Focusing on the Negative

[Philip Coates]

There have been many threads and discussions on errors Rand made, most recently not just in her life, but finding literary flaws. These sometimes spring from our 'radar' picking up on things Rand's fervent religious, philosophical, and political enemies have wanted us or the world of ideas to focus on or respond to. They can manage to make these the 'hot' new topics of conversation.

Let's stick with the literary or esthetic area for a moment. Speaking personally, when I have seen or read or experienced a great work, something that has lifted me up, made me see the world freshly, taught me something --- the things I most want to talk about, write about, to re-process, to integrate are the positives.

Yet not a lot of the prevalent discussions seem to be on the positives, but on looking for the flaws. (Just to take Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead as examples, let's just say flat out that in any massive literary work there obviously will be mistakes in something of that lenght, stretches or characters that don't work, overdoing of x, or under-doing of y.)

Can someone explain to me why the exploration of the literary or personal or "formulation" flaws seem so often to have primacy? (Just to take one out of an infinity of examples, the topic of unending interest might be: whether Eddie should have made it into Atlantis, rather than how Rand is able to create a sunlit universe in some portions of the book?)

Do people think the positives are all so easy and obvious . . . or well-understood in the culture, or don't personally need to be reexperienced, or translated, or re-absorbed and integrated afresh, or talked about, or advocated, or defended --- either in today's culture, or in one's own soul or attitudes?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Phil:

Don't you think that this happens to all great writers?

For example, Dostoevsky.

Dostoevsky Studies

"Most negative opinions about Dostoevsky's art boil down to an assertion that, while his works are of some interest psychologically or otherwise, their artistic quality is low. (2) Dobroljubov said in fact that it was "below criticism." (3) Some more recent critics, such as Bunin and Nabokov, concur. Some negative criticism was and still is caused by the critics' disagreement with Dostoevsky's ideological positions. I shall discuss here only criticism directed at Dostoevsky's art. (I do realize that it is often difficult to keep "art" and "ideology" apart)."

[caroljane]

I concur with Adam. without the negatives there can be no positive; and in the narrow field of the novel, the borders between bad writing and good, between good and great, will always be fought over.

Rand knew this. She chose to be a novelist. She wrote Atlas Shrugged, full of villains, not a Welcome to Reasonville tourist guidebook. She knew what she was doing.

But she was human and like most authors who do exactly what they want with their novels, she also wanted admirers, not detractors

of her every word choice. She wanted to eat her literary-philosophical cake and have it, too - after all, she baked it.

But readers are a ruthless bunch. You can lead them to the half-full glass of water, but you can't make them drink it when they think it's half-empty.

[Selene]

I concur with Adam. without the negatives there can be no positive; and in the narrow field of the novel, the borders between bad writing and good, between good and great, will always be fought over.

Rand knew this. She chose to be a novelist. She wrote Atlas Shrugged, full of villains, not a Welcome to Reasonville tourist guidebook. She knew what she was doing.

But she was human and like most authors who do exactly what they want with their novels, she also wanted admirers, not detractors

of her every word choice. She wanted to eat her literary-philosophical cake and have it, too - after all, she baked it.

But readers are a ruthless bunch. You can lead them to the half-full glass of water, but you can't make them drink it when they think it's half-empty.

Agreed.

However that depends on if you are Dagny with a gun!

I have a wonderful woman client who is an excellent psychiatrist and she explains that she does not give a shit whether the glass is half full or half empty because she still has to wash the damn thing.

The school of reality is where more folks should matriculate.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I have a wonderful woman client who is an excellent psychiatrist and she explains that she does not give a shit whether the glass is half full or half empty because she still has to wash the damn thing.

The school of reality is where more folks should matriculate.

Adam

My wife would say something like that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People are attracted to negative stuff more than they are to positive. That's human nature.

I just saw a psychology talk where the presenter made the following comparison and it cracked me up. (My words, not his, though.)

People are interested in car crashes. They are not so interested in cars driving safely.

Imagine turning on the TV news and, instead of hearing about the 11 car pileup on the freeway involving a jack-knifed tractor trailer, the newscaster says, "Here are the latest images from Main Street. Look at all those cars driving safely. Now let's cut to Banner Avenue. Those cars sure are playing it safe. One right after another with plenty of distance between them. They're even going below the speed limit. And now for Riverside Drive..."

