, (big surprise) the Dems. are following suit in advocating religion...., and there shouldn't be a doubt why that is. Please. The consequences of this path-switch are to come eventually (barring the very interference which Objectivists hope to provide.)

Consider this: Objectivists are already lamenting the Democratic absorption of religious ethics. Well, aside from witnessing what is likely the inevitable, is there anything to fear in the short-term by having the Democrats in power? NO! It will very predictably play out... (as awful as that certainly is), and the result will be the same. There are two fears; each correspond to each party's use of religion, and we already know plenty about the respective future outcomes.

Let's say the Democrats get and retain the White House for 3 successive terms. (Yes, that would actually be the sound of Hillary having an orgasm..., but never you mind....) What precisely will they do that could be significantly worse than what we would likely get otherwise? More restrictions due to future Patriot Acts? Table that concern! Haha, more spending... yes, as if anyone on the face of the Earth can actually come remotely close to quantifying the spending of the American government. What else is there to say except that the flood gates have been open for decades? Who are we kidding here...? You couldn't possibly rocket into space that much money as we have wasted.... You couldn't begin to burn it... If you are number-crunching, then you are wasting your time. We are FAR beyond that as a nation. (One of the several reasons why Libertarians are fools is that these sorts of issues first depend on principles of basic philosophy not of economics, but that's a tangent...) As I've said before, the Democrats are following the Republicans' lead. I have to emphasize this further. As Objectivists have said in recent years, the Left doesn't have new ideas (and that's leaving aside that hardly any of their recent ideas are good regardless of sources.) The Left has and will continue to merely mimic the Conservatives. Yes, it sounds implausible and harsh, but the Left is that myopic actually. The Left couldn't find a new idea if it was held in front of their respective faces. Oh no? Go back and read my earlier blog postings... ...or merely recount the news of the past two decades. Oh ye, of too much faith...lose that drunken altruistic stupor! ...and I hear the calling that the Democrats will wreak havoc via medical legislation. No doubt that they would. ..and still it was this administration under President Bush, Jr. that implemented new provisions for prescription drug issues, yet my words fall on deaf ears I suppose. Meanwhile, the "comatose" believe that there are substantial differences between the two major parties... in ideology?!?!? Madness! I could go on for ages... Let's move forward...

What of the Republicans? Suppose that they have total control of the federal government for the next decade. Would that be different than that of Democratic control? Yes and no. Initially there isn't going to be much of a difference worth noting. The problem is that Republicans have the very things that the Democrats used to have. Republicans have a comprehensive agenda, they have fortitude, they have a well-worn morality to fall back on, and they have more (such as filled coffers.) Looking down the road, it is very unlikely that the Democrats will put up much of a fight. It's simply not in the cards. The Democrats blew their chance. For freedom-loving people, the situation is much more dire. We actually give more than a damn about our own respective futures, and we can visualize those future directions. Does it scare you to know that there is a political party that relies on the idea that the greatest rewards can only come in the "afterlife"? This should terrify you. It's the 21st century folks; it's not supposed to be the Dark Ages. There's more to be said, and still I have to keep moving...

Do you realize what this all begins to add up to? The Republicans have a situation where all they have to do is merely "show up", and they are automatically going to look like American saviors. After all, the citizenry has _no other viable political alternative_ to rely on. Absolutely nothing else. As I have said before, both parties are anathema to American freedom. Still, when you are presented with a problem, you are morally obligated to cut it down at its source i.e. its root lest you welcome your own demise. The root is the politicization of altruism. It's been this way for most of a century, but what is different now is that that theory is finally being manifested into ultimate practice. We _are_ seeing the beginnings of theocracy in America. ...and if this process is not averted, there will be no turning back for generations to come.

Fortunately, America just might get the white knights it has been pining for. Make no mistake that no philosophy will or can be a panacea for those who are weak of will. Still, if we can dare presume that Americans can hold onto enough resolve for a few more decades, then maybe they can also summon enough intelligence to recognize that it is time for a real paradigm shift. At best and at the necessary least, the following must transpire: 1) Americans must discover philosophy i.e. they must realize that Objectivism just so happens and necessarily must be their solution for establishing the mode of life that they spend so much time dreaming of. (Did they actually think that freedom doesn't require work? ...that it's a metaphysical given? ...that the Founding Fathers were just merely in the right place at the right time?!? MADNESS!) 2) Americans must _finally_ act like grown adults and follow-through i.e. they must take responsibility for their own ideas. They must claim freedom in theory and be willing to execute the provisions to better ensure the protection thereof in practice. To put it in yet another way, they must recognize the right ideas, they must recognize _that they then have_ the right ideas, and THEN they must forcibly (and legally) employ those ideas in social terms. 3) They must still further educate every person they can possibly reach about the dangers of Statism with EXACTLY the same demeanor that Jews educate their children about the perils of Nazism. That is, freedom must be promulgated as the life-or-death issue which it is.

Nothing less than total commitment is required. This is the final consequence of "Give me Liberty or give me Death." as well as "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." If Americans don't want to be free, then be assured, they won't be free. In other words, if you don't want to do the work to keep yourself alive, then someone else will gladly take over that responsibility ...at the cost of your life.

It's your choice. I've certainly long since made mine....

An Immutable Truth

2007-09-01T23:45:00.001-07:00

I haven't posted recently because I haven't created nor come across a new integration that I was willing and able to elaborate at length on. In the case of this entry, I just wanted to relay some news, but then that just triggered a new "jumping-off point."

First the news:
At the Objectivist Conference in Colorado this past July, there was talk of a new ideological campaign. Well, The Objective Standard has come through. The journal now has new merchandise that neatly sums up the Objectivist recognition of how mankind should consider natural resources. You can now purchase the new t-shirts, etc. at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/merchandise/

"Exploit the Earth or die" indeed!

...and on to some consequential thoughts:
Savvy readers will recognize that the binary (and true) alternative presented by such a dictum is in direct opposition to the mealy-mouthed advocates of compromise who wish that we would just operate in terms of "managed use". Managed, mitigated, restricted, etc. by whom and for whom?!? This idea of compromising on the principle of property rights is supposed to be "reasonable", but this belies the nature of man viz. an individual requires freedom to pursue his means of survival. It is a false alternative to posit that either 1) a man should be guaranteed particular comforts by government or "society" with whatever he thinks is "needed" or 2) a man (who is innocent) should be thoroughly estranged by others such that he isn't even allowed to engage with others in order to pursue a fair trade of exchange. Think that no one subscribes to either of these alternatives? Try this on for size: Some of the very people who advocate the redistribution of wealth "from the haves to the have-nots" or based on "..each according to their need..." are _also_ amongst those who wish to attack business every which way via "monopoly" laws!!!! Let's not remind these advocates that no matter what a business does, it's considered in illegal operation if engaged in setting "extortive" prices "too high" or "wiping out" competition by setting prices "too low" or "price fixing" by leaving prices as is. Never mind that government, yes government(!) has gone as far as taking it upon itself to set the prices of products which it has no legitimate interest in controlling at all in any fashion. I guess the Leftists got one thing that they hoped for... they never wanted the marketplace to be free after all, and that increasingly Statist direction is one that our governments are guided by normally these days.

Ultimately, whether these advocates know it or not, and whether they admit it or not, what they advocate is nothing more than a power grab. That is, they are simply and essentially offering re-fashioned Marxist philosophy in the idea of the redistribution of wealth even when they just want to do "nothing more than establish some minor regulations". (Any governmental limits on property will steal value from the property owners no matter what the form of control and no matter the type of value which is at stake.) I guess I could stand to mention something else since some Leftists are so callous to assume a related negative premise: The redistribution of wealth idea is not justified as they think i.e. it actually would be a proposition for legalized theft ...not unlike "taxation without representation" ...or "eminent domain" used to take a person's house. As Ayn Rand indicated, freedom of action is rooted in freedom of thought, and an attack on the results of individual human action ultimately prohibits goal achievement which must originate in thought.

