The Master Addiction... self evasion?
Does Galt:
1. Like himself
2. Love himself
3. Respect himself
4. Revere himself
5. Have pride in himself
6. Have self mastery
7. Have self control
8. Allow guilt to alter his perceptions of himself
9. Allow shame to alter his perceptions of himself
10. Allow betrayal to alter his perceptions of himself
11. Allow abandonment to alter his perceptions of himself
12. Evade himself
My translation of the word "God" is "The Essence of Man". The essence of man is the heart (some would say, within the heart) of every man. Ayn Rand's definition of man is "rational animal" or "rational mammal" if you prefer. Essentially, therefore, according to Rand's fully integrated philosophy of Objectivism, that attribute that distinguishes man from all else (currently perceivable entities) is rationality. The literal heart of a man (organ) pumps blood, but the essential heart of a man (that attribute that distinguishes a concept from it's genus) is rationality. Rand would say that rationality is man's means of survival (another discussion entirely, but let's face it, unless men devolve into fellow-men-killing savages, for survival within a man vs. man world, rationality is essential).
Let's mince the words for kicks. The "heart/essence/means of survival/God" of man is rationality. That's fun, but, alas, perhaps not as logical as it sounds to me. We can leave out "God" for the religious, "heart" for the biologists, and "means of survival" for those that would prefer to devolve or force other men into slavery. Essence, however, is non-negotiable, for me at least. I, being a man, have a valid claim to that which is essential to my differentiation from animals (or mammals if you prefer), and my integration with organisms like myself. I claim that my differentiation as a man is, in fact, rationality, while my infinite number of integrations are subsumed by the concept of organism (in context).
Aha! A clue. Consider the following:
1. I am a mammal and I am ill
2. I am a human and I am ill
3. I am your coworker and I am ill
4. I am your neighbor and I am ill
5. I am your cousin and I am ill
6. I am your grandparent and I am ill
7. I am your parent and I am ill
8. I am your sibling and I am ill
9. I am your spouse and I am ill
10. I am your twin and I am ill
11. I am your child and I am ill
12. I am you and I am ill
Which, if any of these, prompt action, in what order, and for what purpose?
Now let's replace "ill" with "poor", "inept", "enslaved", "injured", "abused", "mistreated", "alienated", "misunderstood", etc. Altruistically speaking, if and when swamped with claims of this nature, you'd have a hard time not killing yourself trying to address all of these problems. Triage. To prioritize, one must prioritize the kind of ailment, the magnitude, and the order of significance (likeness) in terms of differentiation vs. integration.
When inundated by incessant complaints of ailments (in the broad sense used above), how can the selfless man fail to "identify" with a specific subset of the afflicted? Is "do the best that you can to help and get by" the correct answer? No. The correct answer is "I am an instance of a rational animal that is further differentiated by all of those attributes that make me unique - I will help myself first and foremost, and if I subsequently choose to help the ones I love, the ones most similar, or as many as I can, without detriment to my own welfare, I accept the personal cost and expect no payment beyond the satisfaction I obtain".
Getting around to the point... The "Master Addiction" is the act of (feeling satisfied with) identification with a subset of the afflicted at the expense of the responsibility to differentiate one's self and honor that differentiated self (via an integrated philosophical value set). To dedicate time and energy to anything less than an integrated philosophical value set is to seek, find, and ultimately wallow in failure to effect change... more will ail no matter how hard we may try to stop time.
Galt did not attempt to appease anyone, to appeal to anyone, to manipulate anyone, to plead with anyone, and so on. Those who were ready had already differentiated themselves. All it ever took was a simple nudge to help the producers of value to rearrange their thoughts and recognize that they were sacrificing their differentiated selves to the undifferentiated looters.
Hmm... is this some kind of philosophical treatise or something? All I really wanted to say was that Galt honored his differentiated self, ignored what might be construed as failures by others, and chose to honor only those who were capable of the same. Anyone else was discarded for lack of differentiation and the need for approval from undifferentiated individuals - those addicted to self evasion.
Raise your glass if you think you need approval to be an Objectivist. Trade value for value if you are one.