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Don't you think that this happens to all great writers?...."Most negative opinions about Dostoevsky's art boil down to an assertion that, while his works are of some interest psychologically or otherwise, their artistic quality is low...Some negative criticism was and still is caused by the critics' disagreement with Dostoevsky's ideological positions." [Adam]

> without the negatives there can be no positive...the borders between bad writing and good, between good and great, will always be fought over. [Daunce]

> People are attracted to negative stuff more than they are to positive...a psychology talk [recently made the point:] People are interested in car crashes. They are not so interested in cars driving safely. Imagine turning on the TV news and, instead of hearing about the 11 car pileup on the freeway involving a jack-knifed tractor trailer, the newscaster says, "Here are the latest images from Main Street. Look at all those cars driving safely...One right after another with plenty of distance between them." [MSK]

I guess my response to all of the above -- using Daunce's point - readers are an ornery bunch and "you can't make [them] drink it when they think it's half-empty" -- is that, in this case -- the case of Ayn Rand's ideas and writing and body of work -- firstly, the glass is -not- half-empty:

It's more like 95% full. (Please don't argue about a handful of percentage points, unless you think this is completely off.)

So under that circumstance, I can't understand why the positives -- since that's what's strikingly, stunningly there -- do not get more proportionate discussion. At least among those who appreciate Rand, whose life she has changed. People here, for example (not, obviously, among those who don't appreciate her at all or think that her importance to the culture, or to their own lives is only so-so or "fifty-fifty".)

Secondly, in response to the point of people find it boring to read about "safe driving" in the news, that's not a good analogy: Atlas Shrugged is not 'safe driving', but much, much more than that. It is full of major positives, life-changing, a masterpiece. And Objectivism is not prudent driving, with careful spacing in between cars: It's radical, a philosophical revolution, something deperately needed by mankind. If mankind is to have a future.

And needed by each of us to help us have happy lives.

That's the context in which I'm puzzled by the greater interest in finding relatively small nits or flaws.

Thirdly, the above only applies to Rand and Objectivism. I also find a (relative) lack of discussion on great positives in life and on this earth. For every thread on one of those, there are several "ain't it awful" threads, often about Obama, politics, depressing stuff in the world.

,,,,,,

( PS: Well, as usual, I seem to have all the other posters disagreeing with me. What is it about me, body odor? )

Edited March 28, 2011 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

People are attracted to negative stuff more than they are to positive.

I am not "people" - speak for yourself.

[caroljane]

[quote name='Philip Coates' timestamp='1301271363' post='1302

I also find a (relative) lack of discussion on great positives in life and on this earth. For every thread on one of those, there are several "ain't it awful" threads, often about Obama, politics, depressing stuff in the world.

,,,,,,

( PS: Well, as usual, I seem to have all the other posters disagreeing with me. What is it about me, body odor? )

Phil, don't you ever read any threads but your own? Every single discussion is full of the great positives, the arts and aesthetics ones, movies, sports (I know Hockey is in a negative, almost suicidal tone but what I'm really saying is, Isn't it Wonderful?),Marriage, -these are just the ones I thought of from memory,--even the politics threads have hope and exuberance, although that is not all they have. I wish I could design you a Gloom Ignore function, but I can't, just let me say as a committed fatalist, the glass is really full, half the time.

[caroljane]

double entendre encore, tabernac

Edited March 28, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Read closer.

I said "attracted."

People are attracted to the negative. The good and wise ones extract a positive from the negative experience and take it with them.

Is there anything more negative than the brains of the world going on strike and letting the world go to hell in a handbasket? Or is that positive to you? That's the attraction of AS straight from Rand (in ,my words, of course).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not "people" - speak for yourself.

Ted,

I honestly don't know of any TV news program that headlines cars driving safely. I just expanded on someone else who made that up as a humorous example.

But since you have a preference for this sort of thing, I might try to find something for you. Maybe pictures of airplanes arriving on time. People grocery shopping at a clean and well-stocked store. School in session with alert students. Smiling policemen getting off work. And maybe for drama and excitement, babies playing with toys.

I'll see what I can do...

Michael

[Mikee]

People are attracted to negative stuff more than they are to positive. That's human nature.

Michael

Human nature is to survive. It's useful to know where the bad shit is happening and what kinds of idiotic actions get you killed.

[caroljane]

I am not "people" - speak for yourself.

Ted,

I honestly don't know of any TV news program that headlines cars driving safely. I just expanded on someone else who made that up as a humorous example.