Any Environmentalist argument will _always_ be vulnerable at its root. It doesn't matter who makes the argument, when the argument is made, or what the motivational angle of the argument is. The fact remains that the Environmentalist philosophy depends on an invalid conceptual inversion. As I've just elaborated, the Environmentalists wish to summarily sidestep the true Capitalist alternative which would not only serve the producers. In addition, Capitalism (if allowed) would actually allow the best chance of thriving to those who are willing to work while claiming to be poor (a relativistic term). The fact remains that products (including oranges) and services don't simply fall off trees into the marketplace. As the French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say, indicated, economic demand is consequential _not _ causal. This idea wasn't properly understood by Karl Marx and his followers. The metaphysical-epistemic inversion of putting a man-made product's existence before its morally proper formation was accepted and left by Modernists for Leftists to draw further upon.

As Objectivists know, values only exist as long as there are valuers. In other words, the entities who necessitate production are indeed the very producers (and, in turn, those who depend on the producers) who seek to improve their lives. This isn't completely lost on those who wish to put their Nihilistic hatred in Environmentalist terms. Those types of haters of mankind communicate that Capitalistic products and services are made by those who are wasteful, insensitive, myopic, and even baselessly idealistic. Of course, they have trouble making arguments against the very basis of true Capitalism because they don't really understand the nature of rational selfishness to begin with.

What Subjectivists such as Environmentalists fail to distinguish is that, unlike the metaphysically given, the man-made comes from human effort and could not possibly be otherwise. In turn, the man-made is property that in actuality is owned and controlled by individual humans. (There are no group rights.) Natural resources are potential pieces of property. (This is the _only_ moral view of natural resources!) Again, those natural resources have _no value_ until they are claimed and processed by men.

It is true that the metaphysically given comprises some of the material that man must depend on for survival, but in order for men to work amongst each other, those natural resources must be claimed and managed according to the terms of objective law which acknowledges property rights. Let's not mince words here: the laws, the industrial concerns, and everything else conceived of is for the benefit of individuals who are willing to work to earn their keep. The sub-human portion of the animal kingdom can and will continue to fend for itself, and those entities exist automatically i.e. by instinct and without (conceptually-directed) volition. Lastly, the men who wish to operate as nothing more than parasites tend to get better than what they deserve as a matter of fact.

Consequentially, a way of viewing money is in terms of work. Just as work can be turned into money e.g. payment for services rendered, resources of various types (including money) can be converted into work also via trade. For example, when you purchase an orange, you are _not_ engaged in some sort of ethereal and bucolic procedure that exists in a vacuum devoid of modern industrial action. (Even the attempts to "get outside market forces" are ultimately dependent on market forces.) That orange could _not_ have existed as you now have it were it not for human action in the form of Capitalistic production. To the degree that Capitalistic economics is allowed to proceed unrestricted, you have the results of work only by the grace of the so-called "robber barons". Those "robber barons" manage the fields where the oranges are harvested just as they manage the financial transactions that take place via stock markets where oranges can be traded for maximal value as part of a virtuous process which, in turn, allows for fruit to be afforded by even the laziest or even the very man-hating Environmentalists who hypocritically wish to hamstring the "robber barons" who make the entire process possible.

There is so much more that can be said, and much of it has been said. See the writings of various Austrian economists such as Carl Menger, the American Founding Fathers, and Objectivist intellectuals such as Andrew Bernstein for in-depth elaborations on the mechanics and theory that make production possible. Remember on Labor Day, it is the "robber barons" for without which labor (as a formalized and integrated portion of general industry) would not even otherwise exist. It is only the producers who allow the rest of us to live as we comfortably do. They and their like-minded brethren are the ones who we should not only remember but also honor.

Now, if this were roughly 15 years ago, I could stop here, but today even those who claim great positive support for Objectivism seem to find sympathy in Christian politicians. Once again, I have to invoke the bitter irony of our circumstances. While it is true that the Leftists openly led the charge against Capitalism _in the past_, they were not and are not the main culprits against Objectivist politics now. Of course, without fail, it is the Conservatives who have developed a track record of thwarting not only "bedroom freedom" but also freedom in the corporate boardrooms. This shouldn't even be remotely surprising to Objectivists. As I've already stated before in this blog, altruism was founded by the religionists. They represent the archetype; they all but perfected the destructive paradigm which threatens America even today. That is, later generations of religionists took advantage of the mind-body dichotomy that was inherent in the Founding Fathers' basic ideas. Simply put, the Leftists could not have existed in America without the support of the political Right, and Ayn Rand herself said this throughout her life. ...so while the specific point of this post is that the Leftists should be corrected for their Environmentalist sympathies, the most fundamental political concern is to attend to the grave injustice of the Conservatives hijacking Capitalist theory while selling it out as they operate as the Great Pretenders which they are.

How is Objectivism relevant to society now?

2007-04-12T18:29:00.001-07:00

One of the reasons I love thinking in terms of fundamentals is that when it works it can completely change the nature of action. Frankly, I suspect that Objectivists are stagnating in their approach to politics and polemics. Having internal discussions and working through the Ayn Rand Institute are certainly worthwhile, but those related activities are NOT all-encompassing. There are other important issues which _no one_ is addressing right now. (I mean absolutely no one I've come across....)

By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.

I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.

I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.

Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.

What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.

Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.

I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:

Form or join committees that strive to outline broad policy. (This is just starting to happen now.)

There is also the start of more professional publications e.g. _The Objective Standard_, but certainly this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do more testing. This could involve surveys, role-playing, debates, and blind tours.

To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.

For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.

There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.

A brief history of Objectivist-related music

2006-12-03T01:57:00.000-08:00

This has been a long, long time in the making.... I'm going to focus mainly on music made by Objectivists since those artists hardly get noticed at all. There is also the matter of music made by comparatively better known artists who happen to write songs which at least imply some artistic affinity for Objectivist ideas. Naturally, the artists that fall into these two groups come to use ideas with decidedly different mind sets, There could be a potential overlap of their respective work ethics or even working affiliations, but it is still too early to expect much collusion as of now or even in the near future.

It's also worth saying something about the (meta-)trends that have arisen. It might even be too early to say that there is some strong principle(s) which Objectivist artists happen to be following outside of what's involved in simply being Objectivists. I will try to consider some possibilities in that respect anyway. If philosophy depends on history for certain aspects of conceptual development, then something similar can be said for the development of the arts. There are also aspects that are very specific to music, but I'm getting a bit ahead of myself with those related premises. Considering the age of Objectivism as a cultural force (whether in theory or in practice) and considering the sparse but ever-growing number of musicians interested in Objectivism, I think now is a good time to commit an overview for the record. Also, while I don't claim to be aware of absolutely every possible (quasi-)Objectivist musician, I have enough knowledge of this history to make some informed comments. I want to make one other last stipulation. I will be discussing artists who are established; otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to catalog such artists. By the term "established", I mean to indicate a selection of the artists who have track records as working professionals on the order of at least several years. Also, they should have made albums by now, or they should appear to have that capability. (Of course, I am aware of the idea that albums as physical recordings as manufactured up to now may fall by the wayside in the next few years. I am leaving that technological concern aside since it's not relevant to my overall purpose.)

Unsurprisingly, there are still not too many artists to reference as Objectivist or Objectivist-friendly. At the same time, I think the steady growth in the number of new artists is something of a cultural barometer itself. (I tend to have a generally positive evaluation of this growth as I hope to make evident.) I certainly encourage any readers to help me "fill in the blanks" as it might be appropriate.