1. Like himself
2. Love himself
3. Respect himself
4. Revere himself
5. Have pride in himself
6. Have self mastery
7. Have self control
8. Allow guilt to alter his perceptions of himself
9. Allow shame to alter his perceptions of himself
10. Allow betrayal to alter his perceptions of himself
11. Allow abandonment to alter his perceptions of himself
12. Evade himself
My translation of the word "God" is "The Essence of Man". The essence of man is the heart (some would say, within the heart) of every man. Ayn Rand's definition of man is "rational animal" or "rational mammal" if you prefer. Essentially, therefore, according to Rand's fully integrated philosophy of Objectivism, that attribute that distinguishes man from all else (currently perceivable entities) is rationality. The literal heart of a man (organ) pumps blood, but the essential heart of a man (that attribute that distinguishes a concept from it's genus) is rationality. Rand would say that rationality is man's means of survival (another discussion entirely, but let's face it, unless men devolve into fellow-men-killing savages, for survival within a man vs. man world, rationality is essential).
Let's mince the words for kicks. The "heart/essence/means of survival/God" of man is rationality. That's fun, but, alas, perhaps not as logical as it sounds to me. We can leave out "God" for the religious, "heart" for the biologists, and "means of survival" for those that would prefer to devolve or force other men into slavery. Essence, however, is non-negotiable, for me at least. I, being a man, have a valid claim to that which is essential to my differentiation from animals (or mammals if you prefer), and my integration with organisms like myself. I claim that my differentiation as a man is, in fact, rationality, while my infinite number of integrations are subsumed by the concept of organism (in context).
Aha! A clue. Consider the following:
1. I am a mammal and I am ill
2. I am a human and I am ill
3. I am your coworker and I am ill
4. I am your neighbor and I am ill
5. I am your cousin and I am ill
6. I am your grandparent and I am ill
7. I am your parent and I am ill
8. I am your sibling and I am ill
9. I am your spouse and I am ill
10. I am your twin and I am ill
11. I am your child and I am ill
12. I am you and I am ill
Which, if any of these, prompt action, in what order, and for what purpose?
Now let's replace "ill" with "poor", "inept", "enslaved", "injured", "abused", "mistreated", "alienated", "misunderstood", etc. Altruistically speaking, if and when swamped with claims of this nature, you'd have a hard time not killing yourself trying to address all of these problems. Triage. To prioritize, one must prioritize the kind of ailment, the magnitude, and the order of significance (likeness) in terms of differentiation vs. integration.
When inundated by incessant complaints of ailments (in the broad sense used above), how can the selfless man fail to "identify" with a specific subset of the afflicted? Is "do the best that you can to help and get by" the correct answer? No. The correct answer is "I am an instance of a rational animal that is further differentiated by all of those attributes that make me unique - I will help myself first and foremost, and if I subsequently choose to help the ones I love, the ones most similar, or as many as I can, without detriment to my own welfare, I accept the personal cost and expect no payment beyond the satisfaction I obtain".
Getting around to the point... The "Master Addiction" is the act of (feeling satisfied with) identification with a subset of the afflicted at the expense of the responsibility to differentiate one's self and honor that differentiated self (via an integrated philosophical value set). To dedicate time and energy to anything less than an integrated philosophical value set is to seek, find, and ultimately wallow in failure to effect change... more will ail no matter how hard we may try to stop time.
Galt did not attempt to appease anyone, to appeal to anyone, to manipulate anyone, to plead with anyone, and so on. Those who were ready had already differentiated themselves. All it ever took was a simple nudge to help the producers of value to rearrange their thoughts and recognize that they were sacrificing their differentiated selves to the undifferentiated looters.
Hmm... is this some kind of philosophical treatise or something? All I really wanted to say was that Galt honored his differentiated self, ignored what might be construed as failures by others, and chose to honor only those who were capable of the same. Anyone else was discarded for lack of differentiation and the need for approval from undifferentiated individuals - those addicted to self evasion.
Raise your glass if you think you need approval to be an Objectivist. Trade value for value if you are one.
I doubt whether many people I know would approve of my chosen philosophy so I keep it to myself mostly, & get on with my life. To quote the Bible, I don't throw my pearls to swine.
On the other hand, I received a few derogatory responses to this post without any form of constructive criticism. Maybe just elitist deterrence, I don't know. Was my presentation bad, and if so, in what way could it be improved?
Either way, I'd encourage you to "come out" and voice your support for the philosophy... That was actually one of the reactions I expected to my post.
As for staying in the closet, I have many acquaintances but I don't have many friends. I'm a recluse. If I'm not working, I'm playing with my kids or sleeping.
I'm self absorbed.
I love my true friends. They're a worthwhile investment, & I to them (value for value). We understand each other. All that said, I'm curious to know what you mean by "folks like you"??
Please see private message.
