DonAthos

Because the current legal process for immigration is so restricted as to be practically impossible for many. It's not a simple question of "inspection"; if that's all we were talking about, we could come to an easy agreement. Should people be stopped at the border, to ensure that they are not murderers on the run? Sure. And if it moving to the US ("the land of opportunity") to pursue employment were a straightforward procedure, with provisions only in place to screen against murderers and the like -- then yes, I would agree that someone who seeks to evade such a procedure likely does not have good intentions otherwise. But in that case, I think that the vast, vast majority of immigrants would respect the law. There are a couple of times when you're introducing what I consider to be fairly different contexts (war and whatnot), and I do not mean to get bogged down in tangential discussions which are apt to be as contentious as this already-contentious topic. But here, we would want to take into account the nature of the justice system we're discussing; they're not all made equal. If we mean a justice system that is essentially objective and fair, then I agree that an individual must submit to it -- which is necessary for the providence of justice in general. But a Jew who gets a summons in Nazi Germany has no obligation to respect "law and order" and show up for his court date; he has not initiated force by recognizing that he cannot expect fair treatment, or his rights to be respected. By becoming a fugitive in this manner, he is acting morally, in self-defense. It's my understanding that many prospective immigrants to the US have no reasonable expectation that going through the system we've set up will result in their being allowed to immigrate (which means, in part: to travel, to seek employment/conduct business, to live) -- as is their right to do. Not at all. If this is what you think my logic demands, then you do not yet understand my logic.

In these terms, then, I would say that everything I have in mind is persuasive in nature (whether it is also therapeutic or educational). I guess I'm trying to clarify the seeming point of contention between us that I would like to continue to try to persuade, but you believe that people require therapy, instead. I'm not against some sort of approach via therapy... so that eventually we may convince someone of something! I'm not sure we really disagree here. LOL, I understand. And that's the first I've encountered "won't power," and it's brilliant; I may have to steal it. Now that you mention, I don't think I've ever heard of it... though I'd be surprised if it had never happened. But yeah, youth-focused seems to have the most promise. I don't think that's a new discovery on my part. We still need to work on all aspects of this. It's increasingly clear to me that Objectivism (at least as understood, practiced and portrayed by the "mainstream" Objectivist community) is not yet ready for prime time. But ideally what we have to offer that will be seen as desirable is the actual means to achieve human happiness on earth. That should be worth something. Yes to everything. By this point, I think we agree far more than otherwise. Scanning down, most of the rest of my responses would be some form of agreement... Most of what we're brainstorming, I am probably incapable of doing much about personally. But this...? I'm going to give this some serious consideration.

People have the right to do anything which does not initiate the use of force against another individual. An immigrant moving from Tijuana to San Diego does not, by so doing, initiate the use of force against anyone (any more than moving from Los Angeles to San Diego). It is not. "Legality" has nothing to do with it; if we pass laws against drug use, that doesn't mean that the person who uses drugs has somehow initiated force. It is the act of making drug use illegal that is the initiation of force. Crossing an international border does not initiate force. But passing a law which means that a would-be immigrant is not allowed to move to San Diego -- is not allowed to conduct legitimate business there, live there, etc., is the initiation of the use of force. It is not the responsibility of the US government to protect the rights of people anywhere on the planet, however the US government (as any other body or individual) has no right to violate the rights of anyone, regardless of their citizenship or country of origin. They US government has no duty to go into Mexico, to protect people in their rights there; but they have no moral authority to violate the rights of individuals whether on US or Mexican soil.

Yeah. One of the things I don't understand about the idea that we can restrict immigration (which is travel) on the basis of "cultural differences" is: what would the response be if the next proposal is that we have the right to kick people out of the country (born here, let's say), on the basis of their not sharing the same beliefs or culture? Telling two people that that they cannot do business with each other is the initiation of the use of force. We can dress it up however we'd like, but if the Mexican government told me that I could not go work in Mexico (for someone else who agrees to hire me; to live on a property that I purchase; etc.), then they are violating my individual rights to that extent. They have no moral authority to do such a thing. No right to do it. That said. If the proposal was something along the lines of, citizenship (including the right to vote) should be more strictly limited -- perhaps to those who demonstrate sufficient understanding of and commitment to the principles of liberty -- then I think we'd have a conversation.

