Should a movement have watchmen?

A movement has no gatekeepers. That means there is no way to stop destructive individuals from entering the movement. Yet, there must be quality control at some level to prevent damage to efforts to reach the goals of the movement. To detect dangers, a movement needs watchmen as lookouts.

JOB REQUIREMENTS. The individuals who choose to be watchmen and exercise quality control, in some manner and at some level, are necessarily "self-appointed." Such a function is open to anyone who sees a danger worthy of action and has the skills to take appropriate steps -- which means mainly the ability to present an objective argument proving his charges against other individuals in the movement.

Objectivity means drawing all ideas logically from facts of reality. To be objective, an indictment of one individual by another must present facts as well as an argument leading from those facts to the indictment. The facts must be presented with specificity; pointing in the general direction ("Look at his writings!") is not specific. The argument must cover the steps required to move from evidence to conclusion. The indictment must be clear.

Debates among various watchmen are inevitable and desirable. The accusers are akin to prosecuting attorneys. There are defendants, rightly or wrongly accused. There are also the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: anyone who studies the issues, makes a judgment, and acts accordingly. However, there is no judge to set rules of procedure. Nor is there a bailiff, a policeman, or a jailer.

EXAMPLE APPROACHES. There are many optional approaches available to watchmen who are ready to make charges. Here are two examples to consider for their particular methods:

(1) http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff

(2) http://www.checkingpremises.org/

They are widely separated in time. In some ways, they are different in their purposes and methods. The first consists mainly of an annotated list of links to the author's own discussions on particular topics of false friends of Objectivism. The second, in most (but not all) of its tabbed pages (as of the day I viewed it), also consists mainly of links to other writings critiquing individuals the accusers think are pseudo-Objectivists. (The second site is new and the content is evolving.)

A third effort to consider is an apologia, a coherent essay which offers a defense against charges:

(3) http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

I have identified the particular writings above because of their virtues, whatever faults they might also have (which must be judged within the context of each project's purposes). Generally, in the links cited both sources are serious and dignified. They deal with issues, which here means individuals and their ideas. They eschew foul language, "hot headed" outbursts, hyperbole, street talk, and other symptoms of profane culture.

CONCLUSION. Does a movement need watchmen? Yes, to protect the movement's efforts to reach its goals. The responsibility of being watchmen is heavy. It requires diligence in research, thought, and argumentation. It also requires the strength to withstand scrutiny.

PERSONAL NOTE: A BRIGHT FUTURE. I judge a movement by the actions of its best individuals, which includes, in part, their efforts to (1) set an example for rational behavior and (2) discourage violations of etiquette. (By "etiquette" I mean principles and rules of behavior that facilitate trade among individuals in a society.)

I have been a student of Objectivism for fifty years. In looking at the best behavior of particular individuals in recent controversies, on both sides, I see some signs of increasing personal maturity and interpersonal civility -- both of which are prerequisites for the trade of ideas, a trade that strengthens a movement. I also keep in mind a generalization: In controversies, the best individuals in a movement are often quiet until they are ready to make a thoughtful statement, if one is even worth formulating.

In preparing to write The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, I read about conflicts in several movements (such as the movement to overthrow the Enlightenment). Compared to those movements, the Objectivist movement is healthy and growing stronger. For this and other reasons, I am objectively hopeful for the future of the Objectivist movement.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. -- I "know" some of the individuals involved in the controversy above, but only through the internet. For personal reasons, I dislike a few and I have ceased communicating with them. The issues in the sites above, however, are not personal issues, but issues of individuals accused of misrepresenting or otherwise damaging the Objectivist movement.

Ayn Rand on Selecting a Presidential Candidate?

In Vol. 3, No. 3 (March, 1964) of The Objectivist Newsletter, Ayn Rand published "Check Your Premises," an essay that offers "a few basic considerations, as guidelines in deciding what one can properly expect of a political candidate, particularly of a presidential candidate" (p. 9, col. 1). What were those guidelines?

(Caution: My notes below are not comprehensive. The following quotations are passages that I have selected because I think they make points applicable to all times, including our own. Occasionally I have summarized intermediate steps in her presentation. Reader, beware. Read the article for yourself; you can purchase the TON collection at The Ayn Rand Bookstore, here.)

A FOCUS ON POLITICAL PRINCIPLES. "One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy -- only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job. It is only a political consistency that we can demand of him; if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours" (TON, March, 1964, p. 9, col. 1).

(Does the statement above mean that Ayn Rand was advocating either (1) not investigating or (2) ignoring the results of an investigation of a candidate's more fundamental principles, that is, his metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics? I think she was advocating neither. Why?

