Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dream_weaver

The Greatest Salesman On Earth

Recommended Posts

I read this book years ago. It's probably still sitting on my shelf. I like the title. It fits with what I'm thinking at this point.

 

This will not be a review of the book. Anything I might say that seems similar to it is purely coincidental.

 

In school, fundraising opportunities came along at every grade. Candy, popcorn, magazine subscriptions where done at a markup price. As an adult, I see these forms at work where other parents bring them in to 'help' their children out. I think it does the child a dis-service and never buy them in this way. My parents did not do this for me. We lived in a more rural area. Bike and shanks-mare usually netted me the pizza party or other top-sales rewards offered.

 

One year, I wanted to enter a gardening contest. I did not win the gardening contest, but I sold seeds to raise the money to buy the seeds I planted.

 

I worked on a roadside farm market. We tended the garden thru the year, and sold the harvest and other products we bought from the larger farmer's market by the roadside. You interact with a lot of people this way. Many repeat customers, as well as those that just happen to be passing by. I asked questions, I got stories.

 

Later, I found myself in a short term telemarketing position selling tickets for a circus for a charity organization. The had the script written out on a 3 x 5 card. I read the script on the first several calls, and then threw it away. And the end of the nights, I usually had the most tickets vouched for.

 

Shortly after, I canvassed neighborhoods for a carpet firm. It was not my job to sell carpeting, only to find leads for the salesman. We were paid to do our job with a percentage of the commission for closed deals. My second month with the firm, I was handed the highest commission check of the canvassers.

 

I tried my hand at Amway on a couple of occasions, but never repeated the success, so I got myself a "real" job.

 

Most of us get solicitations from time to time. Most of the time I listen politely then decline. I had a gal stop by peddling magazine subscriptions. I ended up buying one. I didn't really know why at the time, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine and it occurred to me. This gal had "thrown away the script." I bought the magazine, because I enjoyed her presentation. She wasn't trying to sell the magazine, she was out looking for people that were interested in buying. I wasn't interested in buying it, but I did anyway.

 

When I first came to OO, I did so because I discovered I did not know Objectivism as well as I thought I did. I was re-reading the books and investigating online for better sources of information. The voice I used to listen to on the radio fell silent. It left a hole, for rational assessment of the world. I got here and tested my knowledge with others. I could look up the material and cite it, but I discovered I was still relying on the script so to speak.

 

I still look things up. I still cite them I listen to ARI materials in my rolling library. I listen because I continue to discover things I missed before, or hear them again in the light of new understandings. In doing so, I find myself throwing more and more of the script away.

 

In the proper means of communication, between the lines I read the question how does the message of Objectivism make further inroads to the world at large. Part of the answer I think lies in being able to throw away the script.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Weaver, isn't the "script" for Oism ultimately reality? Why would one buy a script- philosophy because of the presentation apart from the script itself? I ask this because of the magazine example. You said you bought it because of her presentation. Did her presentation convince you of the value of the product or was it only her unscripted presentation that you were buying? If the script is thought of as what others claim of reality and there is a contradiction, then of course toss the script. Are you finding yourself throwing away more and more of the script found in the Objectivist literature? Do you find the published presentation of the script to be, well too scripted and therefore are advocating that Oist throw away that presentation?

What in the Oist literature is the script vs the presentation of the script?

Edit: or is the script your interpretation of the Oist literature?

What does one coming to OO say about their "looking to buy" disposition? (Vs an Oist out proselytizing)

Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "script" is the epistemological enemy of our day--and far more dangerous than any mere political or military enemy.

 

Another word for it is a "narrative" in which people can hear information that fits into their wider assumptions and they believe it regardless of knowing the facts, or even if it makes no logical sense on the face of it. It's true because it has to be true based on a widely accepted generalization (which in turn is usually driven by emotion and/or partisan politics).

 

Ayn Rand in the course of her works made thousands of generalized assessments of the state of things social and political. Were they all correct? Are they all still relevant? No script is going to tell you which is which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Weaver, isn't the "script" for Oism ultimately reality? Why would one buy a script- philosophy because of the presentation apart from the script itself? I ask this because of the magazine example. You said you bought it because of her presentation. Did her presentation convince you of the value of the product or was it only her unscripted presentation that you were buying? If the script is thought of as what others claim of reality and there is a contradiction, then of course toss the script. Are you finding yourself throwing away more and more of the script found in the Objectivist literature? Do you find the published presentation of the script to be, well too scripted and therefore are advocating that Oist throw away that presentation?

What in the Oist literature is the script vs the presentation of the script?

Edit: or is the script your interpretation of the Oist literature?

What does one coming to OO say about their "looking to buy" disposition? (Vs an Oist out proselytizing)

Reading the book of nature. I like Galileo's quip on that. In that sense, "Script" as I am using it here, would be more the written present form of the core literature.