I agree in certain respects, at least (where "persuasion" ends and "therapy" begins, or how "education" sits with either, I'm not entirely certain). Evasion has been much on my mind of late, and perhaps you've noticed the thread I've created to explore it in more detail. My burgeoning beliefs on the topic are that subconscious habits with respect to focusing (including evasion) may, in part at least, be addressed through the conscious adoption of certain beliefs, tools and mindsets. A more effective persuasion, then (whether that persuasion is conceived of as proselytizing or educating or therapy or what-have-you), should address itself primarily to the spread of the kinds of beliefs, tools and mindsets necessary so that people may "program" their subconscious to focus more fully, and more often, and to be hostile against evasion. This is probably more easily accomplished with the young than the mature, although the sometimes success of Rand amongst college-aged populations (which is where I encountered her, too) suggests to me that some people are yet resilient (to some degree, at least) against those cultural forces which encourage evasion. I don't know if it has to be exclusively this, but I'm not against the idea of this sort of "therapy." Again, I'm reminded that there are other groups which try to spread their own ideas, and some of them seemingly find more success than we do. What (if anything) can we learn from their methods? What can we use for our own purposes? The Scientologists pull people off the streets with the promise of IQ tests, and they peddle highly destructive, ridiculous sci-fi nonsense. I don't advocate for Xenu, or whatever-the-fuck, but IQ tests are kind of neat. I can see why people stop for a minute. There are a couple different ways to look at "provocation." The first, which I do not endorse, is a kind of insulting, demeaning, asshole-like behavior that some Objectivists are already quick to adopt. The second is the provocation of having strong, clear, challenging ideas and being unafraid to endorse them without apology. I like the second, and I think that, in terms of personality, there's no reason why it cannot be coupled with "flamboyance," or charm, or an interesting demeanor, or unusual presentation. In another thread, StrictlyLogical linked to this "philosophical oratorio" by Robin Field. I think it's brilliant. Now... musical theater isn't for everyone (and there's probably no one-size-fits-all path to persuasion, either, no matter how we feel about Atlas Shrugged... and frankly, it's not exactly my favorite novel ever); but I think there's room -- and call -- for greater exploration in terms of how the message is conveyed. To risk abusing the word, there is more room for "fun." And while some might kind the Field bit sort of "kooky," I really don't think we can do much more in the way of hurting the general impression of Objectivists than has already been done (insofar as anyone has any idea of what "Objectivism" is). I wouldn't just take anyone, but yeah, I'd be willing to risk a charismatic, flamboyant face of Objectivism for a while -- someone who can project warmth and caring, while making philosophy appear fun for a while, and relevant to our lives. I think that would be enough to provoke (in the good sense) and that it could only help begin to dig our brand/reputation out of the ditch where it currently lies, dead and buried. Primarily the idea would be to reach the people who receive the charity, but secondarily I believe that this would function to improve the standing and visibility of Objectivism more generally (moving from incremental success towards exponential). As a tertiary (though far less important) point, it might even serve to clarify some of the confusions that people have about Objectivist ideology, when they question why ARI is funded by donations, or etc. Yup. It's one of the big lessons we must learn from other, more historically successful programs. We must teach people to be critical thinkers from an early age. I do! I was making reference to that, when I'd said, "Speaking of the essay contests, they're great. Seriously, I think it's a wonderful initiative." I don't dislike the idea of publishing the essays, but speaking to this specifically, I think that the market for essays (both in terms of publishing and consumption) is much smaller than stories. Someone who writes a story for an Objectivist-themed writing contest -- and fails to win -- can turn around and submit their story to one of a few dozen markets; an essay that fails to place... probably goes directly into the trunk. But what about something more? What about movies? Suppose something like "Project Greenlight," but for original Objectivist-inspired material (with an emphasis on good art/production, not slavish ideological agreement). Instead of feature-length films, it could be shorts, such that could be hosted on YouTube or similar, with some not-too-extravagant cash prize. When you say "in spite of," I'd like to get at your meaning more; perhaps we could discuss that another time. But sometimes a little noise is good, like the IQ test, like the spotlights that pronounce a Hollywood premier, like the barker at the front of the carnival; because: we need to bring people into the tent, first. You're right that Rand did make noise, publishing fiction, hosting seminars, appearing on talk shows, and etc., and while it didn't completely reshape the world in her lifetime, I'd say that there were some positive results from it. Personally, and I've made mention of this elsewhere, I think that there should be less focus on Ayn Rand, the person, and more focus on the ideas of reason, reality, egoism, and capitalism (though also shifting slightly away from capitalism and towards the more fundamental areas). So it shouldn't just be any noise. It ought to be a pleasant-sounding one; something consonant with the voice of reason. But a noise of some kind is probably required, if we want to be heard at all. And while I don't want us to be further cast as kooks, it still seems to me that those kooky (and awful) groups are capitalizing better on current conditions than we are. They're irrational morons, but they're making hay, regardless, while we sit on our hands and wait for people to come to Rand. Or as Littlefinger would have it, "chaos is a ladder." We don't want for chaos, currently, so why not get to climbing. Or here's a more specific proposal: "free speech" has been a serious topic of debate, of late; the alt-right proposed a "free speech week" at Berkeley and it made headlines, and largely fell through. So why not something like that, hosted by (for instance) ARI? A celebration of free speech, hosting firebrand speakers representing various political viewpoints, a few high-profile debates (maybe over the role that "free speech" itself plays in society) featuring Objectivist speakers -- but don't let it collapse through poor planning. Pull it off. Film it and put it online. I'd watch it. I think others would, too. I'm not entirely sure I understand the distinction between "top down" and "bottom up," as you've presented them here; I do look at my efforts as equally interested in the spread of ideas. I'm trying to figure out how best to spread them. But I just really quickly want to speak to the idea of "individualist" versus "collective action"; I hope that I'm not being misunderstood as saying that we ought not work together to accomplish our goals. I'm an individualist, but I also believe very strongly in teamwork (I do not find these ideas incompatible at all), and that it is important that we work together to achieve these huge, and hugely important ends. Individual genius is a inimitable spark, but mass movements (such as the spread of a philosophy, especially against a cultural tide or other obstacle) require some degree of coordination and cooperation.