But since you have a preference for this sort of thing, I might try to find something for you. Maybe pictures of airplanes arriving on time. People grocery shopping at a clean and well-stocked store. School in session with alert students. Smiling policemen getting off work. And maybe for drama and excitement, babies playing with toys.

I'll see what I can do...

Michael

Michael, if you do not know of such programs or newspaper stories you are obviously not knowledgeable in the area of Canadian Media.

A sad lack.

Compassionately,

Carol

[kiaer.ts]

I am not "people" - speak for yourself.

Ted,

I honestly don't know of any TV news program that headlines cars driving safely. I just expanded on someone else who made that up as a humorous example.

But since you have a preference for this sort of thing, I might try to find something for you. Maybe pictures of airplanes arriving on time. People grocery shopping at a clean and well-stocked store. School in session with alert students. Smiling policemen getting off work. And maybe for drama and excitement, babies playing with toys.

Your example illustrates the difference between the expected and the unexpected, not the good and the bad. Given the choice, most people will be attracted to the story about the one person rescued from the rubble, not the 10,000 lost.

Of course, if, say, rubbernecking at catfights is one's guilty pleasure, one may have a different opinion. In which case that trait belongs to him who has it, and one shouldn't slander mankind by attributing to it such personal vices.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... one shouldn't slander mankind...

Ted,

One shouldn't slander mankind?!

Jeez, have you always been a control freak?

You're a hoot!

(I mean that in a good sense.)

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Jeez, have you always been a control freak?

Control freak? Who's the one who accuses people of trying to take over OL with their "clique" and relegates posts that make him uncomfortable to the garbage pile?

Just sayin.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Are you trying to parody a fundy?

LOL...

(My principles are bigger than your principles,,, and your principle are even principles... nyah nyah nyah,,, )

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

You do realize, Michael, that you do not have to respond to every one of my posts? (I certainly do.)

Edited March 28, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I realize I don't have to take you seriously.

And I don't.

You're funnier that way.

Michael

[Mikee]

Michael, this is the important part of Ted's comment:

"Your example illustrates the difference between the expected and the unexpected, not the good and the bad."

I believe the majority of people are good. I believe in markets, that the "masses" make sound decisions made for good reasons. So, when someone states something like "most people do this or that" I try to look for a rational, positive reason why this would be so. I'm not "rationalizing" either, my search is based on the premise that most of the time large market decisions have valid reasons. Else I wouldn't believe in free markets. I mostly like people and think well of them. Like Ted, I don't think it necessary or wise to "slander mankind".

[Rich Engle]

There have been many threads and discussions on errors Rand made, most recently not just in her life, but finding literary flaws. These sometimes spring from our 'radar' picking up on things Rand's fervent religious, philosophical, and political enemies have wanted us or the world of ideas to focus on or respond to. They can manage to make these the 'hot' new topics of conversation.

Let's stick with the literary or esthetic area for a moment. Speaking personally, when I have seen or read or experienced a great work, something that has lifted me up, made me see the world freshly, taught me something --- the things I most want to talk about, write about, to re-process, to integrate are the positives.

Yet not a lot of the prevalent discussions seem to be on the positives, but on looking for the flaws. (Just to take Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead as examples, let's just say flat out that in any massive literary work there obviously will be mistakes in something of that lenght, stretches or characters that don't work, overdoing of x, or under-doing of y.)

Can someone explain to me why the exploration of the literary or personal or "formulation" flaws seem so often to have primacy? (Just to take one out of an infinity of examples, the topic of unending interest might be: whether Eddie should have made it into Atlantis, rather than how Rand is able to create a sunlit universe in some portions of the book?)

Do people think the positives are all so easy and obvious . . . or well-understood in the culture, or don't personally need to be reexperienced, or translated, or re-absorbed and integrated afresh, or talked about, or advocated, or defended --- either in today's culture, or in one's own soul or attitudes?

Well, for one thing, they were books, Phil. I think that is the answer.

It is a fair question to ask, and you ask it quite well.

Do ~I~ think the positives are all so easy and obvious? Yes, I do. Why? Because to embrace the alternative causes us all a bit of trouble, does it not? "In one's own soul or attitudes?" Yes, surely so.

And I do not simply guess, but know, that all of us could stand to do better in that department. To do otherwise has no positive goal.

