22 hours ago, DonAthos said:
I agree in certain respects, at least (where “persuasion” ends and “therapy” begins, or how “education” sits with either, I’m not entirely certain).
In persuasion, you try to convince someone of something. In therapy, you try to remove mental roadblocks, often with the intention that, once those roadblocks are gone, either persuasion will not be necessary or will be much easier. In education you try to impart information, often, but not necessarily, with the intent to persuade.
22 hours ago, DonAthos said:
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.
I did notice; I at least skim everything posted. However, I decide to sit that one out, due to limited time. It’s a real test of won’t power, let me tell you!
22 hours ago, DonAthos said:
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.
Mindfulness and reason, more or less.
22 hours ago, DonAthos said:
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.
“Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”
There have been attempts at Objectivist schools. I don’t recall anything good coming from them, but it’s been awhile since I paid attention. But it still seems a place to start. When’s the last time you heard of someone over 30 coming to Objectivism? I’m sure it happens, but not that often.
23 hours ago, DonAthos said:
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?
In general, these groups rely on things we can’t. Christians, when they don’t get to the children early, rely on the fact that the Christian world-view underpins both the secular and religious popular thought in this country. You brought up Scientology, but what I know of them suggests that they target the mentally vulnerable, as do most other “successful” proselytizers. Handing out IQ tests might get people in the door, but you have to “sell” people by giving them something they think they want, whether it be a religion that tells them that, though they are scum they can be saved, or a cult that promises certainty without the effort of thinking. What can we offer that will be seen as desirable?
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
The first, which I do not endorse, is a kind of insulting, demeaning, asshole-like behavior that some Objectivists are already quick to adopt.
I spend way too much time in and around religious people – they’re the ones that do charity and I am forced to live off charity for now – and no one finds me objectionable, even if I tell them I’m an atheist (only when asked). I actually agree with them on many of the virtues, as would any Objectivist, and in my behavior, I mostly fit right in (except when they’re doing something explicitly religious, and I then just wait politely for them to be done).
By contrast, you wouldn’t want the sort of person you described anywhere near. But they’re the face of Objectivism. Why don’t people know that you can find Objectivists all over the place, from tending bar (one of the first Objectivists I met in person) to running Wikipedia, being ordinary and sometimes extraordinary good citizens?
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
The problem here is that one is asking a lot: someone who understands Objectivism, practices it, is comfortable with public speaking, quick on his feet, not prone to overreaction…and still is noticeable in the crowd. Such people do exist, but I don’t know of any Objectivists who would qualify.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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).
There’s kooky like Scientology and then there’s kooky as in off the wall. The former is what hurts us; the latter can be helpful.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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).
One thing you have to watch for is the nature of the recipients. Rather a lot of charity is focused on those who are simply never going to make anything of themselves. Objectivist charity can extend to, say, a single mother trying to become a productive citizen, but not the drug addict who is perfectly happy to live a life of dependence and self-abuse. There’s a lot of entitlement mindset among the poor, which is why liberals can always find someone to claim they need this or that program.
But, yeah, helping that single mother become a steady breadwinner by teaching her to think for herself and otherwise act independently would in itself be a big win for everyone, especially if she is exposed to Objectivist ideas in the process. But that means that those ideas have to be simplified without being dumbed down…
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
“Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
I wasn’t clear. I was talking about publishing works of all types. Imagine a book that expresses Objectivist ideas through a combination of essays, visual art, poetry, and short stories. Center different books around different themes. Get some good editors and artists to work with those who are to be published to ensure reasonable esthetic quality and people who are philosophically minded to keep everything on theme.
Has anyone considered writing a tragedy with an Objectivist underpinning? Catharsis has its value… (Remember Tony? Non Absolute? I still tear up remembering his death scene.)
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
When you say “in spite of,” I’d like to get at your meaning more; perhaps we could discuss that another time.
Nothing profound here…I just found her writing too often pointlessly abrasive. I really didn’t like having to read through reams of diatribe. And I just didn’t see the point of screaming at people who were not listening.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
because: we need to bring people into the tent, first.
Yeah, but if the sign says, “This way to the egress”, people might be expecting a bird, not the back door. 
More seriously, whatever brings them in must attract non-Objectivists while not offending Objectivist principles. That might be a trick.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
Most people don’t think yelling is reasonable…
And, true, the focus on Rand is probably counterproductive. If for no other reason than, if you can’t explain a thing in your own words, you don’t really understand it. There are, of course, places where Rand’s words or a slight paraphrase are really the best way to express an idea, but there are other areas where her expressions are simply confusing. “Existence exists”? Too ambiguous.
The other thing is that a focus on Rand plays right into the cult narrative. I suppose there are Randian cultists around posing as Objectivists, but they’re not a part of my world, and they shouldn’t be a part of any effort to spread Objectivism. Instead, we need people willing to stand on their own two feet, verbally speaking.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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?
I have a real problem with cultural commentary. Objectivist ethical and social principles are valid only in a certain context and we do not live in that context. A lot of Objectivist conclusions are simple nonsense as applied to the world we actually live in. E.g., the principle that all commerce should be unregulated is often used to support the notion that a particular bit of deregulation is a good thing. But this often ignores the fact that in a world dominated by government interference in the economy (which is not the Objectivist context), one piece of government regulation may demand another, and the latter cannot safely be removed unless the former is as well. When we ignore that, we often come across as fools…because we are.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
So go sell the idea to ARI?
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
I’m not entirely sure I understand the distinction between “top down” and “bottom up,” as you’ve presented them here;
The party line has been to teach the teachers and they’ll teach everyone else. Your ideas have been to go directly to those who you would persuade.
On Friday October 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, DonAthos said:
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.
Objectivism is an individualist philosophy, not an atomistic one. We shouldn’t be metaphorical helium atoms, unwilling to associate with anyone, nor flourine, willing to associate with anyone who’ll have us. Think carbon, cooperating with a wide variety of others…to produce life.
Putting aside rhetoric…Of course.
Unfortunately, no one seems to be doing this, at least not well. ARI has its thing, but it’s not very effective, largely because it doesn’t reach the masses. ARI, no doubt, would respond that the masses are … oh never mind, I won’t repeat that joke … not listening, and won’t listen until they are taught better. History, I would reply, has proven that their approach is not effective, so we should try a different one. That too might not work – I don’t think it will – but even a failure would have some value.