I would have to start off with the time I attended my first full-blown Objectivist conference in 1995. It so happens that there was a group which periodically performed in the atrium outside of the major classrooms. MUSIC BY ANTHEM has had more than one configuration, but they have always taken on a classical style in general. Chelle Fulk is one of the driving forces behind the group, and she had a good long run with the MP3.com webservice while that existed. Also, she and the group do have CDs for sale. While I am not fully versed in their repertoire, I can testify to their prowess and good taste. From that conference onward, things got interesting; I have come across a wider array of artists covering most of the popular contemporary styles.

Stephen Siek is a classical pianist. I am not sure, but I believe he is mostly self-taught. He has performed what I consider to be some lesser known works of various master composers. I have witnessed his live performances at least twice, and I can only say given my (still) limited knowledge of such work that he has performed as admirably as could normally be conceived. If I may be so bold, I don't think I would be alone in considering him as possibly being the person who most likely brings to mind the character of "Richard Halley" as far as musical talent and knowledge is concerned.

Continuing in my loose chronological order of exposure, I can refer you to some other musicians who have also performed non-classical music in some interesting and impressive ways. Going back to that life-changing conference of 1995, I very accidentally met what would be one of the best friends of my life. Tom Shannon also happens to have been not only one of the first (if not the very first) Objectivist to work in progressive rock, he also was one of the most versatile and proficient musicians I've ever had the fortune to experience. (I will have you know that before I attended this conference I have worked with well over a hundred musicians in my experience as a concert engineer, and very few of those people could match the caliber of work that Tom delivered.) At one point, he was featured in four different groups at roughly the same time! Progressive rock fans in the Southern California area may actually recognize the name of an impressive cover group. SUPERNATURAL ANESTHETISTS aka CINEMA SHOW performed much of what is considered the "Gabriel-era" portion of GENESIS' body of work. I said at the time and still maintain that they played that music with note-for-note perfection. I would also place their respective performances up against any GENESIS cover group as well as many young progressive rock groups in general. Sadly, the group not only lost Tom Shannon via an untimely death. CINEMA SHOW also lost singer/drummer Shaun Guerin who himself worked with several different artists of great respect.

Tom had previously worked with and would eventually continue to work with many other artists in different types of configurations. One of the most unique and personally important groups that he worked with was BAG: THEORY. As was the case with CINEMA SHOW, BAG: THEORY didn't operate from an Objectivist perspective. It must be stated that BAG: THEORY's claim to fame was their on-the-fly improvisational ability. While their resulting music may not appeal to many Objectivists, there is no denying the great technical ability of each of the group's members.

Finally, Tom Shannon was likely most proud of the work that he did for his own group DEATH & TAXE$. Admittedly, this group's work was experimental by any standard, but Tom specifically helped bring a quality and breadth of musicality to his prog-metal group which very few bass guitarists anywhere could. Also, DnT as the group is affectionately known may be the very first group to be driven by explicit Objectivist intent. That is, not only was much of the music written, produced, and performed by an Objectivist, but much of the lyrical content and associated concepts were Objectivist as well. As a trivial fact, the very name DEATH & TAXE$ comes from a reference in Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, so there was no mistaking Tom Shannon's personal general intent. (I have to say that I only endorse the work that the band did while Tom was alive. Sadly, the nature of the group and its related work has changed substantially, and the new version of the group bears virtually no interest in the prior agenda which Tom Shannon was largely responsible for. Your best bet is to look for their first two CDs.)

As far as I'm concerned, I have given you the major players up until a few years ago. With the advent of the Internet, the situation has changed substantially. As Objectivism has proliferated online, there has also been a related shift towards producing independent music for an online audience. (Sometimes this actually happens without the related stocking of albums in "brick-and-mortar" stores.)

Another group which has also recently performed at an Objectivist conference and is very sympathetic to rational philosophy is FENWICKS. They do have at least one album released, but they are likely better known for their live performances. Given their transnational personnel configuration, it's not too surprising that they have toured across a fair portion of America at least. Their music is mainly ska-oriented, but they also mix in elements of pop, post-punk, and funk.

One of the most remarkable and undeniable artists to recently come to the awareness of the online world would have to be Christopher Schlegel. He is also arguably the most prolific album producer among Objectivists. At roughly a dozen albums, he literally has released more records than most any given group of independent artists in combination have done. Likewise, he has stylistically run the gamut from progressive rock to solo electric guitar to symphonic compositions. He's currently the only Objectivist artist I know of who has his work listed with amazon.com as well as other music store websites. He has gone to great lengths to write his compositions with a great deal of melodic integration and historical awareness.

At this point, I am left with highlighting some mainstream groups who have at least been highly regarded by Objectivists. None of the following groups should be considered as Objectivist-oriented per se, but they happen to have expressed some ideological sympathy even if only indirectly.

It's almost a cliche to mention one group as far as their Ayn Rand-related notoriety is concerned. I think RUSH still deserves mention in this context even withstanding their drummer/lyricist's abandonment of pure Capitalism and egoism. It could be argued that for roughly the first half of the band's 30 plus year career RUSH represented the lone voice for Objectivism in pop music. Considering that the rock music suite "2112" was directly inspired by Ayn Rand's book _Anthem_ (as well as the "1812 Overture"), that song has been greatly inspirational to contemporary musicians around the world. It has also been among a handful of songs which helped to promote Ayn Rand's work for the awareness of many young people (including the greater awareness of this writer!) Their work from the late 1970's deserves special note. The sheer progressive/symphonic musicality and the themes of their _Permanent Waves_ album still remains one of the most inspiring rock records ever released.

I feel obligated to mention one other group which many Objectivists have lauded. OINGO BOINGO has offered a unique if somewhat eccentric take on pop/rock music. Given their tight arrangements and highly rational and critical lyrics, they would seem to demand the respect that they have received. Bandleader Danny Elfman has gone on to a very successful career in movie soundtracks, so his interest in complex compositions has only grown.

Beyond the already-mentioned artists, I find that Objectivists tend to gravitate towards music that has a certain uplifting and/or powerful quality regardless of lyrical content. Interestingly, these groups tend to fall into two camps. Some Objectivists prefer spending some of their listening time immersing themselves in overtly powerful rock anthems. Some of their favorite groups could be categorized as heavy metal. I've heard these fans mention groups such as LED ZEPPELIN, METALLICA, KING CRIMSON, and IRON MAIDEN. On the other hand, there are quite a few Objectivists who prefer listening to ethereal or ambient pop groups. These fans have mentioned COCTEAU TWINS and THE POSTAL SERVICE among others. Again, all of these groups tend to provide the sort of value that a movie or book might provide if it has bad philosophical premises and good mechanical delivery.

Once again, I want to stress that this isn't meant to be an all-encompassing history of Objectivist-related music. I just wanted to feature the artists who I would consider to be those who are among the strongest performers in a comprehensive sense.

What can be gathered from my history here? I think that it's clear that Objectivist musicians and fans alike value creativity and intensity in their ideal music. To be more specific, Objectivists originally valued classical music, but they have come to appreciate most any style of music that features great creative originality and technical brilliance. Specific tastes may change some as aesthetic and technical trends proceed, but the core values will likely stay the same.

Democrats: The future Republicans?

2006-11-14T06:42:00.000-08:00

First off, this is a thought experiment not a proof. You can take my conclusions with a grain of salt, but you never know... stranger things have happened e.g. the Watergate break-in and (cough) "Monica-gate". You might think that I'm interested in elaborating how the Democrats are going to try emulating a past Republican President. Admittedly, if we returned to the likes of Ronald Reagan, then there would be some advantages. Naturally, I would prefer someone like Barry Goldwater to be a possible archetype of choice, but then you know how that campaign went! I'm actually going to try to setup a potential situation where someday (...maybe at the time of the next generation after the next) there could be a new alternative that takes flight from within the host of an old alternative.

