Lena,

thank you for your answer.

I agree with what you have to say - but I don't see it to apply to the situation in discussion.



Development includes social interaction and social interaction includes opposition of thought, debate and discussion. Within these learning and growth take place. The way I position myself - not only intellectually but emotionally - in a debate determines growth in the same way I would do these things in any other situation - be it by myself or in a social environment. So how are you going to develop a solution to these practical situations if not by bringing your experiences, knowledge and logic into it?

Of course, my objective is not teaching anybody. But if I am confronted with an illogical statement I will point out that it is illogical - for the fostering of it can cause harm to the development of another. [Example: Hitler tells me he has to kill the Jews for they are responsible for the evil in the world. I will tell him: Dear Adolph, don't take things so seriously. Please re-evaluate your assumptions as I do not see a causal relationship between Jews residing in Germany and the defeat of Germany in WWI and the subsequent issuing of the Treaty of Versailles. - This is a) a logical response to Hitler and b) a moral act as it aims at lowering the confusion of an individual which may lead to genocide.]



I agree. But I was talking about a practical approach within a philosophical debate.



This is why we define terms in oder to reduce distortion in our communication.



Again, I agree. But how are you going to deal with the situation of debate in this way? Of course one could try to set a tone that conveys a loving and caring environment. But then in that environment you still have to position yourself according to statements others make. As long as you chose not to become a hermit. Accepting Hitler for who he is? Yes, he as a person is still loved - but his ideas should be refuted or at least addressed - if presented.



To some extent this holds true. But there are illogical statements and statements which do not fit into a particular system of thought. As in this case there was an incongruity between MBT and Rand. So objectively, logically speaking - trying to bring these two together is: nonsense. It doesn't make any sense. It is illogical. And pointing that out has nothing to do with ego - as far as my humble opinion is concerned.



To that also: I agree. The question remains: Who became angry? I was just sitting in front of my computer debating a philosophical question. As for others: I don't know what kind of emotions arouse within them. To me this is just a technical issue: Illogical statement -> pointing out illogical statement...

So the growth-part in this situation clearly lies without the actual subject of discussion and more within the reaction of oneself in regard to having to re-evaluate what one has to say...

If I were to apply what you have just explained to me to this forum - basically every single discussion not concerned with the fundamental principles of MBT - that takes place in exactly the way you portrayed - would not match it - and would therefore be irrelevant or even immoral.



This is not about me or anybody else being 'victorious' - but about a position that does not hold up to critical examination and should therefore be abandoned - to sum this up I used the term: intellectual defeat.

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

About Ayn Rand. She's a bore but to me she keeps stating obvious things. I see no real conflict here.

As she mentions, a "judgement" must always stand in relation to a "standard" or authority.


Basically; when I declare that I want to do good and be kind, etc - I'm saying that there is a standard I aspire to that I don't currently fulfill. I judge myself.

Are other people not able to live up to the standards I set for myself?

If not, judge that other people to be lesser beings than I, meaning I see myself as the standard and other people can't measure up.

If they are, I might judge them in the same way I judge myself.

The key in my understanding is to ask the question, would I have acted differently in their situation, with all of their experiences and circumstances? It is impossible to say.

_________________
Johan

Wow, I really like that quotation. That should be part of all the rulesets for all discussion boards in the Internet as a good reminder what the real purpose of a dicussion board is. Thanks for sharing.


Regarding the original discussion of the ideas of Ayn Rand, I wanted to comment about the exact same passage quoted just a few posts before mine:

Montana, you asked about a concrete criticism of her work. I am sorry if I should add to your impression, that you feel out-gunned by conflicting opinions here, because nobody seems to agree with your observation, that Ayn Rand has something of value to say, but...

when I read chapter 8 this quoted passage was also the part, I felt was completely confliction with my observation of the world around me.

She accuses "most people" with an "attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality" and gives the reason, that those people would be too afraid to judge and thus help each other out by inventing and using this precept of “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

My personal observation of the world around me is totally the opposite: Judgement seems to be kind of omni-present.
Just one look at the media should be enough: Politicians judging (discounting) the ideas of the opposing party. Magazines discounting the look of celebrities (how could she combine this blouse with those trousers?). Commentators criticizing decisions made by decision makers in a topic that is currently under public discussion. Critics complaining about the quality of a movie/album/play, although they were never able to write or produce one of those themselves.
Neighbors criticising the look of their neighbor's garden. Or his way of life in general. Or the way he and his wife raise their kids. Or the way he or she dresses. Or how late they put their kids to bed. I could go on endless.

I always felt it is a lot harder to make people think before they shout out their opinion of how they would do everything better, were they in the same situation as the criticized person. Ask anybody in a middle or lower management position in any company and in many cases they are convinced that their bosses are idiots and were they the boss, they would make everything so much better than it is done right now. And they are maybe even right sometimes with their observations although they lack the full picture. But often enough, once they got promoted they make similar mistakes. So instead of just judging, maybe they should have focussed more on how to really be different and make a difference.