I want to tread lightly here, because personal advice is often not so great (especially in a forum like this, between two people who don't really know one another) -- and also because, it sounds like you might be going through something. Depression is serious business. Many people require professional help to break through the negative thought/emotion cycle that depression represents. I have no idea whether that applies to you, but if it does, don't be afraid or too proud to seek it out. To be honest, my experience is 1) happiness is not "rare" and 2) I don't experience much "mental suffering." Were it otherwise, I would look to make some changes in my life. Instead, happiness is a (mostly) persistent state for me. Recently, I was involved in a small auto accident. It sucked. But even then, I didn't really experience what I could describe as "mental suffering," and it was not long after the accident that I was again enjoying my life in a characteristic fashion. Earlier this year, I went through some severe medical problems. It sucked. A lot. And I suffered a lot, too. But my "mental suffering" was mostly confined to finding some way out of my physical distress, and when I finally managed that, things quickly got back on track for me. There have been other challenges, of course; life is full of them, and some can be very tough to deal with. Some days, I'm not particularly happy; but when that happens, I rest assured that whatever mood or funk will soon pass, like the rain. But I am fortunate to have been able to surround myself with things that, on a day to day basis, provide me with enjoyment, such that I can weather these storms. These include my work, my environment, my daily routines and hobbies, and (powerfully) my family. I've worked hard to make each of these contribute in a positive fashion to my life, as best as I know how, and I think that they give me support against most of the shocks of daily life. Now, all that said, there has been a period in my life where it was mostly mental suffering, and not so much enjoyment... many, many years ago, I suffered a bout of severe depression. At the time I did not, but if I thought something like that were threatening me today, I would strongly consider going to a therapist for assistance; it was the worst part of my life, and nothing I intend to revisit. In the event that you do not consider yourself to be so depressed that you need such assistance (or you are set against the idea, for whatever reason, though I would advise you to reconsider if so), and if you're in the market for advice (keeping my caveats in mind), I would recommend that you investigate the possibility of making some changes for yourself. Try to adjust the ratio of enjoyment to suffering. This may require big changes and/or small alterations to what you already do and experience. (Probably you should not make big changes to your life without due consideration.) Some concretes that you could look at immediately are: are you getting enough sleep? Are you getting daily exercise (even as little as a 10 minute walk)? Are you eating healthfully/well? Getting enough sunshine/vitamin D? After that (or maybe before), I'd wonder if the mental suffering you're experiencing is attributable to anything specific and correctable. If you have a thorn in your paw, best to pull it out. Then, I would probably look at career/school. Does your vocation excite you? Is it something that you're passionate about? Or if it's not, is there something out there you've discovered that would excite you, and inspire your efforts daily? (And if you haven't found something like that, can you take steps to continue to look?) What is the mountain that you yearn to climb? What steps can you take in the near future, or today, to put you on the path to climbing it? Maybe you're already on such a path, but you dislike the grind required to get you to where you want to be. In my experience, we must all of us spend some time in the quarry. If so, be on the look out for all of the small things you can do -- the small rewards and treats you can provide yourself -- to lighten the load. Once upon a time, I had a two hour commute; four hours daily, in Los Angeles traffic. That was... not pleasant. So I subscribed to an audiobook service, and managed to change my commute into something I could (at least somewhat) look forward to. There were times when it was the best part of my day. I could go on in this fashion (and if you would like more suggestions, let me know), but the overall point is that... a good life has to be worked for, and achieved, step-by-step. It's not enough to learn that A=A; you don't just wake up the next day with a smile on your face (though the thrill of that initial discovery is pretty majestic). It takes a lot of work (and thought, and time) to create the kind of life that will provide you with a happiness that is more substantial and enduring than "a rare ephemeral scrap of mental enjoyment." But in my experience, it is worth it.

Well, yeah, I agree with you there. The reason why I think that it isn't necessarily the case that people don't care about truth is because I believe that reason and a respect for reality is the very thing that keeps us all alive; and also doing all of the incredible things that people routinely do. I agree that people have some ability to "compartmentalize," yet there's also good reason for caring for reason, reality and truth. It is a leveraging point, if you will. And that won't always be meaningful (if forced to choose between the truth upon which their values actually depend, and some gobbledy gook, some people will quickly take the gook), but sometimes it will. Most people at least pay lip service to things like truth, and I think that some of those will opt to be as good as their word. I'm not saying anything about this will be easy. I am also prepared to agree that things are as bad as nearly anything you could say -- only not that this makes persuasion impossible. I agree. Tribalism is everywhere, evasion is everywhere; the Objectivist community is not immune (in these respects, it is arguably not even superior). Heh, yes. You might be right. It's my understanding that Peikoff predicted an American collapse into some sort of fundamentalist totalitarianism in the near-ish future, or something similar; I haven't read that from him, myself, but outside of OPAR I have not read his monographs. I don't necessarily think that there is an indefinite amount of time in which to succeed at persuasion (against whatever it is we expect that Something Bad to consist of, and it is my opinion of Trump specifically that it could take many forms), but I believe that the world has gone through very dark times and also has sometimes gotten lighter. Things were not particularly rosy when the original Renaissance emerged, either. (My degree is in history, so it is possible that I tend to take a somewhat long view.) It may be that folks like you and I need to escape temporarily to a Gulch at some point, but even then I would still believe that Objectivism has a unique power to remake the world, and that the means of its eventual spread will be by persuasion. With respect to the world, that would remain my project.

Based on the feedback I've gotten in society, "grouches" is putting it lightly. But yeah, I agree: our reputation sucks. For what it's worth, I regard that sort of YouTube channel as a kind of proselytizing. I watched your free will vid. I thought it was well made (even if I disagree with you).

I hear you, and I think you do right in being careful before "pontificating" or assessing yourself as "certain" on a thing. (And as it happens, "evidence" is another one of those topics that I think could stand a thorough examination.) I think this is a far better process than otherwise, and I trust that you are more careful than most. (For what it's worth, I try to think carefully as well.) But the question for me becomes, what about those times when even this process goes awry? It's like (and please forgive me my "what if" scenarios; I have a writer's heart)... It's like I'm discussing emergency plans, should the dam burst and flood the town. And what I hear you saying is, "Well, that's no problem. Just make sure you build the dam to code." And I agree with you: let's build the dam to code. Let's build the best damn dam that we can. But I also would like some idea of what to do, if/when the dam breaks, because I've seen that this happens from time to time elsewhere and historically. It might not happen to our dam, but... I'm glad, because I would submit to you that the evidence on this score is conclusive. At least once. I'm not arguing for some sort of primacy of error, or something like that; that error must be discovered prior to truth, or what have you, or that error is somehow "more important" than truth, or etc. But what I'm saying is that people do err. And not just a little. Moreover, I believe that everyone errs from time to time. I think that this is not alone due to evasion, or moral failure, but accounting to the fact that proper reasoning is a learned skill, thought is a self-generated activity, and many of the issues we confront are quite complicated. It is reasonable to expect errors in such a process; and thus I hold it reasonable to try to craft methods for detecting and dealing with such errors. What is so pernicious and remarkable about evasion is how our own minds can work against our conscious ability to detect our own errors. It takes a special approach to be able to root out such errors, in my opinion, and that's what I'm trying to get to, in this thread. ____________________ Apropos of not very much, but would you indulge me in a little more "what if"? Suppose we discovered, at the bottom of the Ayn Rand Archives, hidden away by Britting, a letter written by Rand at the end of her life which read, "Among my many philosophical writings, I have purposely made three crucial reasoning errors. Those who merely memorize and repeat my philosophy, like a dogma, will be unable to detect these errors, and I will know false friends accordingly. True Objectivists will discover these errors and disavow them, even if it leads them to disavowing me and my philosophy." My question to you is: not what we suppose the errors might be, but what would it take, in terms of mentality, to be able to assess Rand's writing such that a person could detect these errors (without any knowledge of her letter)? This mentality (fleshed out in part, but not entirely, by this sort of exercise) is what I mean to discover and refine for use in my own life.