1. Six months earlier, in "A Suggestion," October, 1963, TON, p. 40, col. 2, Ayn Rand -- who always emphasized (a) the causal nature of fundamental ideas and (b) the necessity of non-contradictory integration -- said, "If [the candidate] ... should ... tie his candidacy to some doctrine of a mystical nature -- we will, of course, be free not to vote for him." That means, I think, one cannot evaluate what a candidate says about his principles in isolation from his ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical roots.

2. Two years earlier, in the first question in the Intellectual Ammunition Department of the March, 1962, TON, Barbara Branden, then writing under the editorship and approval of Ayn Rand, said: "A rational advocate of capitalism should repudiate any individual or group that links capitalism to the supernatural. He commits treason to his own cause if and when he cooperates with the mystical 'conservatives', if and when he sanctions them as creditable spokesmen for the cause of freedom." The immediate context was different, but I think the guideline applies to voting as well as to campaigning for a candidate.

These two earlier quotations show, I think, that Ayn Rand was not advocating an evaluation of a candidate's statements of political principle in isolation from the remainder of his philosophy.)

PRINCIPLES VS. PARTICULAR POSITIONS. "If [the candidate] has mixed premises," Ayn Rand writes, "we have to judge him ... by his dominant trend. ... A vote for a candidate does not constitute an endorsement of his entire position, not even of his entire political position, only of his basic political principles." (TON, March, 1964, p. 9, col. 1).

A particular position -- such as advocating withdrawal from the United Nations -- is not a principle. It is, Ayn Rand says, a "concrete." A candidate's "view on whether a nation should or should not protect its sovereignty is a principle, which covers many issues besides the U. N." (TON, March, 1964, p. 9, col. 1).

"If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?" (TON, March, 1964, p. 9, col. 2)

A VOTER'S RANGE OF CHOICES. "[O]ften, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils" (TON, March, 1964, p.10, col. 2).

"There are many forms of protest open to us, if [an unacceptable candidate is actually nominated]: we can vote for a write-in candidate of our own choice -- or vote a straight Republican ticket, leaving the presidential and vice-presidential spaces blank -- or vote a mixed ticket -- or vote for any Democrat who is not fully committed to statism -- or not vote at all. But we cannot vote for the proposition [held by some self-styled Republican "mainstream" candidates] that we, as advocates of capitalism, are lunatics -- or for the candidate who so regards us" (TON, March, 1964, p. 12, col. 1).

PERSPECTIVE. "An election campaign is not the cause, but the effect and the product of a culture's intellectual trends. It is, perhaps, too early to fight for capitalism on the level of practical politics, in a culture devoid of any intellectual base for capitalism" (TON, March, 1964, p. 12, col. 1).

The full article contains many other insights applicable to today. It also provides detailed examples that illustrate the guidelines Ayn Rand offers.

SUMMARY. As an answer to the historical question -- What were Ayn Rand's guidelines for voting? -- I say she recommended focusing on the fundamental political principles of each candidate, while being alert to the candidate's deeper philosophy if the candidate himself tied his politics to mysticism.

MY ELABORATION. If, as I think, a John Locke sort of candidate were to say, "I have faith in God; he created man; he gave man the faculty of reason for living in this world; and reason leads us to the need for a free society," then such a candidate would be acceptable because his supernaturalism and mysticism are detachable, so to speak, in public political discussions. We have common ground with the idea that man is a rational animal.

On the other hand, if a candidate says, "I have faith that God created man; man is corrupt; and his faculty of understanding is too limited to justify having power over others -- except that we must ban sinful behavior, at least at the local level, and wage a perpetual war of sacrifice against our foreign religious enemies," then the candidate is not acceptable.

Today another main type of candidate is the Pragmatist. (In the 1964 article, Ayn Rand discusses political pragmatism in detail.) By definition, we cannot discover his essential principles because he has no principles and therefore his job performance is unpredictable. In my view, the Pragmatist is dangerous because he can be attacked for imputed principles that he does not actually hold. Today a Republican pragmatist becomes "Mr. Capitalism" to his Democratic collectivist opponents.

With Ayn Rand's guidelines, making a choice is easier.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

An Activist's Choices

This post is a set of notes, not a treatise. I am basing it on my experience, my reading of history (especially for The Power and the Glory), and my observation of activists during my fifty years as a student of Objectivism.

WHAT IS ACTIVISM? If you design and build skyscrapers, you are an architect; if you campaign to eliminate your city's controls on construction, you are an activist. If you make steel rails, you are a manufacturer; if you speak against tariffs on imported steel, you are an activist. If you are hired to explain elementary math to children, you are a teacher; if you work with others to abolish governmental schools, you are an activist.