Not much else to say other than that it is commendable in my humble opinion.
cheers!
Evasion is, in ethics, an act that deceives by stating a true statement that is irrelevant or leads to a false conclusion or it could mean physical or mental escape.
is it possible you meant denial? If you were addicted to it wouldn’t you end up delusional, if it escalated?
[Ayn Rand's definition of man is "rational animal"]
If a person is irrational do they cease to be man?
[Rand would say that rationality is man's means of survival (another discussion entirely, but let's face it, unless men devolve into fellow-men-killing savages, for survival within a man vs. man world, rationality is essential). ]
It would be rational to fight over food to stay alive (so, in all cases).
[I claim that my differentiation as a man is, in fact, rationality.]
I think it should be, the potential of rationality. If I jump off this building I can fly would not be sound judgment.
[The correct answer is "I am an instance of a rational animal that is further differentiated by all of those attributes that make me unique - I will help myself first and foremost, and if I subsequently choose to help the ones I love, the ones most similar, or as many as I can, without detriment to my own welfare, I accept the personal cost and expect no payment beyond the satisfaction I obtain". ]
A person is unique only by the sum of all of their attributes, individually there is very few of us that are unique, (possibly none baring a freak of nature) therefore being further differentiated is suspect. I do agree people will be only as generous as they can afford to be and receive the value of some positive emotion (Altruistically speaking).
[The "Master Addiction" is the act of (feeling satisfied with) identification with a subset of the afflicted at the expense of the responsibility to differentiate one's self and honor that differentiated self (via an integrated philosophical value set). ]
So, it’s identifying with sick people (in this case) at the expense of… I don’t know how differentiating yourself or honoring it is a responsibility.
[To dedicate time and energy to anything less than an integrated philosophical value set is to seek, find, and ultimately wallow in failure to effect change... more will ail no matter how hard we may try to stop time]
Identifying with all these sick people can be interpreted as being careful when you look into the abyss, but how is it an addiction? and is self evasion even possible when it typically involves two entities, like a tax cheat and the IRS?
If the point is what would John Galt do, if not Self Evasion the master addiction.. since when did he seek to effect change in the afflicted by stopping time?
I will Grant if John Galt wanted to be free from looters therefore attain a high level of freedom by suggesting to the producers how they should live their lives is hanging toes over a slippery slope. Ayn Rand needed a vehicle to communicate her philosophy so some leeway should be granted and Galt humbly informed there is a solution and allowed people to think for themselves, which I think Ayn Rand did a good job at communicating without contradicting herself; not easy when you’re telling people to adopt your way of living over their own.
[Galt honored his differentiated self, ignored what might be construed as failures by others, and chose to honor only those who were capable of the same. Anyone else was discarded for lack of differentiation and the need for approval from undifferentiated individuals - those addicted to self evasion.]
Considering yourself a victim has serious drawbacks as well as judging people. Again Ayn Rand made her characters critical, I believe, because it was the best way for her to communicate her idea. The logic of Objectivism would fail because, if making judgment of others is a valid premise it would work both ways.
It is in the judgment of the mob we are responsible for others.
I believe Ayn had to believe in live in let live, I don’t judge you and you don’t judge me. We meet in society and interact of our own free will socially and in commerce.
Unfortunately, I don’t agree with your post much but I did enjoy the exercise and appreciate you suggesting this discussion.
I keep coming across the words victim, victimizer, etc. in many of the posts I've read or commented on here. The recent posts on "isms", for instance (within the serious comments) seem to have converged on the idea that "isms" are [sometimes] wielded by folks who identify with them to demonstrate their victimhood or press their agenda. Would it be fair to say that victimhood is an ailment that is addictive? If so, wouldn't a personal differentiation from the category defined by the "ism" (when used to identify oneself as a victim) be a cure to the ailment?
If self evasion is the failure to look inward and differentiate oneself from these "isms" in the context of victimhood because more social power is derived from victimhood than from being truly unique, then isn't self evasion (in this context), an addiction?
Finally, is it an unrealistic stretch to suggest that this form of addiction subsumes all others?
I'd like to say more and keep the dialog going, and I hope to refine the presentation.
Again, your critique is very much appreciated.
Unfortunately, yes the person that adopts the attitude of victim trades positive psychological traits for small monetary or social gains; and this can be learned and repeated.
[If so, wouldn't a personal differentiation from the category defined by the "ism" (when used to identify oneself as a victim) be a cure to the ailment? ]
Ironically, the inference you state could be seen as evasive, even though you asked and answered the question. I just call it the rub.