LOL, while you were working on this, I was working on this. I will try to respond to this soon(ish), but it's interesting to me to have these two perspectives emerge at about the same time!

In another recent thread (or possibly several), the idea has come up that the Objectivist community has not yet done a great job of setting the earth aflame with reason. Indeed, it seems to me that things are getting progressively worse. Leaving aside questions of "blame," or trying to dissect the history, and also setting aside the question of whether or not we ought to want to spread Objectivism, if we wanted to do a better job of spreading Objectivism -- what should we do? My initial thought is that a radical philosophy, running so against the cultural grain, will probably require something more than simply making books or lectures available, or writing the occasional op-ed. If we really want to make an impact, then we will have to come up with something more... compelling. So I'd like to dedicate this thread to some out-of-the-box thinking. Not every idea need to be perfect, and most of my own are probably flawed (maybe deeply so), but I'd like to see if we can generate something interesting through a brainstorm. Here are a few possibilities... In 2017, social media is a big deal. I'm a bit on the older side now, and much of it has passed me by or isn't very relevant to my day-to-day, but is there a way we could make compelling content for YouTube or other hip services? There's room for counter-cultural voices, I think, and some of them are successful. But where's the Objectivist Sargon of Akkad? Or how about learning from some of the older methods of proselytization? The Mormons (who have always struck me as being very friendly -- and I don't think I'm alone in that; I think it's part of their appeal) go door-to-door with literature, and they send missionaries to other countries. In fact, churches of all kinds seem to be big on missionaries. Perhaps they find that it works. Why not Objectivist missionaries? Maybe some of these ideas would be easier to spread elsewhere... Why not Objectivist charity in general? Providing daycare or preschool, or study services for youth (oriented towards critical thinking skills and reason), or even hot meals for the poor (perhaps specifically children of poor families) while promoting Objectivist ideas to them -- could that possibly be effective? I mean, I've gone to Las Vegas and put up with an interminable timeshare sales pitch for the sake of some free show tickets; and providing free books to schools is something along these lines -- so can more be done? Speaking of the essay contests, they're great. Seriously, I think it's a wonderful initiative. But do you know what the Scientologists do? They host the Writers of the Future contest. Every year, four times a year, they hold a fiction writing contest, and get hundreds of entries from all over the globe. What about something similar to that, perhaps an annual contest with a different theme each year, oriented towards some pro-reason, pro-egoism, pro-capitalism idea? If we can get young writers producing not alone essays, but art (which they will likely take and try to sell to other magazines, etc.), then wouldn't that have the potential to make an impact? Why is it left to the neo-Nazis and Antifa to make headlines for protesting some of the nuttiness that has been happening recently? Why is it the alt-right that's hosting "free speech" weeks at Berkeley? Where's our Milo Yiannopolous? This seems like a critical time, and the culture is wide open, people are looking for answers (some of them dropping into the laps of Trump, Sanders, et al.) -- and we actually have them. Why aren't we making more noise? Thoughts on my ideas? Any to add to the list?

Not all such efforts are equal. I agree that earlier efforts have been insufficient "to persuade modern America to embrace freedom"; I do not agree that, therefore, all efforts to do so are doomed to failure. I disagree that "there are precious few people today who care about truth." I think that Objectivists have done a poor job in demonstrating that Objectivism is true, especially in the context of modern society, and for a number of reasons. I think that there has been concentration in the wrong places (e.g. political issues over more fundamental issues of epistemology and ethics, or the pursuit of personal happiness); insufficient attention paid to matters of personal relationship and interaction (e.g. the value of "being nice"); a short-sighted rejection of academia (trade journals, formal debates, trying to end-around "gatekeepers," etc.); too much focus on the person of Ayn Rand, as opposed to the ideas she advocated; a sacrificial rejection of potential sources of allies (e.g. libertarian groups), including fostering splintering and schisms among Objectivists themselves; and the list goes on and on. We've gotten quite a lot wrong and it is no wonder why our efforts have not produced greater results. I also think that the Objectivist brand is rotten, for reasons which are not wholly undeserved, and that we must remake ourselves, not into "fun people" so much, but into a group dominated by the spirit of reason and civility (which is not to say that we cannot also be fun). An average person who stumbles into a forum dominated by Objectivists and like-minded individuals should be impressed first by the manner in which we communicate with one another; they should be inspired by the warmth on display, even when we are discussing difficult and technical issues, even when we disagree with one another. Their response should be something like: "these people are obviously doing something right; this is the kind of community I'd like to be a part of"; it should be welcoming. I've not yet worked out all the particulars, or how to get from here to there, yet, but I am confident in the direction we ought to be traveling. When Objectivism finally remakes the world (as I believe it one day will), it will be less through "shrugging" and more through "embracing." Well, right. We should do something -- and something other than what has been tried and found ineffective. That does not mean that "persuasion," as such, cannot work, but that our persuasive efforts must be improved upon or at least changed. Not at all. In the post of mine from which you're drawing quotes, you neglected to quote me when I'd said: And this is what I believe to be true. It is happenstance that this morning, in one of the books I'm reading (The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg), I began a section regarding "keystone habits" and "small wins," which demonstrates that things which may appear "incremental," at first, sometimes have the power to be deeply transformative. Small changes can foster large changes. What are your ideas?