In the magazine example, I bought because I liked how it was presented, not because I wanted the magazine. I may have even told her so, but I don't recall that detail specifically. The magazine I bought, Reader's Digest, is one I do purchase from time to time, but I do not subscribe to it. The subscription was only for a year, in this case.

 

Think of a telephone solicitor. When they call you, do they sound like they are reading to you, or talking with you. The guy that ditches the script in this sense, comes across as talking to you. If you ask a question, they work it into the purpose of the telephone call. I've had poll's where the questioner can't deal with my answers, because it is not one of the multiple choice options in front of him.

 

You've asked a number of questions. I'm trying to answer the general gist of them rather than address them one by one. Does this shed more light on what I was saying, or do you think I'm overlooking something in what you've asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... In school, fundraising ... ... a gardening contest.... a roadside farm market. ... ... telemarketing position ... ... canvassed neighborhoods for a carpet firm.

Interesting stories; thanks for sharing them.

 

... I wasn't interested in buying it, but I did anyway.

In retrospect have you isolated and articulated the particular factor (the reason or rationalization in your mind at the time) that got you to act?

BTW, have you read "Influence" by Robert Cialdini? The salegirl example reminds me of an example from that book.

 

... ..., I find myself throwing more and more of the script away.

Not sure if this is the right thread to explore this, but specifics would be interesting. Or, even to know if you think the script you thought was "standard" was basically someone's bogus interpretation. Or, perhaps a particular concrete and optional interpretation?

... how does the message of Objectivism make further inroads to the world at large. Part of the answer I think lies in being able to throw away the script.

Get cracking, and be assured that nothing succeeds like success. Into the breach you go. And, if you're alive and thriving, we'll follow :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "script" is the epistemological enemy of our day--and far more dangerous than any mere political or military enemy.

Couched this way I would say most don't know when they are reading from the "script". This make it dangerous. They have "dropped the script" so to speak, if I catch your drift here.

Another word for it is a "narrative" in which people can hear information that fits into their wider assumptions and they believe it regardless of knowing the facts, or even if it makes no logical sense on the face of it. It's true because it has to be true based on a widely accepted generalization (which in turn is usually driven by emotion and/or partisan politics).

 

Ayn Rand in the course of her works made thousands of generalized assessments of the state of things social and political. Were they all correct? Are they all still relevant? No script is going to tell you which is which.

On your last thought here, Ayn Rand did make thousands of generalized assessments. Were they all correct and still relevant is what we discuss. If you are just reading them from the book, you haven't made that assessment yet. Once you understand them, it is easier to throw away the script and adapt what you know to the current conversation at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stories; thanks for sharing them.

I'm glad you enjoyed them. Sharing them comes from feeling more at home here.

In retrospect have you isolated and articulated the particular factor (the reason or rationalization in your mind at the time) that got you to act?

BTW, have you read "Influence" by Robert Cialdini? The salegirl example reminds me of an example from that book.

Not really much more than what I identified here. I've added the book to my wish-list. If someone buys it for me, I'd like to read it, but I've still plenty that I've purchased I have yet to read.

Not sure if this is the right thread to explore this, but specifics would be interesting. Or, even to know if you think the script you thought was "standard" was basically someone's bogus interpretation. Or, perhaps a particular concrete and optional interpretation?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

Get cracking, and be assured that nothing succeeds like success. Into the breach you go. And, if you're alive and thriving, we'll follow :)

In part it's stuff like this I like to write on. I don't have a list of materials I'm working on. I was going to do one on the Pope's response to the Hebdo murder's, but the words didn't pour out like they did when this topic clicked with me. Judging from the responses, I know I've struck a couple of chords or resonated in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In CUI, Rand observed that:

Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.

 

As an individual deeper in the bowels of production than I had originally imagined, studying the application of reason to this problem has come to the forefront of my attentions.

 

In Faith vs. Reason, Rand indicates that

A "vampire" is supposed to be a dead creature that comes out of it's grave only at night—only in the darkness—and drains the blood of the living. the description applied to altruism, is exact.

While only paragraphs earlier she had indicated that:

As to altruism—it has never been alive. It is the poison of death in the blood of Western civilization, and men survived it only to the extent to which they neither believed nor practiced it.

 

Time is relentless. It marches forward without regard to the past or present. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory has the character Violet Beauregarde in it.

She is characterized as:

I want it now. I want it right now. I don't care how, I want it now.

 

Man is governed, in one sense, by the clock. In another sense, if he simply focuses on how fast the clock is ticking, he misses out on what is going on in the greater scheme of things. If production is the application of reason to the problem of survival, how much more so is government? If government is a necessary evil, to what does this speak of man's nature? Nay, man's nature is a volitional being. As such, man needs to discover what is necessary to his survival, qua man.