So I am actually quite surprised that Ayn Rand feels the need for even more judgement in the world and that people would give each other a carte blanche by hiding behind the "Judge not...". The problems in our world are IMHO not the result of a lack of judgement. More likely the opposite might be true.

Just my 2 cents on why I have a hard time to connect with her ideas...

Tronar

_________________
Always expect the unexpected...

I tend to agree with you here Tronar. People do tend to judge each other more than they need (that is, have to make a personal decision) to. Rand didn't seem ( and this is my biggest regret with her body of thought) to have a transpersonal idea of 'love', just the personal.

My understanding with the above quoted line was that she was objecting to what I think we would call moral relativism today. ("...yes, Johnny shot his grandmothers and ate their brains, but maybe his up-bringing wasn't perfect..." to take a silly extreme example. Her outlook was definitely of an absolutist bent that, as far as I can think of at the moment, we don't see much of anymore except in religious fundamentalists type cults.

-Montana

It is your problem if you care about this, in the same way that it is your problem if you get angry when it rains.

Judging is not the same as discounting. Btw, now you are "discounting" the magazines, the commentators, etc.


Should we look the other way when the cat tortures a mouse? When the neighbour beats his wife?

I may judge your actions, as I would have judged myself if they were my actions. But, I don't condemn you because if I were you, my actions would be exactly the same.

We must decide on what "judge" means. Sometimes it used instead of dislike, disagree, discount, condemn.

It is bad when people "condemn" each other (to whatever degree) for not agreeing about petty things, like clothes or music.

It is good when people stop their neighbours from beating their children.


Drug addiction, obesity, generations of single teenage mothers, income inequality, flamboyant corruption, and on and on. These are all "solvable" problems if we there wasn't a stigma of judging. These are also not cosmetic problems, they define the entire lives and generations of people who fall victim to them.

Addressing the problem is not necessarily the same as condemning the individuals. Fixing potholes is not the same as condemning the individuals who step into them or built the roads.

We have to decide what the word "judge" means.

_________________
Johan

It's an opinion?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

coming perhaps too late to this discussion...

with any writer, you sort of have to half know it already based on personal experience, and then you say, yes, I see that, it explains my data

without that context, we are looking at mere words on a page, that line up or not with our prejudices

individuals, communities, world culture, is going through the four stages of maturation, being

1) tribal/primal natural perspective
2) ego/rational materialism of the 50s
3) breaking away from social structures to release the creative energy of right hemisphere in the 60s
4) correction for the excesses of the 60s and reexamination/reintegration of structure and natural needs

Ayn Rand's model has significance in that it addresses the course correction taking place in the west, away from heart-based but ultimately damaging entitleism, and refocusing on personal responsibility and the importance of creative extremists to the overall civilization.

Ayn Rand grew up in a socio-economic culture that was an extreme beta test of life ruled by committee, the sacrifice of the individual to the community, and what she saw emerge from that was a flavour of something anti-human - and this only has power and significance for the reader if he or she has experienced that in their lives.

The evil of the committee is that is it constrained to the lowest common denominator at the mental level. The power of the individual lies in the fact that it is only the individual FWAU who can tap into NPMR and integrate their mental and intuitive forces to solve problems and shift paradigms.

another evil of the committee is that it will be constrained, even at the mental level, by the weakest link in the chain, whereas problems are solved and paradigms are shifted by that one extreme and gifted outlier, and the system works on a bell curve, and with each biological generation throwing out a few absurdly talented outliers, and how the system treats these individuals is very important for the prosperity of that nation.

Take the case of Steve Jobs, perhaps the best real world example of John Galt. After creating a great company, he was turfed out by the Board (committee), who promptly ran the company into the ground, a common pattern. Apple only recovered when the mad genius was put back in charge.

This is what differentiates great companies from failing companies, and great countries from failing countries...to what extent the extremely talented are embraced and permitted to lead vs the tyranny of mediocrity and committees.

One interesting thing he did was to ban philanthropy. Jobs understood that the best thing you can do for people is give them a great job, demand their best performance, produce great products, and make a profit...that is the formula for changing the world, everyone selfishly pursuing their own self interest, letting the invisible hand do its work, everyone pulling their weight...

that is Ayn Rand's message to the planet, as well as the message of economics...prosperity does not grow on trees, an economy is not a fixed pie to be sliced up, but is the active product of imagination, fearlessness, discipline and effort, and we must each apply these to the extent of our talent and capacity, initially to cover our own needs, and then for a higher purpose that comes from within, not imposed from outside.

He understood the virtue of selfishness and the harm that virtually all charity and wealth redistribution does. What people need is the dignity of a job, not a hand out. There are exceptions to this rule in the areas of children, education and health care. Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept, to replace minimum wages, solves about 90% of the problem and provides a better balance between compassion and incentives.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Fantastic post kroeran. Forgive me for this but I'll be quoting that quite a lot from now on whenever I get into my monthly argument with commies on other boards. :D

What then do you suppose Ayn Rand would have to say about Bill Gates of Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Personally I can't help thinking that the Bill Gates model is what you develop into after passing through and eventually outgrowing the Steve Jobs model and the Ayn Rand 'philosophy'. That is where you catch up to the lessons of MBT and develop a true understanding of who and what you are and your relationship to all those other IUOCs as well. The element missing as well from present day economic models.