At this point, it should be crystal clear where the two major political parties stand. The Republicans have various factions, but they are driven by Christian conservatism. The Democrats have various factions, but they have no real direction and have shown signs of imploding. (Don't let the recent Congressional changeover fool you on this point! The Democrats can say that they aren't Republicans all that they want, but that isn't a forward moving platform or strategem.)

Like other Objectivists who are interested in new philosophical ideas and formations, I've been listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis lectures. (Caveat: His theory was only made available several years ago, and he's indicated that it may undergo some revising, so anything anyone says about this theory should likely be considered tentative until the related book is published. Also as a side-note, Dr. Peikoff was looking for possible refutations in 2004.) DIM is an acronym that represents _all_ of the possible views of conceptual application with respect to subsuming concretes and/or concepts into higher-level concepts: Disintegration/Integration/Misintegration. Dr. Peikoff also mentions the epistemic "zeroes" and the eclectics, but they do not have an essential view of conceptual usage that leads anywhere directly.

He indicates that the DIM trichotomy comes from a two-step process. First, people choose whether to integrate or not. This is represented by D(isintegration) vs. I(ntegration). The next choice people have is to integrate based on reality or not. This is represented by I(ntegration) vs. M(isintegration). In other words, Disintegration is the default or starting position for a person when faced with the prospect of conceptual integration.

Now, at this point in time, The Republicans are being lead by Ms. In fact, Dr. Peikoff refers to the President as an M2 aka an extreme misintegrating agent. On the other hand, the Democrats are being lead by ideological Nihilists. In terms of applied theory of knowledge, the Democrats are being steered by Ds. (It was suggested during the lectures that Ds and Ms appropriate and actually require each other's thinking methods though they do this to a lesser degree...)

If the Republicans have failed to realize a proper view of Capitalism, and they are intransigent in their interest in religious metaphysics, then they are simply going to derail over time. The Democrats are obviously going to also need a few years before their destructive approach resolves. If the Republicans are "derailing off the train" of political philosophy, then the Democrats are currently doomed to "running out of steam" in the midst of their theoretical travels.

What occurred to me is that: If facing reality with a disintegrated mind is the starting point, and misintegrating reality is a failed attempt, then the Democrats could _potentially_ do the otherwise unthinkable. That is, the Democrats could over time rediscover the basis for political philosophy i.e. rational selfishness. In turn, they could "re-lay the train tracks" and become agents of political integration. The Democrats could eventually discover and employ Capitalism. The problem is that there is this one little thing getting in the way....

Now, for some background material..... DIM is a HIGHLY essentialized theory, and any essentialization involves loads of abstraction and temporary concrete-dropping i.e. what Ayn Rand called "measurement-omission." Examples of measurement-omission are readily available in mathematics, although the technique can be applied across human endevours. Let's say that home building contractors are hired to build a new home. They have to run measurements along the ground to figure out how to install a foundation. They have to make measurements as far as the size and weight of their building materials go. They have to also generate total quantities for those materials. When they communicate and otherwise work with those materials, they do _not_ use the full reference to the measurements, and they certainly omit more detailed descriptions of the items which are measured. For example, let's say that part of a wall requires a dozen boards. Workers are likely to talk to each other along the lines of saying, "Hand me 3 of those boards." They wouldn't continuously say, "Hand me 3 boards which are x feet long, y inches wide, and z inches deep." Could you imagine how long a project would take if every time a contractor needed materials he said, "Hand me some boards which are x feet long, y inches wide, z inches deep, weigh w ounces, are made of such-and-such material, coated with this-and-that material, etc. etc."?!?!? Obviously, people have to use measurement-omission and other conceptual techniques if they want to ever be productive. ...so using DIM as a tool for projecting a possible future won't automatically generate much of the details. Instead, I do think that it can be used for outlining a trend.

Of course, what people should remember is that the DIM theory is contextual, and I don't mean to suggest that any Objectivist would patronize relativistic positions either. In fact, it's the principles that DIM depends on that allow for what would appear to be reliable results. Again, it's the essentialized nature of the theory that makes prediction workable. There are certainly some qualifying factors to consider when it comes to how my idea could be manifested. One of the more obvious stipulations is that the Republicans and Democrats have been keeping each other in check by way of a process of nullification i.e. "gridlock". For the next couple of Presidential terms, we'll likely be fortunate to only be able to keep this tenuous holding pattern. Dr. Peikoff actually reminded students of the 2004 Integration course that an unstable philosophical situation has to eventually be either reconciled or it will break down. In terms of politics, that simply amounts to Capitalism vs. Anarchism. Also, Ayn Rand noted that Anarchism leads to a "power vacuum", so we certainly have yet another reason to fight for Capitalism otherwise America could find itself facing dictatorship down the road. In other words, there won't be a substantial transition to Capitalism without periodic stalling points and other non-essential periods of the trend.

This also may seem like a curious experimental idea given what Objectivists (and other Capitalists) want to do. Objectivists want to actually train enough people in philosophy at least to the point of influencing the culture in a positive and more liberating way. Also, it will always be tempting to want to do away with some aspect of the current political system. In fact, non-Objectivists seem to be much more impatient as far as political change is concerned. I can't remember whether it was Sen. Clinton or someone else, but after the Bush vs. Gore voting debacle, one Democratic Senator called for the elimination of the electoral college. This isn't the direction that my hypothesis is meant to suggest. I certainly do endorse what Objectivists are generally fighting for i.e. the spread of the right philosophical ideas throughout venues of academia and press communications. By the way, none of the recent election commentary was meant to take away from the importance of influencing culture by way of transforming intellectual tendencies.

What I am now suggesting is that it could be that something else will happen at the same time some people will develop into political agents after studying and applying Objectivism. It could be that enough people will become more familiar with Objectivism (or maybe just its effects) around the same time that they comprise the future current political force at the time of a major paradigm shift. If this happens, then there could be a new version of the "inside-outside" question. That is, the ideological changes within Congress might actually begin to keep up with those in academia.

...oh, you wanted to know that little problem for the Democrats, huh? They have to be able to learn to "(re)connect the dots" i.e. they have to first get a motive for learning integration.

Some cultural effects of Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts, part 2.

2006-11-09T23:21:00.000-08:00

I want to set up some circumstances which lead to my motivation for wanting to focus on conceptual thinking as an impetus for communication. Making this argument is not unlike trying to explain a 3-D world to animated entities that lived in a hypothetical 2-D world. (Carl Sagan used this comparison in the _Cosmos_ TV series, but my purpose here is substantially different than his was. Actually, in reality it's a matter of explaining 2-D epistemology to people living with the idea of a fragmented 1-D epistemology.) As I mentioned before, Modern philosophers do use hierarchy although I've never come across any of those types of teachers who explicated the concept (properly.) They take context for granted, but they don't do that as much as they disregard context by attacking the process of conceptualization. (Dr. Leonard Peikoff's "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is actually good for exploring bad teaching methods because that essay suggests how Modernists support all sorts of imaginary splits e.g. terms vs. meaning, object existence vs. object identification, and so on.) Therefore, it's important to identify the sort of problems which people have in understanding objective concepts.

Let's start with hierarchical relationships before regarding potential context. Ethics subsumes self-defense i.e. the concept of morality includes the concept of self-defense. In this case, morality is the more abstract concept. Likewise, self-defense is more immediately understandable and applicable. You can see this by looking at children. In any typical playground environment, children will get into arguments when they play together. As children, they are likely to consider resorting to physical force far earlier in a confrontation than they should. Why do they choose initiating force before making logical arguments? Essentially it seems like a more immediately reliable method. That is, force is a more readily available and recognizable tool as far as children normally learn. More viscerally, emotional reactions are automatic, and its tempting for them to simply respond after feeling. (It takes an act of independence to stop and take time to think instead of immediately following up with initiating force.)