 

Leonard Peikoff, in his book OPAR, begins with metaphysics, and rightly so, as he delineates it. Survival begins, however, with ethics. Man's ethic determines the course of his life with respect to the proper ethic to take with regard to all five branches of philosophy as Miss. Rand laid them out, the proper standard of ethic redownding back to the metaphysical and the epistemological while at the same time resounding within the politic and the esthetic.

 

In ITOE, concepts move in two interacting directions. The moral imperative here is to apply concepts in a means consistent with the reality from which they have been derived. Will the ap;application of reason to the problem of survival transcend from economics into politics? Time will tell. Meanwhile, may the God we have invented have mercy on our souls. Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You see, evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction.1 It is ultimately negative, and therefore encompasses its downfall even at its moments of apparent triumph. No matter how grandiose, how well-planned, how apparently foolproof of an evil plan, the inherent sinfulness will by definition rebound upon its instigators. No matter how apparently successful it may seem upon the way, at the end it will wreck itself. It will founder upon the rocks of iniquity and sink headfirst to vanish without trace into the seas of oblivion." — Neil Gaiman, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch 

Mysticism, intrinsicism, subjectivism, skepticism (MISS) all contain the seed of their own destruction. The more difficult aspect of this identification is the level of objectivity required to reach and grasp this realization, much less convey the the former or the superior alternative offered by Objectivism.

Part of the exchange between John Galt and Mr. Thompson comes to mind. Under MISS, just about every man woman and child seek to obey orders and do what others wish. Objectivism recognizes that such can be only after they have been taught how to do it.

Looking to the concretes of history and discovering the  guiding influence, role, or "invisible hand" of philosophy might be akin to watching a glacier advance or retreat. On average, a glacier moves a little more than an inch and a half in an hour. The concretes have to be identified and organized into principles, which in turn have to be organized and broader principles identified within and drawn forth in kind, and so on.

While a great many MISS adherents sense something is amiss, most shrug it off thinking that something is off and that they just can't quite figure it out.

1. Evil has within it the seed of its own destruction. — Karl Marx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

1. Evil has within it the seed of its own destruction. — Karl Marx

This is a very odd statement when you think of it rationally.

The standard of the Good is that which furthers and supports man's life, Evil, is that which thwarts or destroys it.

In a sense Evil then, is the principle of destruction, or death, implicit or explicit.

If Evil has something in it which constitutes the seed of its own destruction, it must have something which acts against destruction,,, and in the end destroys Evil.  the seed then, literally is some kind of Good.  So what Karl Marx says (but clearly does not mean) is that Evil has some good in it, and what is more, it will bring evil to its own end.

 

If one looks at the quote by Neil Gaiman an equally strange oddity appears.

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

It is ultimately negative, and therefore encompasses its downfall even at its moments of apparent triumph. No matter how grandiose, how well-planned, how apparently foolproof of an evil plan, the inherent sinfulness will by definition rebound upon its instigators. No matter how apparently successful it may seem upon the way, at the end it will wreck itself. It will founder upon the rocks of iniquity and sink headfirst to vanish without trace into the seas of oblivion

The evil itself is "ultimately negative" and it will "rebound upon the instigators".  But the evil does not have the seed to destroy itself, it IS destruction.  It brings down those who embrace it, but that is not some strange coincidence, it is the very definition of evil action, actions are identified as evil BECAUSE they are inimical to the very lives of those who engage in it.  Evil does not have the seeds of its own destruction, it is destructive, it is negative, and its consequences are the thwarting and destruction of a man who engages in it. 

When it is at play, the principle of destruction triumphs whenever it destroys, it does not wreck itself, or founder upon rocks, it simply wins when its victim(s) dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked those quotes up based on my usage of the "seed of their own destruction". You frame an interesting distinction. Looking at Marxs' line, it is a form of reifying evil, especially clarified to me in the evaluation that "Evil has something in it".

I was thinking along the lines where some say "Government is a necessary evil" and the catch 22 it plays with the ethical premise of being good for life, and by all means, a proper form of government would be good for life indeed, so by what measure is it deemed as being a "necessary evil"? Historically MISS systems have cycled, oscillating between forms of Platonism and forms of Kantianism per my understanding of DIM Hypothesis.

Those that understand anarchy cannot work, lament that other forms of government have trended toward tyranny. Thus they see some form of government as necessary, but not having a solution that circumvents the "tenancy" toward tyranny, have resigned to that oft used bromide. It seems there is something similar at play looking with my acronym MISS and Objectivism.

Reading what I've written in this post, it somewhat highlights why the two quotes seemed to go with my thoughts at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another parallel in For The New Intellectual is the relationship between the businessman and the scientist, with the businessman carrying the discoveries of the laboratory transforming them into the material products that fill men's physical needs and expand the comfort of men's existence and the relationship between the intellectual and the philosopher, with the intellectual carrying the application of philosophic principles to every field of human endeavor.

While the particulars of their applications are different, the philosopher is a type of scientist with a radically different subject matter of study.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×