Ted

I would bifurcate how one conducts ones professional life from what one does with their personal money outside of work. I don't see much sunshine between Steve and Bill's approach to commerce.

What Steve did with his surplus personal money and now what his wife will do with their personal fortune is clouded in mystery I believe...these widows usually direct the money toward feel good causes and politics,...doing the best they can with their level of knowledge, which is great intent, but perhaps counter productive as far as actual effectiveness, but I digress in talking about her.

If Steve was truely a low entropic dude, his philanthropic activities would be done in secret, playing to the 5th wall, rather than for PMR adulation, and I recall someone making a cryptic reference to his philanthropic activities being below the radar so to speak.

While philanthropy indicates great, even fantastic intent, and that is what really matters in the big picture, a scientific and professional examination of philanthropy suggests that little of it does any good, and most of it actually harms the recipient, as it is normally about the act of giving, rather than the results over time, and the actual impact on the recipient and the recipient community.

No, I will be much happier when the Gates foundation rather turns to investing in real businesses and creating jobs in Africa. Microsoft and Apple itself should continue to act according to the "invisible fist", but the philanthropic FWAU (Gates and Buffet) may choose to direct their own money (which is merely unspent work), toward business models that have a social objective and gives greater weight to the impact on the recipients than glory to the giver.

Of course, they would actually probably help more people by simply starting businesses and trying best they can to be productive. The active capitalist is caught in an inescapable trap of providing value to everyone they freely trade with - otherwise they would not trade with him/her. Even when the wealthy choose to consume their money rather than invest it, it is very difficult to avoid providing value to the persons they are buying crap and services from.

the key is to never deceive, never coerce, be merciful when engaging smaller/weaker but active entities than yourself who are in difficult commercial circumstances in spite of trying very hard, but avoid coddeling inactive or persistently ineffective entities who are merely lacking motivation

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

I think that a glance at the web site of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation might be of value. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx Basically they seem to be working in Africa to eradicate disease with multiple projects and also helping with disease control in India with an anti polio project. In the US they seem to be concentrating on improving the quality of education so that a high school diploma means something again in terms of real and useful skills. Something badly needed. They do have some more local projects in areas of the US to 'break the cycle of homelessness' as I understand it. Their approach to philanthropy seems to be much more aimed at real results as opposed to personal aggrandizement. Actually quite useful projects that will improve things at a very basic level. This is not based on an in depth analysis however for which I have no time.

A quotation from the President of the American Program, Allan Golston,
Ted

I am of course very uncomfortable criticizing the Foundation - I am a great admirer of these people, or most people that are efficient to the point of having their names on the side of buildings, but I primarily admire Bill for his contribution to society through Microsoft. And I certainly don't hold myself up as any paragon of virtue besides these people.

Gates is a great example of old money class, which can be usefully contrasted to the new money Daddy Warbucks image that Trump projects - though no-one really knows the heart of any of these public figures...well, maybe their kids and staff and wive(s) do. I could go much further on why I admire Bill, and I admire Trump for different reasons.

The heart of this is how does entropy reduction play out in our productive 9-5 lives, and placing the appropriate weighting on personal effort and appreciation of extreme talent in others, and what these billionaires do with their time and money is tangential to this core issue which most of us have to cope with.

When Tom talked about most of us "doing as little as we can for as much as we can get", I thought I detected the hint of a sneer at laziness, disengagement and nihilism, and blaming the other guy for our misfortune, and this points to being energetic, engaged, positive and taking personal responsibility for our circumstances, so the focus needs to be on getting moving, being great at our profession, even if that is as a Macdonald's cashier, being positive and not blaming the other guy or Wall Street.

Like the idea that managing our own entropy is our core focus, managing our own affairs should be our primary focus, pursuing our self interest and taking care of our families, but over time, thickening the glove we wear over the invisible fist, and practising mercy in our dealings, and that is the most effective vector for building civilization.

I think the concept of selfishness can be extended further, in that we do not reach to be better/kinder to please God or AUM or Tom, but rather, we are reaching for our NPMR pleasure centers...the good person is merely the smart person, internalizing the big picture, grazing on deep eternal feedback, acting out of (higher)selfishness.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Not blaming Wall Street but Occupy Wall Street is the beginning of the END of the status quo and the mental dis-ease of getting stuck on blame rather than CHANGE. We can change the world without playing the blame game, and we are.

This is a big part of the problem besides religion making people act crazy like the Tea Party people.

www.lcurve.org
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Oh...well said! Kroeran.

I think it must be obvious for those who have half a clue about MBT that it is personal responsibility and "voluntary" altruism that allow for optimum entropy reduction scenarios. Robotic, third party enforcement of 'good works' greases the otherwise rough surface that provides "traction" for individuated units of consciousness to move forward.