Sunday, October 26, 2003
How is My Driving Blogging?
Now, for a limited time only, you can comment on my blog entries! At the bottom of each entry is a "comments" link. Click on it, and you can leave your two cents! I would prefer at least $5 though, and I do accept Paypal.
Now, for a limited time only, you can comment on my blog entries! At the bottom of each entry is a "comments" link. Click on it, and you can leave your two cents! I would prefer at least $5 though, and I do accept Paypal.
Edwin was Evading, but I Forgive Him.
Last Wednesday I attended a lecture entitled, "Post-Modernism vs. Religion vs. Objectivism: Which is the Proper Code of Morality for Living on Earth?" given by Edwin Locke, Senior Fellow for the Ayn Rand Insistute. For those that don't know, the title of "Senior Fellow" means he's paid by the Ayn Rand Institute to think about and write things related to Objectivism. I'm not sure how he acquired this position, as his works haven't seemed very prolific, and furthermore neither did his speech. He's not the greatest speaker as he is very dry, monotone and unengaging. A line from the movie Dirty Work describes him perfectly: "You got the personality of a dead moth."
The speech was standard textbook Objectivism so I didn't learn very much, but I suppose that the speech wasn't exactly targeted at people that already agree with the principles he spoke of. However, I didn't go thinking I would learn anything; I was just there to expose some flaws or shortcomings in Objectivism, and maybe entertain myself a bit in doing so. I'd say I did a pretty good job of both. :-D
Several days before the lecture, I decided I was going to ask about the principle of forgiveness, as it is not mentioned anywhere in Ayn Rand's or other standard Objectivist writings. To my surprise, he brought up the principle of forgiveness on his own accord during the speech, but he didn't discuss it; instead he said to ask him about it in the Q&A and he'll elaborate. Which is exactly what I did. Upon asking him, he shuffled around through his stack of papers to find his notes on forgiveness, which he oddly wasn't able to recall from memory. According to Leonard's dictate -- Oops, I meant Edwin's own independent judgment! -- there four factors one has to consider in deciding whether or not to forgive a person:
Objectivism greatly lacks a sound psychological background, and this is demonstrated in this instance by it's lack of concern for a person's mental state upon having committed the wrong behavior. Traditional Non-Kelley Objectivism also places too much emphasis on moral judgment, which is far more evident in many of its other writings. I think there are several problems with this attitude, but for a far better exposition on this subject than I could give, read my lover D. Moskovitz's essay, Moralism in Objectivism, which I highly recommend.
I was later called on again to ask another question, but I deferred my question so that Luke could ask his question which I noticed he had been waiting to ask for quite some time. I said, "I have a question to ask you, but I noticed this gentleman in the corner has been raising his hand for quite some time, and I like to help people, so I'd like him to ask his question first." Luke laughed, then explained how the engineers he works with at NASA are extremely rational except when it comes to belief in God, followed by inquiring into how to penetrate such a belief bubble. I didn't pay attention to what was said afterwards because I regard such an issue as highly trivial. What does it matter if they believe in god? As long as they're not flying planes into buildings or even devoting a large part of their life to serving God, is this really all that important? Is it really worth the time and effort?
When it finally came to my question, I inquired about something else that Edwin had mentioned in answering someone else's question regarding charity. He had spoken of giving charity out of generosity, which he said was just a minor virtue and a part of benevolence. This threw up a red flag for me because, in the past, ARI has been adamant about denying benevolence as being a virtue, perhaps especially so because David Kelley considers it a major one. My question, stated so innocently, went approximately as follows...
"Before, you mentioned the minor virtue of generosity and how it's a part of benevolence. I've studied the Objectivist Ethics several times, and nowhere in that essay did I see any mention of benevolence as a virtue. I also didn't see any instance of it in Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, so I was wondering where..."
He interrupted me in mid-question by shaking his head and blurting out, "It's not in there. It's not in there." He then elaborated, paraphrased:
"You won't find it in there as a virtue because benevolence isn't a virtue. In Objectivism, there is this positive outlook called the 'benevolent-universe premise' which is basically the attitude that happiness is possible to man and that we should approach people with the assumption that their interaction will be beneficial to us."
I asked, "So what you're saying is, we should treat all people as potential traders?"
"Well....yeah, that's right," he replied.
"So benevolence is a means too value, then. Correct?" (For those that don't know, Ayn Rand defined a virtue as the means to value. *grin*)
He started fidgeting. "No, no, it's just a positive outlook that you have. Next question?"