Consider the details of a specific incident as follows. If one kid throws a punch at another, then it's clear that the first kid is upset, it's clear who one of the people he's upset with is, and it's clear that he is passionate. The kid who got hit certainly will have some semblance of understanding the importance of self-defense after getting in a fight. On the other hand, it's unlikely that he will know much about what goes into a code of ethics. Even without formal study but through experience, he'll pick up pieces of information that he'll use to form a morality. Still, without formal study, he will also have a hard time developing the correct ethical code. The larger point then is that while we are born with some ability to deal with concretes via perception, it takes additional work to assemble a body of knowledge let alone one that is more consistent and integrated. The only way to get that improved system is by working with a proper theory of concepts.

Now, typically in public schools, kids are told that fighting is wrong. (This mirrors the Christian idea of "Thou shalt not kill" although there's a difference of magnitude involved between the final attempt to kill and the start of a physical fight.) According to Objectivism, the school administrators' policy contains an error that results in unfair situations for kids who are fighting. The fallacy underpinning that policy is one of equivocation. I will tell you now that this is an error involving an improper view of context as applied to concepts and principles. The equivocation in this case is of considering the initiation of force as morally equal to the defense against force. To see that this is true, consider two different possible resolutions of the aforementioned children's fight. Let's also leave aside motives at first. If the 2nd child who is being hit does nothing, then he will suffer injury and maybe feel some humiliation. On the other hand, if the 2nd child defends himself against the instigator the results are substantially different. Regardless of how the fight ends, if he has some idea in how to defend himself, then he will likely be in better physical shape, and he will probably also feel more pride in his abilities to cope with a bad situation.

Now, note that in order for anyone involved in the children's fight to distinguish between initiating force and defending against force i.e. self-defense, each person needs a code of ethics that makes the distinction important. Likewise, for the kid who was struck to come out the winner of the fight, he has to have the understanding (and motivation) that goes with having a healthy self-esteem. In particular, the concept of self-defense has to be converted into a principle. That is, the concept of self-defense must be related to at least one other concept by way of a consistent connection so that the person in question can make use of the conceptual relationship. Just as a parent should train a child to defend himself physically, that child should be told why he has value so that he is intellectually armed.

This difference in training leads to what I want Objectivist activist do as far as using the power of concepts is concerned.

Epistemic-Political relationship in respect to the 2006 elections.

2006-11-04T04:09:00.000-08:00

Note: Although I certainly do it on rare occasions…. I don’t like to write entries which are mainly follow-ups or tangential or trendy. Over the past 2 weeks, much ado has been made by some lay Objectivists in regard to expert analysis of the impending elections. I’m not even going to make direct references to those comments ….for the simple reason that it’s not a priority now for me to do so nor is it particularly beneficial. Consider division of labor for one thing….

Synopsis: Part 1 indicates proper evaluative method. Part 2 indicates improper evaluative application. Part 3 indicates proper evaluative application. See prior posts for additional relevant information.

Part 1 Using the inductive method

What I have to say now amounts to this: Issues regarding knowledge are more fundamental than political issues, yet political issues are _easier_ to explain from an inductive standpoint. I’m actually trying to frame the general idea in a way that seems contradictory, but that is difficult to do since philosophy is so throughly integrated as a system by itself as well as it being substantially involved with myriad disciplines of a more immediately sensory and mechanical nature. In particular, philosophy includes politics (as a theory), but philosophy also guides political science (as a practical application.) My interest in seeking a contradiction comes from wanting to locate the most severe differentiation possible in order to best clarify the nature of the process. At this point in time, I have not found such a contradiction.

To personalize the above point, if you want to judge ideas, then you have to see how they effect people when those ideas are put into action. By the way, people must be judged both on their thoughts and actions. Thoughts without action can't be seen, and actions without ideological explanation can't make sense. You have to have both a person's thoughts (causes) and actions (effects) to truly understand how and why he does what he does. This goes for politicians and voters alike.

As Ayn Rand indicated, knowledge has two core dimensions, hierarchy and context. The Modern university professors wish to consider human behavior in terms of hierarchy without regard for context. This is why they want to perform Linguistic Analysis and use symbolic logic instead of operating more like a detective or a legal prosecutor from before the Red Decade.

Induction requires gathering large amounts of evidence about a subject to the point of saturation i.e. at a point of acquiring data redundancy. In turn, the scientific method must be applied when evaluating evidence. The more the evidence is cross-referenced in as many number and types of ways possible the more reliable the related evaluations can be.

This is why the various Objectivist essays on voting Democrat are important. It's why Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis is important. It's why considering American history in order of forward sequence without skipping relevant events is important.

I happen to be among a very small group of people who personally attended both Dr. Peikoff's original publicly offered _Objectivism Through Induction_ lecture series and his 2 original lectures comprising an overview and application of his D-I-M hypothesis. I have to say that I find Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis plausible. On the other hand, I think his general inductive theory needs to be further revised (even more than it already has been over the past several years.) For me as a guiding rule (and as a side note to you the reader), I suspect that Dr. Peikoff has a fairly reliable way of evaluating other peoples' abilities to think in essentials, but I figure that he has much more work to do before being able to throughly evaluate the culture of whole societies. I believe that he is motivated to find such an overriding method, and if such a method was reliable and easily applicable, then evaluating the prospects for the coming elections would indeed be a more straight-forward and scientific process.

Part 2 Assessing logical errors

I can’t write this without some level of anger and ultimately… disappointment. I swore to myself that I would not revisit the issue of how to vote in this month’s American elections, but what I wanted to avoid in specific is re-arguing the step-by-step process of drawing the relevant conclusions. Instead, what I will do is go to the underlying nature of the sort of mistakes that some of my fellow Objectivists are making.

Again, I think that there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for people to vote for Republicans if these voters understand the issues that would motivate people such as Dr. Leonard Peikoff and John Lewis to make the arguments which they have made. Whether someone understands those issues or not, there is a universal solution which I will suggest for everyone regardless of their philosophy or their knowledge of politics if they want to double-check their thinking as far as selecting political candidates go.

Keep in mind, that the current differences of opinion among many Objectivists don't come down to traditional differences between political parties. Today's Democrats and Republicans are nothing as they were at the time of their parties' creation, they are nothing as they were before our American culture was inculcated with German philosophy in the early part of the 20th century, and they are fast becoming something wholly different from the days when Carter opposed Reagan a quarter of a century ago. I contend that the difference of opinion among Objectivists comes down to arguing the importance of hypothetical short-term consequences versus the importance of hypothetical long-term consequences. The Objectivists who argue for voting straight-line Democrat would argue that fighting to protect the long-term future outweighs any dangers for the foreseeable near future.

I certainly have not tried to read much of the commentary on the several of the more serious Objectivist forums, and I have no intention of reading much more for the following reasons: What I’ve read so far was generally quickly becoming redundant. Likewise, many arguments are also rife with logical errors. I would contend the major logical fallacies which people have resorted to using are:1) jumping to conclusions and 2) context-dropping. There’s another fallacy which has appeared less frequently, but the fact that it has been used as much as it has would indicate that it’s as much a major potential crutch as the previous two are. That fallacy is: 3) begging the question. Further, some lesser fallacies have been used more sporadically as well. These include (but aren’t limited to) argument from intimidation (and it’s utterly absurd that someone would suggest that Dr. Peikoff is guilty of this for the position he’s recently offered!!!) and appeal to authority.

It is certainly true that some fallacies are related to each other; in fact, some are variations of others. Further, many fallacies can be placed into general groups. For example, some fallacies inappropriately reference people instead of central facts e.g. appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and ad hominem; on the other hand, some fallacies depend on inappropriate attempts at forming conceptual relationships (ignoring the nature of concept-formation) e.g. non-sequitur, slippery slope, and context-switching. Ultimately, what most fallacies come from is the failure to think in essentials. That is, the core concepts have not been identified, and an argument has been offered _as if_ it uses the core concepts when it does not. Of course, sometimes an argument will include more than one fallacy ….sometimes even within the same premise.

