After a couple of posts I made not long ago in another public forum, G. Stolyarov formally asked me for permission to use my comments on his website, The Rational Argumentator.  I readily agreed.  And when he asked me to write an additional introductory explanation of the comments, I also readily agreed. 

You see, I have known Mr. Stolyarov for about a year and a half now through his comments on various internet Objectivism forums and, although we have never met in person, I have always greatly admired the premium he places on dignity, logic, and, interestingly enough, on treating every interaction he has with other people as a greatly solemn and formal occasion. 

I respect this careful combination of distance and dignity he automatically employs with everyone.  But not everyone feels the same way in response to this manner of his.  I have observed firsthand that there are a great number of people who see this life protocol of his as something deserving of their open ridicule and most unrestrained and unconscionable, mass social harassment.

So, let me get down to specifics.  Not too long ago, when I was a member of the internet society which calls itself Sense of Life Objectivists (otherwise known as “SOLO”), I had the opportunity to see G. Stolyarov in action there, back when he was also still a member.  And I was impressed, to say the least. 

Mind you, I was not always in agreement with the basic crux of his ideas and my own writing tastes do not lean in the sort of exhaustively thorough and academic protocol he prefers, but I always admired him for being one of the less-than-a-handful of people who actually chose to show enough integrity to truly acknowledge and show respect for good quality work from others, no matter who they were or how new to a social circle they had just arrived.

Whereas the vast majority of humanity and even so-called “Objectivists” place a premium on things like nepotism, popularity and consensus over objective quality, G. Stolyarov reverses that priority to its rightful order.  In doing so, he stands out from the crowd and also, in doing so, truly fulfills the role of a societal Atlas, albeit in his own small way.

At any rate, I had first heard of SOLO as a meeting place for Objectivists.  As a relatively new Objectivist, I decided to try it out.  Upon first seeing the entry page, I was very impressed.  The visual design of the website was – and still is – quite neat, stylish, and appealing overall.  A SOLO mission statement greets all new visitors upon entry, charismatically stating to the effect that SOLO is a social haven for Objectivists to gather and share ideas, around well-intentioned others.

I would soon come to find out the hard way that SOLO’s mission statement was insidiously false advertising.

Whereas I had been long searching for a place that was philosophically dedicating to really cutting loose and shining to one’s full potential (as Objectivism is all about), I quickly found out that SOLO is about anything but that.  Within a very short time, I saw petty resentments and social sabotage occurring, as person after person was systematically lynched and “purged” from SOLO, through a process that one of the website’s co-founders, Joe Rowlands (the other being Lindsay Perigo), refers to as “moderation”.

Of course, Stolyarov was systematically driven out, too… and for the most flimsy and false of reasons.  And, what’s worse, an orgiastic and perennially-resurfacing smear campaign was actually orchestrated by the other founder of SOLO, Lindsay Perigo.  Virtually none of his extreme resentments of G. Stolyarov seemed fair; many of the most vicious condemnations he issued against Stolyarov always seemed to me to be for things and moral stances that many other members of his website routinely took as well, yet who Perigo never seemed to target with his mercurial and capricious wrath.

But probably Perigo’s very favorite topic of constantly recurring ridicule, was Stolyarov’s personal campaign to replace the pointless and purely traditional use of the “ph” (which makes the sound “eff”) letter combination in many words such as “phone” or “philosophical”, with the much more streamlined and logical use of the simple letter “f” itself.  Such a systematic adjustment would require the respelling of the previous words I’ve mentioned, into “fone” and “filosofical”. 

And, while this no doubt seems awkward at first, just remember that, when we were all children and first learning the English language, we also felt the same way about making the “eff” sound in certain cases by using the “ph” combination.  In truth, that was the unnatural, unnecessary, and illogical adjustment in the first place.  Stolyarov has merely tried to undo its concretized inanity with this simple change.

What’s more, he didn’t just advocate it, he actually implemented it himself. 