It seems as if ARI has begun to advocate benevolence without it being a virtue under the guise of the "benevolent-universe premise." I surmise that the reason for this is so they can say, "See? It was already in Objectivism! Ayn Rand already said to be benevolent!" in face of David Kelley's introduction of benevolence as an additional virute, but of course it was never stated by her as a virtue (despite it being a means to value), so Peikoff and Co. are keeping it that way. This seems like evasion to me, but why get upset about it? I succeeded in making Edwin Locke squirm, so my mission directives had been completed. Overall, it was a highly enjoyable evening.
Except during the 2 hour car-ride back from Gainesville, in which Jason was getting angry, yelling obscenities and beating the steering wheel because of the speeding tickets "the government" had given him almost a year ago, as well as "the government's" refusal to let him defer payment because of financial troubles. I tried to explain him that a) there is no such entity as the "the government" that gave him these things, that it was just the decisions a select few individuals that were responsible, and b) he needs to learn to forgive these things.
I don't mean forgive in the traditional Christian sense of turning the other cheek for the people that wronged him, but just to let go of bad things that have happened. You cannot change the past, so dwelling on and getting upset over things that have happened is at the very least futile, but most of the time causes undue suffering because of the anger, guilt and regret that it causes as well. You do not need to suffer through these negative feelings in order to know that you don't like something or desire it to change; These negative emotions only bring pain and suffering. This, in my understanding, is the Buddhist concept of forgiveness, and it has a much broader scope than the traditional concept of forgiveness in Christianity. In fact, several Buddhist teachers claim that this was the intended meaning of the Christian scriptures, but such meaning was lost over the centuries. There is plenty of evidence to support this conclusion, and it's a subject that has become of moderate interest to me lately, as Eckhart talks in length about this in The Power of Now.
Last Wednesday I attended a lecture entitled, "Post-Modernism vs. Religion vs. Objectivism: Which is the Proper Code of Morality for Living on Earth?" given by Edwin Locke, Senior Fellow for the Ayn Rand Insistute. For those that don't know, the title of "Senior Fellow" means he's paid by the Ayn Rand Institute to think about and write things related to Objectivism. I'm not sure how he acquired this position, as his works haven't seemed very prolific, and furthermore neither did his speech. He's not the greatest speaker as he is very dry, monotone and unengaging. A line from the movie Dirty Work describes him perfectly: "You got the personality of a dead moth."
The speech was standard textbook Objectivism so I didn't learn very much, but I suppose that the speech wasn't exactly targeted at people that already agree with the principles he spoke of. However, I didn't go thinking I would learn anything; I was just there to expose some flaws or shortcomings in Objectivism, and maybe entertain myself a bit in doing so. I'd say I did a pretty good job of both. :-D
Several days before the lecture, I decided I was going to ask about the principle of forgiveness, as it is not mentioned anywhere in Ayn Rand's or other standard Objectivist writings. To my surprise, he brought up the principle of forgiveness on his own accord during the speech, but he didn't discuss it; instead he said to ask him about it in the Q&A and he'll elaborate. Which is exactly what I did. Upon asking him, he shuffled around through his stack of papers to find his notes on forgiveness, which he oddly wasn't able to recall from memory. According to Leonard's dictate -- Oops, I meant Edwin's own independent judgment! -- there four factors one has to consider in deciding whether or not to forgive a person:
- How much harm was done?
- Is the harm reversible?
- How old is the person?
- Are they taking steps to change their behavior/Are they displaying changed behavior?
Objectivism greatly lacks a sound psychological background, and this is demonstrated in this instance by it's lack of concern for a person's mental state upon having committed the wrong behavior. Traditional Non-Kelley Objectivism also places too much emphasis on moral judgment, which is far more evident in many of its other writings. I think there are several problems with this attitude, but for a far better exposition on this subject than I could give, read my lover D. Moskovitz's essay, Moralism in Objectivism, which I highly recommend.
I was later called on again to ask another question, but I deferred my question so that Luke could ask his question which I noticed he had been waiting to ask for quite some time. I said, "I have a question to ask you, but I noticed this gentleman in the corner has been raising his hand for quite some time, and I like to help people, so I'd like him to ask his question first." Luke laughed, then explained how the engineers he works with at NASA are extremely rational except when it comes to belief in God, followed by inquiring into how to penetrate such a belief bubble. I didn't pay attention to what was said afterwards because I regard such an issue as highly trivial. What does it matter if they believe in god? As long as they're not flying planes into buildings or even devoting a large part of their life to serving God, is this really all that important? Is it really worth the time and effort?