I don't meant to dispute anyone's personal narrative, but I find it an interesting phenomenon how we sometimes regard our own past... and especially those elements that relate to our current identity. I've grown to suspect that when I refashion myself into something new, it leads me to regard my own past differently -- and possibly to remember things differently, as well. Certain events loom larger in the mind as precursors to the new identity; other things (especially those which stand in direct contrast to how I currently regard myself) may become so diminished as to disappear altogether. In the lecture of Peikoff's I'd linked to earlier, again discussing his own difficulties with the subject, he wrote something that I believe speaks to this phenomenon: When he describes himself as being "honest enough" to remember when he had these difficulties, I think he's describing what I'm talking about. I don't think it's necessarily an easy thing to do. If it is the intimation --- and I readily admit that I may not understand the point you're making -- but if it is the intimation that one may simply always be right, and never wrong (apart from some superficial error on the level of a "mistyped formula" or etc.) -- and thus we need not trouble ourselves with an approach that treats being wrong as a ubiquitous human experience, and attempts to deal with it -- then I think that this is both incorrect and very dangerous. Thinking properly is neither automatic nor guaranteed to succeed. There will be errors along the way. (This is to say nothing of the possibility of "drift" or "evasion"; I mean just a good, honest person trying his best to think things through. He will still make mistakes.) And so, guidance for how one should approach the topic of being wrong is absolutely necessary, if we mean to have a philosophy for living on earth. I have seen suggestions on various threads that (true) Objectivists never suffer, are never sad, etc., and here (again: if I read you correctly, which I may not, because... sometimes I am wrong) that they are never wrong. But this is not only wrong in itself, but I believe it is the exact sort of thing which can lead to evasion.

Yes, I think this is a good list. Speaking to procrastination (which is something I have... a bit of familiarity with, especially in my youth), I think it's down to a lack of focus on the consequences of putting off the "something important." Although then we must consider the question of whether the "lack of focus" accounts to evasion, drift, or an honest "failure" of thought. I don't believe that there is necessarily a 1-to-1 relationship between procrastination (especially when judged from the outside) and evasion. It's interesting. I think that it's typical among Objectivist discourse to regard focus as an on/off sort of deal: one is either focused (or "in focus") or not. But I wonder whether that's a full description of our capacity to focus -- or whether there's more to it. It's important not alone that we focus, but that we "know" where to direct our focus. (As we speak about these phenomena, it's important to bear in mind their subconscious character; "knowing" in this sense is again a metaphorical description.) With procrastination specifically, there is also the consideration that we must have sufficient experience to be able to understand why the thing we're putting off is "important," and what that means in terms that we can understand. In raising my own child, I've grown increasingly sensitive to these sorts of issues. Take for instance dental care (though this takes us briefly away from procrastination). My child has no experience with cavities or the consequences that can result from improper dental care -- and so, getting her to brush her teeth is sometimes a struggle. The only direct material she has to work with is the experience of tooth-brushing itself (which is not, for her, particularly pleasant) and the obvious opportunity costs (that it's less time for playing or whatever), and against that, whatever long-term consequences have very little "reality" for her. Mostly the reason why she brushes her teeth, when she does without particular struggle, is based on either pleasing or failing to please her parents, which... is not the ideal kind of motivation I'd like to instill in her. As self-generated as thought may be, it is also a project to teach her how to reason about these sorts of things. With procrastination, again in my own life, I think it took me quite some time to be able to project the sorts of long range consequences that inspired me to do what was often "important" over what was more immediately understandable to me, in the context of my experience. Perhaps if I had directed my conscious attention to long term consequences more often... spending time thinking about or projecting those consequences, and their results (in terms of emotions, experiences, pleasures and pains), then perhaps that would have seeded my subconscious to focus on those sorts of consequences more often. Maybe these kinds of mental habits can be learned or changed (as, over time, I believe I have changed my own).

Actually, I think this makes for a good contrast between what I believe evasion to be -- and what others seemingly believe it to be. "Faith" is a doctrine. It is held consciously. I consider it utterly and devastatingly wicked, but it is not, in itself, "evasion." One may have rejected faith entirely, yet still evade. That said, it is possible that -- similar to what I've recommended in terms of the appreciation of being wrong -- a conscious belief in faith helps to create a fertile mindset for evasion. If consciously held beliefs help to "program" one's subconscious functioning, then I would suspect that faith works in exactly this way. I think that, as the act of evasion is subconscious, the motivations and reasons are apt to be equally subconscious (though as above with faith, there might be motivations or reasons or explicitly held beliefs which dovetail nicely with evasion). It's sort of like asking, "what's the motivation or reason for focusing?" But before one gets to the level of having conscious "motivation" or "reason," one must already have engaged the process of focusing; evasion is interference with that very process. It can stop one from reaching the point of "being motivated" or "having reason," consciously, by preventing one from coming sufficiently into focus. One may wish to be focused (as I expect everyone in this forum does), but it still isn't a matter of conscious choice. I cannot command myself to be focused. Does that mean that our conscious minds have nothing to do with whether one is characteristically focused or not? That doesn't seem right to me at all; I expect that there is a strong relationship between our use of our conscious mind and the subconscious that develops over time, with respect to focus versus evasion (or drift). Oh yeah. "Being right" or "winning." It's sort of like the people who cheat to get a grade they've never earned, or (from my childhood in the 80s; I think things are different now) the people who use cheat codes to "beat" a video game. Consciously, at the very least, I would far rather be (ahem) proven wrong -- and learn -- than "win" a conversation/argument/debate and maintain some false belief. I'm trying to speak to things that may exist beyond (or before) our conscious awareness of them. There is an inherent difficulty in this. But what I'm talking about with respect to "ego" can exist even in people who are utterly selfless (per their explicitly held beliefs). The need to be right can exist even in people, like myself, who utterly eschew the need to be right on a conscious level. (Despite my hatred of it, and rejection of it, I am susceptible to evasion, too.) This isn't so much a superficial concern for being right in a given argument, or so forth, that I'm trying to describe, but a deep, raw, core psychological need -- the thing upon which turns one's ability to survive in the world. It's not something a person would put into words in the course of using it -- the subconscious operates on the level before words (it is the level of giving names to things, or failing to do so) -- but if I were to try to put it into words, it would be something like, "If I am not able to assess what's true or what's false, then how can I trust anything? how can I believe myself? how am I worthy to survive?" It's sort of like the experience of learning that the person you've known and loved for years really is a secret serial killer; it is potentially a heavy blow to not only your trust for this one person, but your ability to trust, as such. Only "being wrong," on the deepest levels, is potentially a blow against your self-trust. And I believe that evasion, primarily, is a defense against that trust being threatened. It is something like, "If it turns out that I'm wrong about X... then what does that say about me? I cannot allow that." But without any words, or conscious thought. The conscious experience of it and the way that it manifests in behavior -- that's the very thing I wish to study, so that I can do everything within my power to overcome evasion and its effects.