Part 3 Comparative analysis of systems

(As a side-note and to avoid confusion, arguments depend on core principles. Still, those principles depend on core concepts. Those concepts are often taken for granted, but the fact that their importance is often ignored does not change the fact that they are _necessary_ for a proper argument to be made.) The underlying principle for judging political candidates comes from a statement of normative ethics which Ayn Rand made: “Those who practice their philosophy the most consistently will win….” Just as Dr. Peikoff was correct in highlighting that the Christians have been putting their philosophy in the practice of politics for thousands of years, it is also worth noting that the opposition of ideas is happening in ONE DIRECTION predominantly. Republicans overwhelming ignore Nihilism; they simply haven’t taken much of Modernism seriously at all. The exception is Socialism. Why this exception? Out of the canon of modern philosophy, it is Socialism which is most compatible with conservative Republican philosophy. As Dr. Peikoff has already noted several times, Socialism is dying, it is on the way out even while people of various political stripes attempt to revive it.

Simply put, Socialism is treated by Americans as a particular polar opposite to Capitalism; they do this while making simultaneous partial use of both systems. Capitalism only exists as theory at best; it doesn’t exist in a mostly purified way as far as the practice of American politics is concerned. Obversely, Socialism controls American politics for now, but it has been widely discredited among new intellectuals. (Note what Dr. Andrew Bernstein stated in _The Capitalist Manifesto_, the economists are not the problem… they appreciate the practical aspects of applied Capitalism.)

Now consider both Christianity and Socialism together. Flatly, which party is best suited to and most interested in using both religious and secular altruism in politics? There’s no contest; it’s obviously the (conservatives in the) Republican Party who have the greatest interest in altruism in the wholesale sense.

Did you notice where the similarities and differences exist? It’s true that both the Democrats and the Republicans are altruistic in some way in essence, and it’s true that both parties are interested in using both types of altruism. There are two points of distinction though i.e. that is there are two critical differentiating points. 1) Capitalism can only exist in opposition to altruism, and that means that freedom can only exist if no form of political self-sacrifice is codified and employed. 2) It is the Republican Party which is on the ideological warpath. Conversely, the Democrats neither have the quality of ideas in substance which the Republicans have, nor do they exercise the passionate will to invoke their ideas to near the degree that the evangelical Christian Republicans do.

What does this boil down to? It means that in both quantity and quality, the Republicans are poised to take over the mind-set of the American body politic. That is, they're are the ones who will win by being the most consistent, and as I and others have already stated the opposition to this employment of religion in politics does not exist in current political discourse. In point of fact, the only opposition to Christian politics which can exist can only come from Objectivism put into political practice. In turn, this means that the only way to really stop the Christians is to get laissez-faire Capitalists to oppose them.

Some would say that what Objectivists are now searching for isn’t so focused on how to offer ideological opposition to conservative Republicans; they might say that the difference among Objectivists is in the debate over the execution of the particular required logistics. In fact, Objectivists are already arguing whether it’s better to support the Democrats or the Republicans for the whole reason that they want to find a host party to inculcate with laissez-faire ideology. The problem is people aren’t robots; candidates have their respective psychologies. A person’s thinking is a volitional matter after all. Even Objectivists can not and should not try to force their ideas into the minds of politicians.

What this amounts to is that all voters including Objectivists need to come to terms with how politics is and how it will be regardless of what any one desires. (No amount of whim-worshipping will make the Republican Party better, nor will that make the conservatives voluntarily leave politics.) I have stated that ideas can not be forced into the minds of citizens, and at the same time taking the wait-and-see approach has already failed. ....so then what to do? Objectivists are already doing the best thing anyone can do viz. they are trying to infuse the American culture in as many substantial ways possible with the core philosophical ideas required for the growth and survival of a free culture.

Given the respective motivations of politicians within their respective parties, it’s the conservative politicians who are already offering evidence of real ideological conviction. They are the ones who need to be stopped if America is to survive. Since it’s the Republicans who 1) are willing to change their respective ideology first 2) are willing to politicize religion first and ultimately 3) fight for their values, it’s the Republicans who Objectivists most desperately need to stop _first_.

Second-guessing Ayn Rand (and experts in general.)

2006-10-24T14:29:00.000-07:00

I just now fully realized something that stemmed out of a curious behavior I first witnessed over a decade ago. I find that many (but not necessarily most) fans and followers of Ayn Rand have a tendency to ask a certain type of “What if” question. Usually the question is in the form of “What would Ayn Rand think about (fill in the blank)?” Now on the surface this wouldn’t necessarily seem bothersome, but I always tended to find it peculiar. I think I now know why it’s not only strange to me but in fact un-Objectivist as well. I won’t go so far as to say that this type of question is anti-Objectivist for one simple reason: It is gratifying in a minor way for a person to realize that they came to the same conclusion as the one someone else who he admires had derived.

Nevertheless, I think this is a remarkable behavior for _Objectivists_. Consider that the whole entire philosophy is geared towards _reducing_ the individual burden for trying to make sense of the world. Ayn Rand flatly stated that concepts are formed in order to condense a bunch of information so that it is easier to retain and otherwise manipulate. If a person had to constantly “reinvent the wheel” in the manner of reforming a concept every time he came across a particular instance of that concept, then that person would effectively undermine their own conceptual ability. (Also, this type of questioning is _not_ typically necessary for one to check their logical premises.)

I am not saying that asking what Ayn Rand thought about a specific event or issue is anti-conceptual (although it tends to be a hallmark of people who are new to Objectivism.) I _am_ saying that that line of questioning if taken seriously as a means of gauging one’s understanding of Objectivism is self-defeating. While it is certainly true that principles are derived from real experience (by way of induction), it isn’t appropriate to go on “fishing expeditions”. That is, it’s not particularly helpful for a person to ask what someone else who happens to be expert in _some_ field thinks about a specific issue _if_ that questioner already has the means to discerning the answer for himself by doing his own logical work. If a person properly studies Objectivism (or at least basic logic), then that person will already have a way of making evaluations. This leads me to another divisive point.

A person has their own personal context, and I’m not appealing here to relativism of any sort either. While it may be fun to know what an expert thinks about something (as an interviewer might ask in a gossipy sort of way), it would not have to be immediately relatable to a questioner’s own circumstances. Again, my point isn’t related to whether someone _can_ benefit from such questions. I am saying that these types of questions are inefficient for learning. To put it differently, these types of questions are tangential as far as gaining _a proper method_ of learning is concerned.

I think that if people have been studying Objectivism for several years, and they are still particularly interested in wondering what Ayn Rand thought about some very specific circumstance, then that person has failed to understand how to induce and then apply the relevant Objectivist principles. Unless the person in question is a researcher or a historian, he should be relating concrete circumstances to principles in order to understand how those circumstances will affect his own life. It should be noted that even a historian (or for the matter, a reporter or actor) can not live vicariously through other people’s lives as a primary means of learning. That type of behavior is precisely the type which Ayn Rand was referring to when she coined the term “second-handers”. While we must rely on experts for ancillary aspects of our lives, we have to become “experts” on our own respective lives for each of us to fully realize our best efforts.

Dr. Peikoff’s 2006 election advisory.

2006-10-24T13:40:00.000-07:00

Originally posted October 23, 2006

Capitalism Magazine has just published Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s advice for the impending biannual U.S. elections here. Unsurprisingly, he has reaffirmed his stance from previous elections where he has implored voters to offer Democratic support as a less onorous option compared with what would likely be the general Republican Party platform. More to the point, Dr. Peikoff’s emphasis is now much more intense.