No, you can be afflicted by an ism but not have it define you to yourself. Differentiation seems to suggest you are not afflicted, therefore in denial; and that will not be a cure for an ism. Having a philosophy as you alluded to can assist a person in achieving their objectives despite most ism’s; baring deathism or comatosism.
Thinking is fun.
P.S. Do you realize that if we weren't on any watch list 5 hours ago, then we sure as heck are on one now!
"KKK." "White hoods." "Sniper." "Southern Poverty Law Center." Etc.
You just made the wrong charge!
"You are gong TO fit in here, just fine." is 100% correct.
I could have said: 'You are going TO fit in here, TOO', and that would show you the difference.
But: I will not demand that you post that you were wrong...because I don't think that it is important enough to cloud our friendship.
It is an apocryphal story that when asked if he drank to excess, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (who knew himself only as "Hiram") lifted his glass of bourbon and said, "To excess!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlFQvbHVk...
Mike has gone out of his way to paint us with a broad brush. I am a girl and so I bristle at being considered broad.
Just put on your hair cloth shirt, with iron spikes, to do your penance for tossing a word salad without using organic lettuce.
Hold your ground...you did good!
I consider myself to be mostly civil, and I happen to value that quality... too much. Enough that I would reduce myself to attempting to shame others for not being civil. Shame on Mike! Shame, shame! Ok... done with that.
A subtle point made in both posts (mine, perhaps less so), is not so much that we need thick skins, but that we need to do our penance quickly and move on. Sadly, I'm still stuck on feeling hurt when I should be well beyond that. Failure to produce constructive criticism is simply FAIL, so by my own principles, I must let it go.
Whatever the case, I'll find myself some organic lettuce for the future half-baked posts I'm sure to make.
I think I said or implied that I "felt hurt" by the first reply.
My inclusion of your post in the context (my apologies for pointing out the typo) was intended to demonstrate that I (and all Objectivists) should "man up" and ignore the "three injunctions typical of guilt - don't look--don't judge--don't be certain".
That's that.
It is sad that the original post may never be read or refined due to the storm of commentary, but then again, it may well be a "word salad", in which case, I'll have to reformulate it and try again another day.
I'm not sure if that would be tasty or disgusting.
Seriously though, if it means that I was waffling between being genuinely offended by Mike's comment that the post was a "word salad" and just seeking a bit of vengeance, I can say for certain that in the absence of constructive criticism, I think his reply was senselessly flippant, uncivil, and painful - I should have rejected it and moved on in the spirit of the post. Mike may have taken the high road here by refusing to participate, but I'd sure like to here something more constructive than "this post is a word salad".
I was pretty sure I couldn't delete the post, but as I said, I'm still new here. I'm not sure I would have posted it in the first place if I didn't think it had some value. I can admit, however, that it is absolutely subject to constructive criticism, and that I may very well read it tomorrow and say "that was poorly written".
Mike has only been here 10 minutes longer than you. do the atlas shrug off
If there was any way to post pictures here, I would show it!
I don't do Facebook, or any of those social sites.
At this stage, it would take a DNA test to even determine what this carcass was, that you have been kicking around for what seems like a month....
It might even have been a water moccasin, for all we know. ;-)
You don't need a DNA test to prove YOU said it. And it's only been maybe 3 days... It will end as soon as you say it. !
All you have to do, is to have some patience! ;-)
I couldn't change the promise now, even if I wanted to!
Everything comes to(o) those that wait....
They have been playing Spin the Soap with Obama since 2008.
I was still looking for the right spelling....
You are going to fit in here, just fine!
I take it that there isn't any way to include a file within a 'comment'? That way I wouldn't be starting a post that only a few are interested in....
Although my scanner was refusing to save the scan file to my destination, I figured out a work around.
Just took some more gin....
I will have to work on my presentation.
What's the worst of it? Too wordy, too "all over", too truncated? Please be more critical. "Word salad" is just derogatory without anything constructive.
A mammal is an animal so why the differentiation?
Man is a rational animal. But, by definition, it is volitional. Man can choose to be irrational.
I'm raising my glass...but only for a moment
I do appreciate the comments if not the points. Thanks!
I already made a comment about some of the shared glue in here. As an Objectivist, you may or may not find what you're looking for in here. I'll only speak for myself, but I appreciate original posts, especially if they engage conversation, which yours has. I hope you'll find interesting discussions in here. Looking forward to them
Thanks =)