"Active" and the "expense of energy" do not mean that it is a conscious activity; subconscious activity is equally active and equally an expenditure of energy. Elsewhere, Peikoff discusses how the "choice" to focus precedes reasoning, etc., (because reasoning itself requires a certain level of focus) and it is on that level that other phenomena like drifting and evasion are supposed to occur (directly in contrast to focus). You do not say, "Now I shall evade," anymore than you say, "Now I shall focus." It doesn't work that way. The idea of "refusing to initiate a thought process" is a rough, metaphorical description of a subtle, internal process; if one "refuses to initiate a thought process" in literal fashion, then the purpose is self-defeated: the thought process has already begun. I'm going to try to respond to this in a somewhat cool fashion, despite my initial hot instincts. Let me just say that responding to sincere argument -- the time I'd taken to write what I did, the thought I put into it, etc. -- with replies like these, does not repay me for my efforts. It does not incline me to discuss things any further with you. There's more that's wrong with this, but what I've expressed is enough.

It's an interesting question, our moral assessment of evasion. As a bit of preliminary, I must say that when I consider human actions (as well as choices), I don't take seriously the idea of "amorality." This puts me at odds with several notions Objectivists sometimes hold, but given how I view "life as the standard of value" as being more than "survival," I believe that actions (as choices) either work for or against our lives, and are thus moral or immoral, not amoral. If we are approaching this primarily as a question of judgement -- that is, "how do we judge a man who evades?" -- and are concerned that it would be improper to judge a man on the basis of actions over which he is not fully, consciously aware of his process (whether accounting to evasion or drift), I would say that it's worthwhile to ask whether a man is generally responsible for the state of his own subconscious. We may not be able to direct the subconscious, as such (the realm of our direct awareness and control is, by definition, our conscious mind), but that does not mean that our subconscious develops arbitrarily or randomly, or that we bear no moral responsibility for the consequences of its influence on our behavior. If a teenager characteristically "drifts," and through a chronic lack of focus, a lack of attention, winds up making poor choices -- let's say texting while driving, and hurting himself or others -- I would account that to his morality (or in this case, lack thereof). I would say that his subconscious has developed to the point it has through a habitual misuse of his conscious mind. Though perhaps that is somewhat speculative on my part. Still, such judgement is not my primary interest with respect to morality. For myself, and my life, when I consider evasion, my response is: that sounds no good; it would work against what I value; I don't want to do it, and if it happens (through subconscious processes or however else) that I evade, I want to be able to recognize the fact and correct for it. I want to stamp it out of my own soul. I don't know how that's to be assessed with respect to "moral" versus "immoral," understood as closer to "metaphysical" or "man-made," but I can say that it is no good.

Exactly. So I would say that first it's important to note that we're dealing with a subconscious process; if you were conscious of something, such that you could "decide to evade it," then... you would have failed to evade it. When you evade a thing, it never reaches your conscious mind; in fact, that's the very thing evasion does -- it prevents things from coming to your conscious awareness. That's why my core answer is: we must learn to recognize evasion through its secondary effects. We cannot witness it directly -- in others or in ourselves -- but we can learn the characteristics in emotion and behavior that accompany evasion, and then work to address those, thereby addressing our subconscious mechanism obliquely (and also through the cultivation of a critical, probing mindset; and there are probably other strategies as well). I don't think this is necessarily an easy thing to do, but I have come to believe that it is at least possible.