This concerns me because while I do not think that American politics is likely to change much in the next year or so. I do think that Dr. Peikoff’s overall point resonates as strongly as ever viz. the Republican party is ultimately a proxy for the Christian conservative political agenda, and that agenda stands to gain much more ground in the near-future if it’s not thwarted. If this seems too far-fetched or curious, then consider that what stands to be the religious right’s agenda has been all but unchallenged by anyone. Simply put, what the Republican party ultimately stands for isn’t on the American citizenry’s negative radar right now.

You might think that sending Republicans out in this year’s election is a piece of cake considering how the press has been reporting ever-still lower poll percentages in regards to the Bush foreign policy. There is already evidence that the American people are unswayed by the press. For one thing, the citizenry has by and large allowed for the continued use of military in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The opponents to American involvement in the Middle East are if anything vilified by conservative traditionalists in our society as kooks and no-nothings.) Likewise, the recent push for military tribunals (while ostensibly justifiable) has been barely reported as something that American voters should be concerned about at all. Keep in mind that the press is still predominantly Leftist, and _they_ have hardly chastised the administration on a point that they would likely scream bloody murder over. It appears that even the press must have some substantial fear that the President isn’t as much of a lame duck as they would have hoped for (…or maybe the idealogues in journalism have simply surrendered?!?)

Still, there’s a more pressing and immediately personal point that Dr. Peikoff suggests which concerns me particularly as an Objectivist. He says, “In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.” Take note of the fact that he is not pointing to Objectivists as being exclusively burdened by the moral implications of this coming vote; he is ready to indict _anyone_ who can vote if they do not vote Democratic in order to stop a Republican seachange.

Now I have to say that I have always been in general agreement with Dr. Peikoff ever since his last election analysis, and actually I don’t think I’ve had much of a problem with any of his general political rhetoric since the days when he was hosting his own radio show. It has to be noted that his new election analysis is comprised of fighting words for anyone who takes this year’s elections seriously. If anything it gives me pause to wonder just how many Objectivists (and for the matter just how many American voters) actually realize both what is at stake for America’s near future as well as how revealing this vote can be as far as the moral character of the body politic goes.

I want to add that I might very well differ with Dr. Peikoff on what I would consider to be some lesser points. For one thing, I am skeptical that local elections should be viewed in the same way that he views the major elections. It could be that he thinks no good can come of electing _any_ Republicans anywhere, but I suspect that local elections would not have much of an effect as a paradigm shift. Likewise, if there is a Republican at the local level who is actually quasi-Objectivist (as unlikely as that may be), then he might have enough going for him to do some good (so long as he stays at the local level.) It just so happens that I live in an area where even the local politics might substantiate Dr. Peikoff’s fear since my old local representative Christopher Cox ended up leaving to head the SEC which of course is nothing but a pain for American corporations. The second caveat that I might have is that it could be that a select subgroup of the voting public might have a reason to vote Republican as far as their exclusively personal values are concerned. That is, while a young adult voter or a child of a voting parent might have several decades to plan for, an older non-parent is living for himself within a much smaller timeframe. It could be that someone such as a senior citizen does not anticipate much political change for the rest of his life, so he might want to vote for short-term change if he suspects that that is the only term left for him to consider. On the other hand, it might very well be that if such a person votes Republican, then he could be acting out of cynical loathing of politics as such i.e. he might be voting as an anti-idealist.

On the whole, I suppose that (once again) I agree with Dr. Peikoff. I think he has seen enough and has enough experience in his life for people to still take his ideas seriously. I also recall that the current director of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook, once said something along the lines of, “Sometimes I took positions in opposition to Dr. Peikoff’s only to change my mind later after consulting with him further.” I suspect that this is very much one of those cases where people need to seriously get out of their immediate sphere of awareness and consider an issue in a much broader and long-term fashion.

The pseudo-safety of evasion.

2006-10-24T13:17:00.000-07:00

Originally posted October 17, 2006

Ayn Rand made a point of claiming that avoiding intellectual discrimination is at the source of evil. I would also focus on the fact that avoiding intellectual responsibility as a matter of course over a long period of time is evidence of actually having a wholesale evil philosophy. This is to distinguish from an occasional flaw in thinking where a person lacks the will and/or knowledge to do the rationally selfish thing that he should. That person may either be just mistaken or on the wrong moral route, but that person can redeem himself without too much hardship. (He just needs to check his argumentative premises, reassess, and follow-up with better behavior.)

I believe that the last 1 or 2 decades have comprised a new unfortunate era for America at least if not for the whole world. We have witnessed the transgressions of President Clinton. e.g. He allowed for “Filegate”, he sanctioned China as a “Most Favored Nation”, and he got America involved in the Balkan War. Also, at the beginning of his presidency, he offered safe harbor for Haitian refugees, then he changed his mind sending them back out to sea without substantial aid. We have witnessed the lack of appropriate response from both Bush administrations in regards to the threat of radical Islam. We also see great sympathy for religious tolerance in society even when it means allowing terrorist cells to financially and logistically grow as well as consideration for religion as a vehicle for substantial problem-solving despite a horrible track record. Likewise, the attack on industry and Capitalism in general goes on almost completely unabated. Even when some attempt in the media or the arts is made to appear sympathetic to Laissez-Faire politics, it is done in a curiously unintellectual and almost resigned way.

In other words, Americans may continue to look for answers, but they refuse to question the evil of altruism. At _this_ point in time, this refusal should be quite curious! Certainly, everyone knows about the Catholic scandal involving pedophilia. Also, no one can deny the physical threat made upon doctors who practice abortions. There is also no denying the critical role that religion plays in starting and strengthening war attacks made on generally moral nations around the world.

We hear all sorts of arguments made from both the political left and right on all sorts of issues that supposedly offer reasonable solutions, but no one dares to consider the root causes of these problems. Even Objectivists who have spent years studying the nature of contemporary politics are somewhat baffled by how Americans can continue to hold onto the same basic premises year after year despite what has transpired.

What needs to be faced at this time is not only that politics depends on individual actions i.e. ethics put into practice but those same individuals i.e. the American citizenry needs to face their own commitment to life-affirming values. That is, Americans need to have the morality _and_ the will to fight for the good even against what would seem to be short-term risks. We are long familiar with what Ayn Rand called “arguments from intimidation”. For example, if an honest person tries to offer a new and rational argument, then that person is often met with insults on his person i.e. ad hominem arguments. The intimidation against the original arguer finally is offered in the form of something like, “You can’t be serious (in giving that argument?!)” The motive of the bully is to squelch the argument since they at least implicitly figure that they can’t offer a proper counter-argument instead. (When Dr. Leonard Peikoff argued for attacking Iran as the center of radical Islam, some people in the press considered him to be stupid or crazy. Years later, we are now _explicitly_ finding that Iran is attempting to build nuclear bombs and has no intention of standing down.)

What could allow for such political misfires? How can seemingly well-meaning people suffer so much day-to-day misery in a land of wealth and freedom? Certainly, we can’t blame everyone as perpetually wrong or even crazy. Still, Americans seem to be as angry and frustrated as ever.

Again, I ask: Are Americans willing to face the root causes of their problems? Modern philosophy has provided many bad excuses for inept thinking. The Moderns doubt certainty and good values; some Moderns even seek to undercut existence itself as we know it. While the Modern philosophers’ intellectual errors are of a greater range and magnitude than those of non-intellectuals, both groups share something in common. All of these people are afraid to consider more realistic solutions. Both groups doubt perfection, and further they have come to accept skepticism to the point that they seemed resigned in not even wanting to be able to find solutions to their problems. The mystics (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to hand over their thinking responsibility to “God”. The secular people (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to just give up altogether and leave the problems for some one else to deal with. They are apt to say, “Oh well, it’s not _really_ my problem after all.” Of course, all of these people are still making excuses for their and other people’s behavior.

