This is the second part of
two; the
first part ought to be read first.
An Objective Issue
What I am about to say does not change in any way what I
said in the previous part of this article. I make no recommendations
whatsoever about SOLO for others. I was a member for some time, as
anyone who bothers to look at all I posted there can see. I think
others might enjoy it as I did.
There is one aspect of SOLO that everyone has a right to
know, however, that no one else is probably going to make explicit, but
is very important if you take objectivity and truth seriously.
Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand developed and
named, holds the truth in the highest regard. For
an Objectivist, no intentional evasion of the truth, no faking of
reality, and no lie is tolerated. There is nothing worse, nothing more
evil, more immoral, than a liar, to an Objectivist. The last "O" in
SOLO, stands for "Objectivists."
For those who hold the truth is their primary value,
SOLO is going to present some difficulty. At least three members of
that forum use lies as their chief method of operation. Two are Barbara
Branden and Nathaniel Branden, and the proof is available to anyone who
chooses to examine the evidence. Just read the book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics:
The Case Against the Brandens
The other is Lindsay Perigo. Except for those things
which no one lies about, nothing which that man says can be known to be
true without verification. Anyone who chooses may go back to my
articles on SOLO in which many of his prevarications are documented.
But I can save you the trouble, because it is such a common practice,
examples abound in almost everything he says and writes. Here are two
very recent blatant examples.
Because No One Checks
I've already addressed and dismissed as a possible
misunderstanding the false accusation about my claiming, ever, that I
was "banned phor opposing homosexuality." In that same post is another
accusation which is definitely not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate
twisting of the truth. (There is another interesting twist to Mr.
Perigo's method—when lying about someone, he almost always includes an
accusation of dishonesty or lying against the person he is
misrepresenting.) Here is the lie:
"On the matter of homosexuality, Phirehammer had
demonstrated his dishonesty by claiming not to judge homosexuals as
immoral while likening homosexual urges to impulses to steal and commit
arson ... as soon as you *acted* on them, you *did* become immoral!" [http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0688.shtml#17]
The following is a long post to the Mr. Perigo. It
addresses some of the attempts to pervert what I said at that time and
contains the passage he has twisted out of it obvious intended meaning.
It is not necessary to read the whole post—I have bolded the passage in
question; but it is good post and will give you a feeling for the kind
of person you will be dealing with in Mr. Perigo.
| Linz, When I pointed out you are the only person
anywhere on SOLO ever to say, "'either man is volitional or not' means
that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being," even
though you attributed it to the unidentified, "other side," I explained
what the "other side" does say is this: everything a human being does
is by conscious choice.
I explained that assuming you either misunderstood
something I said, or didn't read it correctly. I know there is another
possibility, but I will certainly not make that all too obvious
accusation. I think you are mistaken, but not dishonest.
I then asked, to be sure I understood what your
point was, "Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"
To that you made the amazing remark: "This is
precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest."
You say something which is blatantly untrue about
me, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. I ask you a simple
question, which implies nothing at all, and you call me dishonest.
Then you say, like God himself, reading my mind
and stating with arbitrary finality, "He knows the argument is not
about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which,
I repeat, is *not* open to choice."
But I know no such thing at all. My whole
argument is that a person's, "orientation," or "inclination," to do or
be anything (a thief, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) is
irrelevant. Only what one chooses matters. It is only one's actual
actions, in thought and deed, that have any part of defining who and
what an individual is. A person tempted to steal is not a thief unless
he yields to the temptation (his orientation) and actually steals.
Then you said, "A gay person *could* act as Regi
would wish ...," once again, reading into my mind what is not there,
but is certainly in yours, because you wrote it. The only "wish" I have
for all men is that they be free to live their lives any way they
choose without the interference of any other man. I have never
suggested I wish gays would act in any particular way, except in the
general sense that I wish all men would, for their own sakes, refrain
from self-destructive behavior, without regard to which behavior that
would be.
If you can find anywhere, on SOLO, in my book, or
anyplace else where I ever said or suggested anyone, ever, should,
"live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality," I will
apologize for it and repudiate it here and now. If you cannot show me
that, I will be severely tempted to change my mind about that benefit
of the doubt I am still extending you.
"... such self-denial or fraud would be entirely
consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality," you said.
If you want to cover up a fault, the quickest way to do it is to accuse
your opponent of that fault, whether it is true or not. But, of course
I know you would not do that, would you?
You certainly aren't calling my insistence that
human beings have a specific nature that determines what is good and
bad for us, like a specific kind of stomach that precludes poison being
a good thing to eat "intrinsicist," are you? You wouldn't be labeling
my insistence that one use the best reason of which they are capable
when choosing their values and how they choose to live their life
"mystic," would you?