This is not really a direct response to your post, but something about this struck me, and I'd like to remark on it: I think it is both important and understandable when we focus on evasion (or "drifting") as something that other people do, and how to recognize it, and how to respond. But I think that it might even be more important -- or at least a topic that I want to explore as much or more -- to consider how to recognize evasion in our own thoughts, and how to limit it, if possible, and address it when it happens. Based on my experience, what I've witnessed in myself and others, I don't think a simple admonition "don't evade" is going to cut it... I've subsequently watched it and enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing. Why "can't" you remain undecided? Who says that you cannot? You may remain undecided... or you may come to any given conclusion, on any given matter. But over the course of making a lifetime's worth of decisions (and this includes all decisions to "remain undecided"), forming a lifetime's worth of beliefs, I expect that you will sometimes err. And when you err, you will (ideally) want to correct yourself. You do not necessarily require the assistance of others to achieve this self-correction, but sometimes others can offer you assistance (as this forum, again ideally, would stand testament). I believe that after the process of self-correction, it is appropriate to describe yourself (with respect to your earlier state, your earlier beliefs and/or choices) as having been "wrong." If you object to the specific choice of terms for some reason... well, I find that interesting (and perhaps to speak to the necessity of my message overall) -- but I think this process is aptly described as "being proven wrong" or "being shown wrong," as in, "I used to believe that there was some good in socialism... but Ayn Rand showed me that I was wrong. She proved it." And I further argue that 1) this is a good thing, being proven wrong in this way; and 2) that people should accordingly come to value the experience of it, rather than dread it -- as I believe most do -- such that it helps to inspire the subconscious phenomenon of evasion, which I believe it does. It's funny. Harrison recommending the Onkar presentation to me inspired me to seek out a presentation of Leonard Peikoff's on "Volition and Causality" I remembered reading once, and in it I stumbled across this anecdote (heavily edited for compactness; please refer to the link for greater clarity/meaning and context): Much like the account from The God Delusion, this is an example of both what I mean by "being proven wrong," and what I contend is the proper attitude to have regarding it. He also says this, which I find enlightening in a host of ways regarding this and associated topics (not least of which being the matter he is actually addressing -- how the choice "to focus" relates to our experience of conscious decision making): There's a lot I could say about this passage (including my thoughts on the subject matter, where I suspect that I have a very slight disagreement... but ah, for another time, another thread), but what I'd like to focus on for the purpose of this thread, and this sub-topic, is Peikoff's ready identification of himself as having been wrong about various topics at various points (which is no slight against him; so far as I'm concerned, it will equally describe every human from the dawn of time to the dusk), and it also highlights the role of another (in this case Rand) in helping him to see his own errors, and correct them, and it also demonstrates the difficulty we sometimes find in honest thought. And that last is another hugely important sub-topic for this subject, lest we accuse everyone who is wrong (by our own standards) as guilty of evasion. For sometimes you'll see on this forum (and I'm guilty of this, too) people grow frustrated with each other for not grasping some subtle point after a handful of exchanges. But can you imagine a mind like Peikoff's (if we grant that he has a decent one, an educated one, a truth-seeking one, etc.), with direct access to Ayn Rand herself -- not alone in this attenuated form, but face-to-face discussion -- for years and years... and still struggling to grasp a concept? That should allow us to take some heart in our sometimes failures, and perhaps also to extend greater sympathy (and "benefit of the doubt") to those who continue to struggle to grasp what we, ourselves, understand.

In what way? If this is what you mean, no debate around here (or as far as I can tell, in the world) is ever settled such that all parties are agreed. It's easy enough to say that, from the point of view of the innocents harmed, blowing up a bus is immoral. But ethics, per Objectivism, are based upon self-interest. The moral prohibition against the initiation of the use of force is meant to be as self-interested as anything else -- not fashioned to protect "others," or the wider world, but for the sake of the person who abides by it. But does the suicidal man stand to gain anything (in reason) by refraining from hurting others upon his exit? (I say that he does.) Right, that's the way the logic goes. So when you've decided that you're no longer playing to win (or that you cannot play football), then you can run any formation you'd like; you may even blow up the stadium. It's anything goes from there on out. In theory, this should also mean that a person with a terminal illness is no longer bound by morality (because they understand that they are never going to play football again, no matter what play they run). Some suggest that such a person will continue to drift along on their habits... and so we shouldn't expect too much chaos. However, someone who has given these matters sufficient thought (and with the proper philosophical perspective) ought to be able to recognize their changed context... Yes -- this is my essential answer. "Legacy" runs the risk of implying that this is "for others," but then you continue to identify the true root of it: that it is the experience of value in the present, the pride, the pleasure, the happiness that moral action brings, which continues to make our decisions morally significant, even in the face of (nigh) instantaneous death. In another thread, discussing this same issue, I raised the Buddhist parable "The Monk, the Tiger and the Strawberry " as an example of moral action in the face of extremity. I believe that, so long as there is a self -- so long as life remains, so long as choice remains, and so long as our choices matter to our experience of life -- then there is the possibility of moral action, to wring out for ourselves the best possible experience of life, whatever our present context happens to be.

It's the honorable thing to do...

Bingo. Honing the ability to identify that which is correct (whether in yourself or another) and accept it. [...] As to the use of "proven wrong", it seems a "negative" way of expressing what what appears to be a description of the same phenomenon. And yet the specific endeavor of identifying that which is correct -- and moreover rejecting that which was previously held to be correct, but now recognized as incorrect -- which I think is fairly described as being "proven wrong," has, in my opinion, the potential to trigger the specific subconscious defense mechanism of evasion. I am reminded of a passage in a book I'm currently reading, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, wherein he relates an anecdote (pp 320-1): In both the old man's description of himself as having been "wrong," and in his attitude -- his gratitude of being shown wrong, proven wrong -- I find a concrete presentation of both what I advocate, and the results I aim for.

Since it is in some respects the raison d'etre of this thread, I'd like to highlight this sort of behavior as being decidedly anti-evasion. I suspect that you may hear something more in "proven wrong" than I intend. I'm unsure. But suppose you attempt some math problem and arrive at an answer -- do you think it fair to say, at such a point, that you believe that the answer to the problem is X? Then, however, your teacher comes to your desk to check your work and demonstrates that you have made an error in your calculations. The teacher shows you how to arrive at the correct answer, Y. In coming to understand that the answer is Y, you are making good on your ability to identify whether the proposition X or Y is right/in accord with reality. There is no moral failure here, nothing to be feared or lamented; in offering correction, the teacher is your ally and your benefactor. (But do some children resent being corrected in this manner? Yes, some do. Some teachers resent being corrected as well, and if you're ever interested, I have some stories...) Yet with respect to the belief that you'd once held, that X is correct, I think it's fair to say that you were "proven wrong." If that still sounds threatening, I guess my point is that it should not be considered so. It's more cause for celebration than mourning. (Though I'd guess that the celebration at correcting one's math problem would be... fairly muted.) And hopefully to head off the potential for continued misunderstanding on this point, I should specify that the above does not require a teacher, or more than one person at all; one may equally believe something to be true on a desert island, or anywhere else, and be "proven wrong" by the results of one's actions/further evidence/reality. Your own reckoning is all that you have... and "superior reasoning skills" are not necessarily required for one person to be right, another wrong, on any given topic; given evasion, given compartmentalization, given alone the self-generated requirements of honest thought, etc., etc., a man can have outstanding reasoning skills -- and yet be wrong with respect to a given point. A man with fewer such skills may be right. If you are ever to recognize yourself as wrong, well, you must be the one to do it, no matter what anyone else has to say or how you account their reasoning skills. And yet, when your own reason is appealed to (just as I am attempting to do), this is rightly described as being proved wrong (or "shown wrong," if you would prefer to reserve "proven" for more specific applications) should it result in the abandonment of some once-held belief X for some new belief Y. Insofar as your reason leads you to prefer Y to X, believing Y to better accord to reality, then there is no reason for you to want not to be proven wrong in this fashion, or to call it something other than what it is. There is (or ought to be) no loss of ego here. It is not a loss to let go of wrong belief, no matter if someone else has helped you along the way; it is still an individual, personal victory. Before I read Ayn Rand, I held many beliefs that later turned out to be wrong. Rand proved me wrong. And I take full credit for my own reasoning skills, and reckoning, by which I came to recognize the truth of her arguments and cast aside my earlier errors. Had I held onto my old errors (because they were accounted "mine," the products of my own precious reasoning, and bound to my ego), well, we would not be having this conversation today, and I would be much the worse for it.