When it finally came to my question, I inquired about something else that Edwin had mentioned in answering someone else's question regarding charity. He had spoken of giving charity out of generosity, which he said was just a minor virtue and a part of benevolence. This threw up a red flag for me because, in the past, ARI has been adamant about denying benevolence as being a virtue, perhaps especially so because David Kelley considers it a major one. My question, stated so innocently, went approximately as follows...
"Before, you mentioned the minor virtue of generosity and how it's a part of benevolence. I've studied the Objectivist Ethics several times, and nowhere in that essay did I see any mention of benevolence as a virtue. I also didn't see any instance of it in Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, so I was wondering where..."
He interrupted me in mid-question by shaking his head and blurting out, "It's not in there. It's not in there." He then elaborated, paraphrased:
"You won't find it in there as a virtue because benevolence isn't a virtue. In Objectivism, there is this positive outlook called the 'benevolent-universe premise' which is basically the attitude that happiness is possible to man and that we should approach people with the assumption that their interaction will be beneficial to us."
I asked, "So what you're saying is, we should treat all people as potential traders?"
"Well....yeah, that's right," he replied.
"So benevolence is a means too value, then. Correct?" (For those that don't know, Ayn Rand defined a virtue as the means to value. *grin*)
He started fidgeting. "No, no, it's just a positive outlook that you have. Next question?"
It seems as if ARI has begun to advocate benevolence without it being a virtue under the guise of the "benevolent-universe premise." I surmise that the reason for this is so they can say, "See? It was already in Objectivism! Ayn Rand already said to be benevolent!" in face of David Kelley's introduction of benevolence as an additional virute, but of course it was never stated by her as a virtue (despite it being a means to value), so Peikoff and Co. are keeping it that way. This seems like evasion to me, but why get upset about it? I succeeded in making Edwin Locke squirm, so my mission directives had been completed. Overall, it was a highly enjoyable evening.
Except during the 2 hour car-ride back from Gainesville, in which Jason was getting angry, yelling obscenities and beating the steering wheel because of the speeding tickets "the government" had given him almost a year ago, as well as "the government's" refusal to let him defer payment because of financial troubles. I tried to explain him that a) there is no such entity as the "the government" that gave him these things, that it was just the decisions a select few individuals that were responsible, and b) he needs to learn to forgive these things.
I don't mean forgive in the traditional Christian sense of turning the other cheek for the people that wronged him, but just to let go of bad things that have happened. You cannot change the past, so dwelling on and getting upset over things that have happened is at the very least futile, but most of the time causes undue suffering because of the anger, guilt and regret that it causes as well. You do not need to suffer through these negative feelings in order to know that you don't like something or desire it to change; These negative emotions only bring pain and suffering. This, in my understanding, is the Buddhist concept of forgiveness, and it has a much broader scope than the traditional concept of forgiveness in Christianity. In fact, several Buddhist teachers claim that this was the intended meaning of the Christian scriptures, but such meaning was lost over the centuries. There is plenty of evidence to support this conclusion, and it's a subject that has become of moderate interest to me lately, as Eckhart talks in length about this in The Power of Now.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Wanna Vipassana? Ahmunna.
Last night, Brittany and I attended the Orlando Insight Meditation Group for the second time. The meetings begin with 45 minutes of meditation followed by a dharma talk (a discussion or lecture on the teachings of the Buddha) given by the founder and leader of the group, Peter Carlson. Peter is a professional cognitive psychologist, and so it seems as if the talks consist primarily of principles from cognitive psychology and how they relate to Buddhism. And they integrate so beautifully, which should give you some insight into the nature of Buddhism. It teaches sound principles of mind, so it's not the mystical garbage that I always thought it was, at least not in its entirety. I'm seeing that even karma has some validity, despite prior misinterprations that lead to my conception of "Karma Fairies", but I'll get to that later.
The word "vipassana" literally means both "To look deeply" as well as, "To see clearly." As one page describes it:
The topic of last night's Dharma talk was "Right Speech." One site describes it as "Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter." Peter explained that speech is fed by thoughts, which many times arise from different patterns or templates or filters that he referred to as schemas, a concept he extracted from the book Emotional Alchemy by Tara-Bennett Goleman. It also has a foreward by the Dalai Lama! (I'm not sure why that's so great, but I'm sure I'll find out when I learn more about him, and I'm almost certain it's not because he's a bald asian hippy with glasses.)