I think that one of the hardest things to accept is the nature of "imperfection." Or, at least to know that, innately, perfection is no more than a beautiful vision. Emerson says it-- "Everything God made has a crack in it." Now, this is not religion, it is actually a statement about how the universe operates.

I have given much contemplation to this, for what my contemplation is worth. For a small, but important instance, here on OL, say.

Human-fun-poking will always occur: that's just a way of being let known that you are still alive. Scuffles will ensue.

This being said, the fact remains that there is no practical use for meanness. If one is mean, it speaks to one's self, not others.

There are many old behaviors within the human that draw from times when the brain was not evolved to the state it is now. I guess one of the nice things about having a prefrontal cortex (if you, or "it," maybe) gets you to thinking about this stuff, is the very nature of understanding what part of the brain makes us do what.

I believe it is fair to say that when examining things like "consciousness," or even "morals," a prerequisite would be a decent understanding of the human brain. If you don't, then you are using something you don't understand, and commenting on others who may or may not suffer the similar situation. That is where a lot of the trouble comes in.

So, in that respect, do not think I endorse any set of behavior rules--clearly, I will not, and there are others. That's not what it is about.

Part of it is about how one is "blessed" to have elevated into things that are often taken for granted; what you have, through hard work, and an honest (but flawed somewhere) attempt to understand what is truly right, and decent, and maybe even kind.

I understand where you are coming from, on this one. At least, my gut says I do. The more I pursue what I pursue, the less likely I am to pull the sword.

But, I do love that lampooning.

Best,

rde

Edited March 28, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I have a "whole" view of the human mind--not a robotic or lobotomized view. Sorry, I'm not trying to be sarcastic to you. But I find the Randroid version of intimidating others by trying to make them ashamed of their prewiring absolutely stupid. It's a mind game and nothing more. I'm not saying you do this.

Ted does it a lot, though. This is why I can't take him seriously when he starts getting bossy and competitive. When he gets that way, he's all about what people should or should not do. Who cares? I sure don't.

Notice that there is one constant in all his decrees he hands down to others--him. On top.

Try going through his his posts one day just to see if there are inconsistencies. Talk about somebody attracted to the negative stuff with a mouth on him! So this dude is in no position to preach nobility and prance about degrading others. Anyway, this is a discussion forum, not a kindergarten playpen for grownups.

On a more substantive note, I, like you, believe in the goodness of people. But I don't understand the "slander humanity" issue when a person is in identification mode. I try to use the cognitive before normative system in my conscious thinking as much as humanly possible, as I believe you cannot judge something correctly unless you identify it correctly first. So how can you slander when you are not even judging at that moment?

(I admit to a playful nature, but that is style--rarely is it any meaningful cognitive content in my normative abstractions of something as important as "mankind.").

We humans are attracted by good and bad things. We come with prewired affects that later develop into emotions. Of the observable infant affects (at least as recorded by Sylvan Tomkin, for one), the majority are negative. I believe there are survival reasons for this. We live in a beautiful world, but it's also a mean nasty world if you are not careful. It takes effort to survive and build beauty, but it only takes one slip to lose everything. So we have to be attentive to dangers. What's wrong with noticing that?

Fear is one biggie. Without fear to trigger the fight and flight mechanism, human beings would not have made it to the present. I think this is part of the reason people are attracted to disasters more than other interruptions. It's automatic. It's not chosen. You choose after the attraction, not before--unless you discipline your mind to specifically ignore that particular kind of stuff. And even then, that only works in certain contexts. Once you are out of your comfort zone, say a city boy suddenly in the woods by himself, you slip back towards normal reactions. And you better if you want to keep living.

Magicians and showmen use this in crowds as a formal technique. It is called the "fear challenge." They announce really loudly that they have something horrible to impart, BUT... they have a way to deal with it so that it won't affect you like it will the unwary. Just gather around and they will tell you all about it. This never fails to draw a crowd. It's a trick as old as this hills and works time after time. (Incidentally, this is a technique Glenn Beck uses a lot at the beginning of his shows. It's one of the ways he uses to keep people from changing channels before he has had a chance to present his information and arguments.)

I believe you are into martial arts, no? If so, then you are aware of the effort it takes for mental discipline. And it's not something you do once and then you are done for the rest of your life. (Objectivist fundies act like this is what life should be like, but they are awful at mental discipline by any measure.) You must know that if you don't do the exercises, if you don't maintain and practice, you get rusty.