There is a philosophy that enshrines evasion, and it’s called rationalism. The rationalists think that offering a solution is equal to offering the correct solution. That is, they are more concerned with getting rid of responsibility. They do this by making an intellectual bait-and-switch. In effect, they are saying, I will give you my opinion (whether sound or not) and, in turn, you should leave me alone. They can even follow this up with more of the same. These people might say: “Oh, you didn’t _really_ want my opinion.” “Who am I to (really) know?” “Oh, you will (really) figure it out for yourself anyway.” As you should see, what they really are doing is saying that _reality_ itself is negotiable… even expendable. (They are a type of Subjectivist in this respect because they are more oriented to reforming other people’s opinions even at the expense of truth than trying to reshape matter into a more pro-human life use.) Well, of course, with such a tactic, these people cannot offer solutions. They have effectively tried to look like they have solved problems without doing the necessary work that would lead to problem solving.

What is necessary for problem solving no matter the time, place, or magnitude? As Aristotle and Ayn Rand indicated, logic is the tool for problem-solving. If you go to someone for help, and that person avoids logical scrutiny, then you can be assured that you will neither get a solution to your problem nor are you likely to be able to rely on that person very much in the future (unless he shows signs of changing his philosophy.)

I want to stress that logic is something that absolutely every person needs to study regardless of their respective education or philosophy. Logic is not exclusive to those who are in a particular field, and it’s not exclusive to those who are deemed intellectuals. Becoming adept at the use of logic is (point blank) a matter of survival.

If America and the world are to be saved, then ultimately it is upon the shoulders of the logicians who everyone depends on. Whoever and wherever someone can argue by using “non-contradictory identification” as Ayn Rand put it, then everyone benefits from arguments which are more applicable and efficient. The religious people want everyone to get “closer to God”, and the environmentalists want everyone to “protect and support Mother Earth.” Ask yourself what has Earth or God _actually done_ for you. You are the operator and governor of your life. If you wish to own and operate your life as a fully-formed human should, then you must always strive to use logic as best as your are able. Likewise, people must come to substitute their false gods of “God” and Earth with the reality of Francis Bacon’s advice: “For nature to be commanded, it(s rules) must be obeyed.” Logic comes into play when people properly ascertain the world that they live in, but for any source of knowledge to be useful it must be acted on with haste. It is my hope that as Objectivist philosophy is spread around the world, people will come to act with greater honor and take action that is both rational _and_ expedient.

Some cultural effects of Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts, part 1.

2006-10-24T12:57:00.000-07:00

Originally posted October 8, 2006

There are several reasons for the appeal of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. The philosophy is based on reconciling the aspects of reality with one’s own life by way of conceptual integration. Objectivism offers practicable solutions for problems in thinking, managing one’s life, and living among others. It also argues for the currently best existing approach which an artist should take as to idealizing a better world by using physical materials in a Romantically stylized manner.

There’s an interesting tangent I want to mention. I wish to offer a potential point of controversy for consideration or even discussion. Since some people are under the mistaken impression that questioning an authority is equal to demeaning the same, I wish to clarify my intention here. I’m not interested in undermining the credibility of Ayn Rand’s aesthetic theory. I do think that, given the way she communicated that theory, it is at the least harder to discern her intentions for her broader view of art (as compared to her view of politics or ethics.)

She wrote several novels, a play, and several short stories. She also wrote a book on her theory of art, but it was focused on the art of literature. She also has offered opinions on music and painting among other arts, but she wasn’t a musician or a musical teacher. Nor was she a sculptor or an Earth material art teacher. Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s systematized offerings of her view of art in _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ and _Objectivism Through Induction_ should be considered in terms of being authoritative interpretations of her view which are not _officially_ her view. One implication of this situation is that it is likely even more important than usual to review the primary sources of her aesthetic theory as against substantiating her other views.

While the comparatively different and respective attention Ayn Rand paid to different philosophical subjects has no essentially negative impact on a student’s interpretation of her philosophy, those students will have to adjust their study method accordingly. Further, given the nature of society, Ayn Rand’s mechanical approach to issuing her body of work has similar implications for how her ideas are distributed among wider audiences. Though not entirely reflective of Ayn Rand’s work, the way Objectivist experts approach their polemic work is telling. For example, the Ayn Rand Institute has typically advocated Ayn Rand’s aethetics by promoting her own fictional works. On the other hand, ARI speakers more often lecture on her ethics and politics than her epistemology and aesthetics. It should also be noted that no one person or organization can currently comprehensively promote her large body of work in just one chronological generation (of roughly 20 years.) Ideally, I would like to see other organizations rationally promote her work whether they are Objectivist or not. No such other organization can currently compare to ARI in this respect although I have some hope that (in another generation or two) they will not _substantially_ remain alone in this endeavor.

Advocates of Objectivism should not only consider what parts of the philosophy they wish to promote by priority but also the method which they use to make their promotion effective. I think Objectivists who are engaged in this type of promotion have substantially varied in the quality and focus of their work. There is more to their success than their respective passions and education. In some future post, I will offer a key component to taking Objectivist polemics and activism to “the next level”.

I LOVE TECHNOLOGY!

2006-10-24T12:51:00.000-07:00

Originally posted October 5, 2006

There’s no substitute for experience! Sometimes no matter how much and how long you consider theory, it takes an ideological connection i.e. a mental integration which is spurred on by accidentally garnered happenstance to really drive a point home. That is, sometimes you just don’t see things for what they are until you trip and fall all over it!

Here’s a personal example:
For the past year or so, I have been dreading my work situation, and I’m by no means completely “out of the woods” yet. Still, I clearly improved my life by methodically taking action, and even before “the penny has dropped” I can see that things have irrefrangibly changed for the better. For whatever reasons, one of the problems I’ve had to face in my career involves my health. Everyone knows procrastination is bad, but reality has a way of making that point clear!

I got to a point where I had to quit my job, and I have absolutely no regrets about that, but one of the things I had failed to attend to was an urgent medical matter. Long story short, I managed to visit a doctor,and in a course of hardly 2 hours, he: 1) had tests performed, 2) diagnosed the problem, and 3) offered a short-term solution while acknowledging the long-term circumstances.

The bottom line is that at a few weeks later I can’t help but really appreciate how important this medical visit was. I don’t generally regret how I handled my work situation, but I have to admit that if I got medical attention sooner I would have worked those last few months with less attendant pain.

I could write a whole other post on what might go into making the solution (albeit a temporary one) even possible to exist in our society. Nevertheless, it is _extremely_ sobering to go through this experience. That is, I witnessed an expert at work, and then I bore the benefits of that expertise. The kicker is that this quickly delivered solution costs only a few hundred dollars in American currency. Honestly, I wasn’t expecting things to work out so quickly or so affordably, and I’ve experienced similar efforts several years before. It’s still been heartening, and this is all in spite of the sheer onslaught of regulatory insanity that medical practitioners have to endure. (Just go to www.afcm.org, and read the materials if you doubt the risk that future medical practice will involve.)

I really wanted to take this further, but I am up late at night trying to calm myself so that I can start a new job which I can now tackle WITHOUT PAIN thanks to my doctor!

If there were anything I would want anyone to consider about health care today, then it’s this: You have NO IDEA how much your medical practitioners have to go through just to provide you with decent care. If you are not in the profession, then you would most likely think twice about trying to work in a profession with that related magnitude of bureaucratic entanglement.

An introductory proviso.

2006-10-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

As of today, October 24th, 2006, I am going to be mirroring posts from another blog. The next several posts have already been published elsewhere. Once the old posts have been posted here (and I hope to complete this process today), I will, in all likelihood, only make new and original posts here from then on.

Also, for the record, the blog name could be interpreted in more than one way. I will only offer a hint in the meantime... I am an unexpurgated supporter of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. My interest is not to undercut the philosophy but to elaborate on and apply it.