Lee Neikirk

Well it's almost like that older philosophical ideal about perfect concepts not being obtainable, except it's more like... and this may get a little haywire as far as sound reasoning goes... When a baby is born, it knows it has to rely on its parents and the people around it for food, shelter, and essential survival. Now, it forms a "parent" concept (which we could argue is, at least in very very early stages, instinctive, because it literally can't do anything except receive food and shelter)... and it seems to me that a lot of people with the "collectivist family" mindset eventually learn to, rather than toss out their parent concept in favor of self-reliance, expand that concept to include the government, the very rich, anyone who could in some sense "take care" of them in the way their parents did. The ones who do it consciously (I don't know anyone who actually expects this kind of thing consciously, I'm using an example) are truly immoral, they break the backs of the able, productive members who allow them to become their parasitic children, but instead of shutting down the government, this kind of mindset actually gives it more power, even over people who are not relying on anyone else, by promoting a sense that the government is "parental" and that it is the responsibility of "those in power" (who gave them power? voters who consider themselves not in power?) either governmentally or productively to "take care" of the baby, society. Sorry about all the quotations, it's not really necessary at this point. And yet even worse are the many many more people who (and you can discern this from the way they backlash against the government, even) subconsciously feel that the government/producers are in a "parental" position and say, "I don't want it, but who am I to do anything about it?" The more people think this to be the case, the more it will be, if only in a sense that it pertains to the pervading psychology of "society" and is thus reinforced by aspects of media and discussion where it is simply assumed. For example, I was watching a documentary last night, and when interviewed about something, a man in line said, "Oh me? I don't know. I'm just a simple guy." There was a time when people would have wanted to be seen as intelligent, charismatic, capable, and self-sustaining. Even better, there was a time when people would have wanted to be all of those things, whether or not people saw them that way (this is the only way to actually have those things, in my opinion). So what happened? When did people decide, "Oh, I'm just a little guy, I'm simple, I'm just going to let someone else speak up, or let someone else make my food, as long as I don't stand out, no one can blame me, and I can just survive." It seems innocent and harmless, but I don't know that it is. The more people simply admit defeat, and say, "Sure, it's fine, just be 'simple,' someone will do something," well, that's basically like saying, "I'm not going to bother thinking, I have no chance." Why are so many people so sure that anyone in power is really any better at what they're doing? I don't have the skill right now to be the CEO of a software production company, but how do I know that if that was a path I took I wouldn't be the best one to ever try it? Isn't it just as easy to say "I will be the best painter in the world" as to say "I don't think I can paint?" Why is this negative, defeatist attitude preferable over optimism, even if it's "unlikely" optimism? What does the "simple" guy referenced above think that a Congressman knows that he doesn't? And if he doesn't know it, why does he think he never can? Now, in my opinion, there are a LOT of elements to American society at the moment that encourage this kind of attitude: I'm just a regular fellow or lady, I can't handle the bigger issues, it's perfectly okay to stay right where I am mentally/physically/spiritually, that's what I see all around me. And going back to my previous post, we come back around to this point: Just because it's good enough for someone else doesn't mean it has to be good enough for you. Why the need to blend in, the need to quiet down, the need to have everyone smiling and nodding before you think what you're saying is acceptable? I just truly don't understand how this came about in a country that apparently used to have a healthy dose of nationalism and arrogance (but I'm speculating, as I'm only 23). I guess my main question is: Why are so many people content to physically mature and grow older, but never become adults, in the strongest sense of the word?

Right, but if the central message in a society is one of collective thinking, even if it's just the positive reinforcement of "Stick together!" or some other similar bromide, isn't it encouraging people to take the same general "spirit" of living and apply it the same way in their minds as they seem to see their neighbors doing? There are examples of this in Atlas Shrugged as well as in everyday life. I see subliminal collectivist messaging all over the place--in movies, tv ads, in the kinds of things people say when being interviewed... now how many of them came out of the womb with the conclusion that what's "good for the gander is good for the goose," and how many people have simply learned that they are "expected" to think/process information in that kind of system? I want to say 100%, honestly. Even if it's the unconscious evasion of not realizing that there is no actual "public" to speak of, it's a society-wide contagion that seeks to make people feel closer and "in the same boat;" it seems to me it spreads like any other morale-comforter, which is why I call it contagious. I agree with you. I think a lot of people (and I know I did this for a long time) see any kind of personal success (such as say, learning to play piano) or financial success (such as getting a raise) in terms of how it relates to the people around them--the people who are "above" them in the personal/financial realm and the people who are "below" them--instead of using one's own self and life as the standard by which to judge those things. I know that as a performance major in my college's music program, I was surrounded by others who either used their instructor, the most senior student, or the virtuoso performer of the day to judge their own progress. If they found they sounded consistently "better" than, say, the lower half of the musical body, they used that information to tell themselves they were "doing okay." But the real problem, and it is especially prevalent in music, is that in gauging others' reactions to your success (even your musical tutors), you stop listening to what you're actually playing, whether "you" actually like it, what it sounds like in your own ears. In a way, especially after years of having other people listen and tell you what to improve/not improve, you become unable to use your own aesthetic judgment to decide "this is good" or "this is not good enough." I am speaking from personal experience, and personal change. And I know for a fact that deciding, ridiculous as it may feel at first, that no one else has the "right" to judge what you are doing besides you, will actually cause one to "listen to their own music," in a sense, and use themselves as the standard of value. The result? For me, and everyone I know who thinks this way instead of in a social barometer way, the result is and was massive improvement. Now, can't we expand the musical metaphor to many other areas? If you absolutely know how to do a job, or a task, when you feel not like you need the approval of people, but feel like they're unnecessary (like playing piano on a desert island your whole life), that is when it could be called "passion," and when self-esteem really comes into play. I'm not arguing, just expounding on things.