What would you call a view that says what a person
is, is determined by some mysterious unknown something; that a person
is not, as Ayn Rand said, "a being of self-made soul," but a creature
whose identity is determined by genes and environmental influences or
something else? That would not be intrinsicist, would it?
And what do you call the view that says one has
knowledge that is not derived objectively by reason, but is, "just
there?" You wouldn't call that a priorism? And what do you call the
view that says there is knowledge that does not require the mind? You
wouldn't call the mysticism? I call the view, that says "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual
chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," the
grossest of subjectivist mysticism, on the basis of which any outrage
may be justified, and apparently is. ....
[http://solohq.com/Forum/
ArticleDiscussions/0777_3.shtml#65]
|
My point (in the bolded paragraph above) had nothing to
do with morality at all, and morality is never mentioned. I was
addressing what determines an individual's identity. The list (a thief,
a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) had no particular
significance and could have included a pianist, a cook, and a sky
jumper, and would have had the same meaning. It was only a post on a
forum, not an essay, and the list was created off-the-cuff. This is so
obvious, Perigo's obfuscation is either intentional or he suffers from
some mental defect that prevents him from understanding the simplest of
analogies.
He Really Should Check
The following prevarication is almost embarrassing. It
is not only completely untrue, but its motive is so transparent, even a
child could see through it. Most embarrassing of all is that the facts
are actually true, someone was just as offensive and insensitive as
Perigo claims—it just happens that it was not one of those he
attributed it to, but one of his own "members in good standing." Here
is Perigo's accusation:
| ... They are moral pygmies who would embarrass
the crassest Christian fundamentalist with the boorish bigotry of their
ignorance. They are the sexual Ku Klux Klanners who would
insist on cat-calling a transgender person "Mr" precisely because of
the pain they knew that would cause, and not rest till they'd drummed
her out. [Emphasis mine.] We've had our share of them—God
knows what brought them here. I don't "pity" them however—I hold them
in contempt for their wilful contribution to human suffering. It's good
that they've all repaired to the phascist swamp, where they can buzz
around like mosquitoes with malaria for their own inverted edification.
http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0688_2.shtml#51
|
Just who are these crass, cat-calling, Ku-Klux-Klanner,
contributors to human suffering living in a fascist swamp? Well, here
is the post that caused the entire incident to which Mr Perigo is
refers:
| ..., I agree. I could care less about the
pretentious claptrap that Mr R... likes to comment on. What hit my
nerve, was the fact that Mr R... consistantly (sic) bashes Objectivism,
and sings the praises of hedonism, extreme leftist politics, and new
age theism. For the most part he has gotten a pass by everyone
(including myself), because he bashes politely and with a nice play on
words from time to time.
But I have grown tired of his Objectivism
pounding, and his preaching hedonistic nonsense. I have also grown
tired of his having to remind us in everyone of his f...ing post that
he is a high class prostitute, with a tone of, "isn't that just the
cutest thing". I don't buy that crap for a second.
Nor is his selling of ass a particular virtue in
my code of values. He can sell it all he wants, but it's past time to
shut the f... up about it. Besides, the amount of time he spends on
this board and his 'war and peace' length post, sure as hell indicates
a lack of buyers.
..., had you or I made some of the same statements
about Objectivism (and objectivist) that Mr R... has, we would have
been challenged right away and with great 'bluntness'. Oh well, I just
thought it was time that the so-called 'courtesan' be called on his
nonsense.
G... C...
[http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions
/0944_1.shtml#23]
|
The Ironic Truth
It turns out the, "phascist swamp," where members become
so offensive to each other they drive each other away is SOLO itself.
Whereas, that other place, where all views are tolerated and all
arguments, so long as they are made without personal insult, are
accepted, seems to have none of these problems. At least one
transgender member is very active there, and is so comfortable,
frequently starts her own threads. If anyone happens to see Ms. R...
around, by the way, tell her she's welcome at the other horrible place.
Most will disagree with her and explain why, but she won't be called
names, and will be addressed as she chooses, and treated with the
dignity every human being deserves— and she won't be lied to or lied
about.
Reginald
Firehammer is a filosofer and author of the book: The
Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism. He is the author
and host of The
Autonomist, an online intellectual journal, as well as a
contributor to The Rational Argumentator. In the future, he intends to
produce a comprehensive treatise on ontology, consciousness, and
ultimately filosofy itself. Mr. Firehammer can be contacted at regi@usabig.com.
This
TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA's Statement
of Policy.
Click here to
return to TRA's Issue XXXVII Index.
Learn about Mr.
Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.
Read Mr. Stolyarov's comprehensive treatise,
A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe,
matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition,
here.
Read
Mr. Stolyarov's four-act play, Implied
Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of
human life, here.
Visit TRA's Principal
Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the
magazine. Click
here. |