This still strikes me as an inversion. It stems from the knowledge that being right is not automatic. It is a choice. Once that choice to be right is selected, this sets in motion the identification of what elements need be in place to be right. Insofar as "being right is a choice," as you say, we must identify the requisite elements to be right (inclusive of all that man requires habitually to be right). The mindset I advocate is not an "inversion" of this, but an expression of it. Or in other words, if you choose to be right (generally speaking, or characteristically), then you should not despise the experience of being proven wrong, but value it -- because I believe that such a mindset or orientation will assist you in the lifelong project of recognizing contradictions among your thoughts. And insofar as you despise the experience of being wrong, or being shown wrong, as so many do, I believe you will be more prone to the phenomenon of evasion, which is not under direct conscious control but can be addressed obliquely through the conscious choices you make, and the attitudes you cultivate within yourself. But this is taking responsibility for one's own rightness. To get recursive for a moment, if I am right about this (as I believe that I am) and you do not heed me (accounting to a lack of focus), then you have failed yourself in your responsibility; you will not be correct, so often or so much as you could have been -- accounting to your own choice. It's not a question of delegating one's responsibility to others. That's like saying that the CEO delegates the success of his concern to his workers; but no, it is through the rational management of his workers (in part) that the CEO accepts responsibility for the success of his concern and fulfills it. The phrase "being proven wrong by others" is furthermore specific to the context of debate and conversation (such as this forum hosts), which I thought particularly relevant and worthy of consideration, but that's not the only context in which the mindset I describe is necessary. A man alone on a desert island must be searching for his mistakes just as much, or more, and he must greet the discovery of these mistakes (so long as he can survive them) with something like gratitude; it is the scientist's mindset, who does not look at the "failure" of a given hypothesis as bad, but as knowledge gained, and a necessary step taken towards further or eventual success. (I would expect that in the history of science, there have been scientists who either so desperately wanted to be right -- or not to be wrong -- that they made critical and uncharacteristic failures in their interpretation of vital results; fundamentally, this is the same sort of phenomenon.) Evasion, at its heart, is a kind of "looking away." And I maintain that the reason why people look away in this fashion -- albeit subconsciously -- is because they do not want to be wrong, on a deep level. And so, I believe that one large part (though not the entirety) of the battle against evasion is to cultivate an appreciation for the experience of being wrong -- said appreciation to be gained by understanding the vital role of being sometimes wrong in the pursuit of knowledge, and finally being right.

I've not yet watched Onkar's presentation. Perhaps I will in the future and comment on it. I'm not certain that "accidental" is the right word for how I view evasion, but I believe that it is subconscious. That means that it is not a conscious choice -- to evade or not to evade -- but that it happens on a level apart from our conscious decision-making process. (If it ever occurred to you, "should I evade this right now?" then, whatever it is you're doing -- you're not evading! ) Perhaps there is also the phenomenon "drifting," which functions somewhat differently (in fact, I'd say that sounds right), but that doesn't make "evasion" a conscious process. If it did (as the possibility I grant in what you've quoted of me) then evasion would not be evasion. It wouldn't be the phenomenon described by Rand; it might be something else, like "denial," or I don't know, but it wouldn't be the same beast, and actually at that point it would be right to say, "evasion does not exist." As it happens, I believe that evasion exists. I think it explains a lot about what I've observed over the course of my life, and the difficulty that (at the very least the vast majority of) people have in recognizing their own errors, and how they struggle -- especially in the context of argument -- against recognizing or correcting their mistakes. Heh, if only it were that simple! I don't doubt that Objectivists of all people would be the first to abandon evasion, if it came down to a simple choice like that. And then we would see much, much greater agreement between Objectivists; but as this board stands testament, there is great disagreement between Objectivists about all sorts of topics... and I think that the root cause of this (though not the only cause, by any means) is: evasion. And I think that the reason why this condition persists -- though none of us wishes to evade, or would choose to do it, as such -- is because it is mostly hidden from our own view, and at a remove from our ordinary, conscious decision-making process. If it were completely hidden from view, then we would be SOL (though also, at such a point, it would be reasonable to conclude that "there is no such thing as evasion"). My essential argument, however, is that we can come to recognize evasion, in ourselves and others, through some of its secondary effects; and that ideally, by addressing ourselves to some of those secondary effects -- as well as through what I've begun to describe as "mindset," which I suspect creates a more or less fertile ground for evasion -- we can use our conscious mind to deal with it. If I had to hazard a guess about "drifting," I would say that the characteristic difference between that and "evasion" is how evasion works as a self-defense mechanism, as I'd described. Thus the practical difference is, one may "drift" with respect to anything, and we might expect drifting to be a rather haphazard phenomenon accordingly. A scattering of error through insufficient focus, if you will. But evasion we can expect to cluster around specific topics -- with something like purpose -- resulting in the phenomenon that we sometimes describe as "compartmentalization," where a person may be extraordinarily clear-sighted in certain areas of thought, and impossibly cloudy in others. There's more to that than simple "drift."