According to one online discussion of the book:
I strongly urge you to visit the Section Summaries of this online discussion, particularly Section Two where it lists and describes the schemas, so you can identify which one or ones are yours.
On another note, Jason didn't go with us this time because he "didn't feel like it." My hypothesis is that the stress and anxiety from not having a job and constantly worrying about having money to pay bills and the depression from not being productive with his time are starting to severely impact his behavior. He has become substantially more negative and hostile in the last several months, frequently taking issue with and getting upset over extremely minor things. I don't think he's even aware of it, at least not to the extent that I've observed, but he'll eventually read this and find out. *grin*
It's kind of ironic that he didn't want to go to the study group, because it's those exact negative reactive patterns that the Vipassana practices aim at dissolving, and I think he understands that to some extent. As he says in his blog:
If you're interested in attending the study group, let me know or visit the website.
Last night, Brittany and I attended the Orlando Insight Meditation Group for the second time. The meetings begin with 45 minutes of meditation followed by a dharma talk (a discussion or lecture on the teachings of the Buddha) given by the founder and leader of the group, Peter Carlson. Peter is a professional cognitive psychologist, and so it seems as if the talks consist primarily of principles from cognitive psychology and how they relate to Buddhism. And they integrate so beautifully, which should give you some insight into the nature of Buddhism. It teaches sound principles of mind, so it's not the mystical garbage that I always thought it was, at least not in its entirety. I'm seeing that even karma has some validity, despite prior misinterprations that lead to my conception of "Karma Fairies", but I'll get to that later.
The word "vipassana" literally means both "To look deeply" as well as, "To see clearly." As one page describes it:
Vipassana is a way of self-transformation through self-observation. It focuses on the deep interconnection between mind and body, which can be experienced directly by disciplined attention to the physical sensations that form the life of the body, and that continuously interconnect and condition the life of the mind. It is this observation-based, self-exploratory journey to the common root of mind and body that dissolves mental impurity, resulting in a balanced mind full of love and compassion.I see it as a way of cultivating awareness of my mental or emotional states and as a result, dissolve the constant mental chatter and emotional drives and be in total control of them. I view it as a means to being fully conscious and aware, to prevent me from getting caught in reactive patterns and destructive or unproductive habits. In essence, I see it as a means to freedom.
The topic of last night's Dharma talk was "Right Speech." One site describes it as "Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter." Peter explained that speech is fed by thoughts, which many times arise from different patterns or templates or filters that he referred to as schemas, a concept he extracted from the book Emotional Alchemy by Tara-Bennett Goleman. It also has a foreward by the Dalai Lama! (I'm not sure why that's so great, but I'm sure I'll find out when I learn more about him, and I'm almost certain it's not because he's a bald asian hippy with glasses.)
According to one online discussion of the book:
A schema is a powerful set of negative thoughts and feelings that were developed to help us cope at one time, either in childhood or in our developing years. Because these learned patterns protected us during those early years, our brain continues to believe in their necessity now. But in fact, as adults our schemas lead us to think and act in ways that keep our needs from being fulfilled. These same habits that at one time protected us as children, now sabotage our true desires, offering us neurotic solutions. Our schemas are maladaptive and self-defeating.
I strongly urge you to visit the Section Summaries of this online discussion, particularly Section Two where it lists and describes the schemas, so you can identify which one or ones are yours.
On another note, Jason didn't go with us this time because he "didn't feel like it." My hypothesis is that the stress and anxiety from not having a job and constantly worrying about having money to pay bills and the depression from not being productive with his time are starting to severely impact his behavior. He has become substantially more negative and hostile in the last several months, frequently taking issue with and getting upset over extremely minor things. I don't think he's even aware of it, at least not to the extent that I've observed, but he'll eventually read this and find out. *grin*
It's kind of ironic that he didn't want to go to the study group, because it's those exact negative reactive patterns that the Vipassana practices aim at dissolving, and I think he understands that to some extent. As he says in his blog:
I really need to gain more focus, attention, and volition. I need to break my habits. Quit smoking, quit eating out of boredom....quit succumbing to any destructive desires, and start emersing myself into productive yet enjoyable activities.When he wrote that, he was obviously being much more conscious than when he said he "didn't feel like" going. Hopefully he'll realize what's happening to him and try to resolve it, as it's compromising his relationships as well as his own well-being.
If you're interested in attending the study group, let me know or visit the website.