Could it be said that this "deluded consciousness" is something that becomes contagious among men, and spreads from person to person as he or she is forced to practice a continued non-truth? Would anyone say that perhaps it is an aspect of the unrepresented peoples in a novel like Atlas Shrugged, that while some of Rand's characters (Galt, Dagny, HR) are consciously practicing reverence for truthful reality, and some are consciously practicing reverence to their delusion (Jimmy Tags, Mr. Thompson), many people who are under either muscular or spiritual "yolk" from the powerful bureaucrats and "idea" marketers (Dr. Ferris, Balph Eubank) and simply go along with these deluded shepherds, that it is this that causes the need for Galt's strike? Are all of those deluded people immoral, or are some simply terribly incompetent at practicing the necessary rationality for existing? They don't have to "think" or "produce" to exist, so long as Rand's "good" characters do it for them. The delusion, then, is not that they don't need to think or produce, but simply that they have no concept of how thinking and production shape the world around them, due to the prevailing insistence of higher-ups that all people are the shared cells of a body, i.e., "society." Are these people victims? Well, do they have less opportunity to think or produce than anyone else? Isn't the prevailing argument behind social subjectivism, affirmative action, etc., that those people are somehow disadvantaged or oppressed? For people in a position of extreme poverty, is it within their rational self interest to go along with this idea? Or would that fall under irrational self interest, because it is the product of a delusion? If the industrial and intellectual leaders in a society are "checked" so as to "spread around" the wealth, isn't it taking for granted that wealth has to be created, or eventually it will spread so thin that all peoples will be reduced to a huddling savagery? I can't seem to stop turning these into very run-on questions, my apologies. Not the most well-organized paragraph. I will have to attend to this at a later time.

2046, Thank you, that was all very well explained and confirms for me that I am grasping the concept correctly. It seems to me this concept of "faking" reality can be extended to a lot of the Objectivist ethics; in other words, I feel that as I know more, I know more, heh heh. I especially appreciate your Will Smith quote. I'm going to think about this concept some more, as it raises more questions, but am too tired to concretely grasp them right now.

I was not condoning using force. I was asking the question to set up a hypothesis concerning the formation of "threat" based religions, simply because the idea seemed interesting at the time. To expand on my reasoning behind this thread, I do not by any means think Ayn Rand was infallible. I know that at the end of the day, I have to grasp the concepts completely with my own mind--the very nature of Objectivism seems to be that it is a morality based philosophy to aid in categorizing and interpreting "facts"--which were there all along, before Objectivism itself. For this reason, I would rather have responses based on contextual and actual experience and understanding rather than quotations from Rand's novels. My original question remains: Am I grasping that issue (the one about lying and how it "cheats" reality) correctly? As a long-time collectivist (boy, that is some guilt to shake, let me tell you), I am not at the point where I can say "I know I am right" just yet, at least about this issue, and wanted to write out my understanding (as much for myself as for potential readers) to see if it was without contradictions.

Hi everyone. I've been off and on this forum for a couple of months, but today I decided to register because I was curious about a concept that popped into my head while reading Atlas Shrugged recently. I know there is a specific spot where a character's dialogue (I actually think it might be during John Galt's monologue... spoilers? lol) brought this concept to mind, but I would prefer not commit the time to finding it exactly at the moment. Actually, I think it might be something Gail Wynand (sp?) says. Now, I remember a metaphor concerning a leash, and the character compared it to a noose that holds a man in power and those he has power over in a symbiotic relationship that is essentially damaging to both parties to the extent that a master/slave relationship becomes a (perceived) necessity within each party's existence. I also remember some dialogue about lying, or "faking" reality, to another person, and giving them control over what you are forced to bear false witness to as long as they must be duped into thinking the information is truthful; I imagine this specific situation varies in strength depending on the "importance" of the information lied about. Am I understanding correctly that the reason to avoid lying is because it infringes on the liberties of both the liar and the one being lied to? Is it considered for this reason to be immoral to oneself to tell a lie? If so, what does one do when the lying party is too depraved as to actually recognize the double-edged harm in the scenario, or rather, simply doesn't care? Is this person's whole motive a (perceived) sense of self-preservation, but are they really infringing on their own liberties as drifting further and further from reality with each lie? If so, how does one force them to care? Is it possible that this understanding is very old, and is the "reason" behind religions that threaten either karmic or eternal punishment? Man's fear of being the "only one" who feels a moral imperative to not cheat reality? This would be interesting (albeit is a different and much more complicated discussion) if it were true; as it would designate that the man who is most moral is thus forced to spin a huge, all-encompassing lie about reality. Anyway, sorry, I have a lot of questions and ideas, not trying to go off on a tangent. Am I understanding the moral "reason" for being truthful correctly?