Is it slandering the human being to acknowledge that, or is it slandering human beings to blank out the constant effort involved to keep the mental discipline honed? I say if slander is involved, someone who belittles and brushes aside great positive effort is slanderous. (Actually not, since the scorched earth judgmental way of thinking is so not me. But it sounds good as rhetoric. I don't approve of blanking this effort out, though. It's stupid when they do that.)

We experience consciousness in waves of awareness, not in a straight line. All organic things exist in time in waves of intensity and relaxation. This is just a fact. And when awareness is more relaxed, we are more vulnerable to our automatic responses. I don't see how anybody can doubt that, but I've seen this denied in Objectivist circles. (Actually, I can't recall ever seeing it denied anywhere else.)

I believe you must daydream once in a while, since I presume you are a human being. When in that state, you will react to your surroundings according to what's in your subconscious, not according to whether you want to "slander mankind" or not. What do you think will snap you out of it faster, a sudden disaster or the unexpected approach of a hero without danger? If the disaster does it quicker, are you "slandering humanity"? If so, should you maybe lie to everyone and say that was not the case and feel secretly ashamed until you can figure out how to lobotomize yourself?

I say this approach is pure BS. We are what we are.

We build magnificent things out of that nature, too. And we honor heroes and all the rest.

Don't mind me and Ted. He has a nasty control freak side to him and I don't like control freaks on a visceral level. I just don't like them. But he has a beautiful side, too. Someday I hope he sees how ugly he makes that beauty when he gets bent out of shape with bossiness and snarkiness. But that's his journey, not mine.

I merely have a forum to run and my own views to present. My thing with him is more about containing the bad vibes he is wedded to so they don't spread and spoil the environment here for others than any serious debate or even dislike of him. On the contrary, when he's not acting in a bossy and snarky manner, I actually like him--even when we disagree.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Do ~I~ think the positives are all so easy and obvious? Yes, I do. [RE, post 22]

Rich, I think the view you express is a major reason people spend less time discussing, addressing, trying to integrate the positives from Rand (and often from other sources). They think, yeah, yeah, yeah I got all that already: I'm already Roark-like enough. I'm an independent thinker and liver. I've always pretty much been. Don't lecture me. Don't patronize me; I'm a real bright guy. Don't need no stinkin' courses in that stuff. And as for 'emotional fuel', been there done that. Now let's get critical and look for the flaws, that's the interesting stuff.

As I implied in post 1, I would *completely disagree with everything* I just cited. Just the opposite: I think that Oism is hard, that Rand's sense of life doesn't come easy, that the beauty and power require revisiting, that few people actually get close. Even self-proclaimed Oists or semi-quasi-largely Oists.

I never thought I understood everything I needed from the first reading of the novels or essays.

It's an ongoing effort or discipline or kind of focus:

TANSTAFO.

And I want to live (repeatedly and at length) in the sunlit world of those positives. Or at least voyage toward them as far as I can.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Rich Engle]

> Do ~I~ think the positives are all so easy and obvious? Yes, I do. [RE, post 22]

Rich, I think the view you express is a major reason people spend less time discussing, addressing, trying to integrate the positives from Rand (and often from other sources). They think, yeah, yeah, yeah I got all that already: I'm already Roark-like enough. I'm an independent thinker and liver. I've always pretty much been. Don't lecture me. Don't patronize me; I'm a real bright guy. Don't need no stinkin' courses in that stuff. And as for 'emotional fuel', been there done that. Now let's get critical and look for the flaws, that's the interesting stuff.

As I implied in post 1, I would *completely disagree with everything* I just cited. Just the opposite: I think that Oism is hard, that Rand's sense of life doesn't come easy, that the beauty and power require revisiting, that few people actually get close. Even self-proclaimed Oists or semi-quasi-largely Oists.

I never thought I understood everything I needed from the first reading of the novels or essays.

It's an ongoing effort or discipline or kind of focus:

TANSTAFO.

And I want to live (repeatedly and at length) in the sunlit world of those positives. Or at least voyage toward them as far as I can.

Yes, Phil.

And I guess that has something to do with leading by example. It only takes a person or two to change their "ways." Whoever starts that first is unimportant. Hey, the hits will come. What I am saying (and I truly believe now that you understand me) is to lay down the swords.

It is a much more peaceful path of existence.

Plus, you know, Phil, it occurred to me that we have to set some kind of decent example, all of us in O-world. There is a lot to discuss, isn't there?

Regards,

rde