And this became Lindsay Perigo’s grand crusade of resentful ridicule against Stolyarov.  In fact, Perigo began systematically and publicly spiting and mocking Stolyarov by actually reversing Stolyarov’s protocol:  when spelling words like “fun” or “flower”, he would make a point of spelling them “phun” and “phlower”.  This was, of course, mandatorily “funny” at SOLO, and all members made a vulgar point of openly displaying shared contempt and mockery of Stolyarov’s process, and amusement at Lindsay’s mockery of it.

Well, I never felt that I really understood for sure the reasons behind why certain people were treated this way at SOLO… although I always had my suspicions which could only be validated over time, as I continued to watch all the various postings at SOLO for signs which would validate my suspicions that I held in cautious reserve. 

But I finally began to see those posts emerge and, when I saw them begin to tellingly emerge from Lindsay Perigo himself, I knew I finally understood the psychology of SOLO, as established by Perigo. 

The comments that follow this introduction are the original posts that Stolyarov asked to publish on his website.  I hope they clear things up.

And so, thanks for reading, and thanks for G. Stolyarov for showing such interest in publicizing my thoughts on his website.

I think that Lindsay really has always really just intended SOLO to be a social club of mandatory informality.  I truly now think he has always intended it to be a place where hard-driving Objectivist practitioners can come and just let their asses hang out, while Lindsay himself is the informal "master of ceremonies".

Here, I think, is the paragraph that explains everything:

Lindsay does not want formality of any kind in his forum.  This includes taking anything seriously, or taking yourself seriously.  Doing so constitutes SOLO's one "original sin".  In his eyes, you are there to cut loose and just "melt into" all the other posters there, and just let him do the thinking and make all the displays.  It's his "debutante's party", and everyone there is his "guest"... and so he just wants you to relax and let him carry things, while he is the main attraction. 

Had Lindsay ever bothered to put this edict into actual words, he wouldn't have had nearly as many problems as he's had there.  But, for whatever reasons, he hasn't done so. 

If you really look back at the fiasco that has been SOLO over the past two years, you realize that there's a common thread through all the conflicts that have happened there:

All the people who have been driven out, are the people who "try too hard", and are not really there to just fit in.  All the people who have been demonized and driven out, are the ones who have really taken it seriously and gone there to really try and excel, to stand out from the herd.

Mind you, they've all done this in different ways, whether it be Stolyarov or Firehammer or myself or whoever.  But the common thread is that all of us have violated the "debutante's party" principle.  We thought we were supposed to go there and be formal and display excellence, just like we read about in Rand's novels. We thought our purpose there was to demonstrate Objectivism and thus demonstrate our greatness amongst supportive peers... all because SOLO does not advertise itself properly in this regard.

In conclusion, I truly now think that what Lindsay has always really intended SOLO to be, was a sort of "haven" from the intense pressures of Objectivism.  I truly think that he wants a place where the addictively obsessional Objectivists can go, where they can leave all their obligations for excellence at the door and just "hang out" and "get sloppy".

The only thing I'm uncertain of, is whether Lindsay wants this to be the sort of atmosphere where his is the only voice of brilliance that should ever be heard.  If that's the case, I'm not sure how I feel about such a Yahweh-ish attitude.

It's just too bad he's never bothered to communicate any of this in actual words, at any time, because it really should be the banner that hangs on the entrance to SOLO.  As it is now, the banner they've always had at their entryway causes every problem they've ever had.

Had such a banner greeted me at the entryway, I would have gone into SOLO from the beginning with a totally different attitude.  Maybe I would've gone there to just "get sloppy". 

But then again, maybe not... at that particular time in my life, I was looking for a place where I could finally go and really, finally, feel it was okay to "show my stuff".  And when I read the entryway banner at SOLO, I said "awesome"... I've finally found that place.

But it's too bad that the folks at SOLO don't know how to correctly advertise themselves.  And it's even worse that I never really found that one, special place where I could finally, safely go to fully shine.

Orion Reasoner is a contributor to The Rational Argumentator.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA's Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA's Issue XLIII 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.