A brief history of Objectivist-related music

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.