If you are in business, then offering a product on the market directly benefits both you and your customers. You and they are traders. In contrast, activism for objective people means taking some form of action in society to improve the social circumstances in which individuals trade material and spiritual values. The benefits of activism are indirect.

An activist is free to choose his subject matter, scope of operation, form of action, and other factors. The choices are personal; they are shaped by one's intelligence, ability to learn new skills, and, most of all, one's deepest personal values.

In the battle for a more objective society, the battleground is wide. On one side are ranks of the enemy, standing shoulder to shoulder from one end of the battleground to the other end. They control or threaten every aspect of life. On the other side, the side of advocates for a more objective society, there are many empty spaces waiting to be filled by revolutionaries.

THE CHOICES TO MAKE. Following are some of the factors that an activist can consider in planning his activism. Planning is important because successful activism requires a long effort -- to accumulate skills, acquire specialized knowledge of subject matter, select allies, and make contacts in the appropriate media (decision influencers) and centers of power (the decision makers).

Which Issue? The essential factor in activism -- the factor that shapes many of the other factors -- is the issue you choose to work on. Beyond that, the order of the factors to consider is generally optional.

Example issues are: Regulations enforced by your local government's "Planning Bureau"; the international slave trade; the national prohibition against narcotics; the lack of civility in debate and discussion; ignorance or antipathy toward the scientific method; racism; legislative threats to your profession; altruism vs. egoism in personal life and politics; the latest in a long series of attempted tax increases proposed by your state legislature; or the whole deluge of philosophical, social, and political problems in general.

Brian Phillips, author of Individual Rights and Wrongs: A Defense of Capitalism As the Only Social System That is Both Moral and Practical, has chosen to write broadly about government and individual rights. He has spoken out for years in his own weblog, in a local activist network, and in national publications.

Specialist or generalist? Rather than choose a special, long-term interest, an activist can be a generalist. That means keeping up with the ever-changing parade of issues that are "hot topics" for the mass media and their audiences. Being a successful generalist requires an ability to quickly study an issue, uncover the deeper principles involved, learn the particulars of a few examples, and develop a rational alternative to the present problem.

The danger of general activism is shallowness; and generalists speaking in public forums cannot speak authoritatively. They are therefore less persuasive than specialists who have long studied the issue and practiced presenting their side to a variety of audiences. On the other hand, specialized activists must be prepared to be out of the spotlight of mass media attention most of the time -- and then be in the center of the spotlight for a brief but intense time. Socialized vs. free market medical care is an example of an issue that comes and goes in public attention; the specialists quietly continue their work regardless of the immediate attention they receive.

An example of a specialist is Bosch Fawstin, a highly accomplished illustrator and graphic-novelist who focuses on fighting Islamic aggression. He also writes and speaks out in radio interviews and at conferences.

Geographic scope? An activist can work on an issue in a geographic area small enough that he can easily and repeatedly meet, face to face, all the individuals involved. For example, a local activist could meet the city council members who are considering privatizing city-owned utilities, as well as the other activists who want privatization or who oppose it. Or an activist can work on a larger scale: county, state, region, nation, or world. An example of the last are the activists who work in organizations such as Amnesty International, which pressures governments to release "prisoners of conscience," individuals imprisoned for their beliefs, not for crimes of aggression or fraud. (I am using AI as an example, not endorsing all of its actions; I did volunteer work for AI about 35 years ago, but I have had little contact with AI since then.)

Pro, con, or mixed? In your activism do you want to mainly express support for an objective alternative -- such as explaining the nature and benefits of science -- or do you want to mainly oppose a threat -- such as a particular organization (like the Council on American-Islamic Relations), particular news agency (The New York Times), or even a particular fallacy (like the Broken Window)? If you mix the positive and negative approaches, the proportions are of course optional.

Alex Epstein is the founder and director of the Center for Industrial Progress. A model activist -- indeed an activist "entrepreneur" -- he calls his positive approach "aspirational advocacy".

In-line or off-line? Do you want to make your activism an application of your central purpose in life (CPL)? That approach is in-line activism, which means your activism is in line with, an extension of, or application of your productive purpose in life. An example would be a nuclear engineer who, in the evenings and on the weekends, fights political restrictions on building nuclear power plants.

Or do you want to move away from your CPL to pick an area of activism that has a deep personal value but no direct connection to your CPL -- as when an accountant decides to fight drug laws because he sees the destruction such laws cause.

One example of an "in-line" activist is Paul Hsieh, MD. He is the founder of the weblog Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. He writes letters to editors, "op-eds," and other essays, criticizing proposed and current statist medical programs or advocating separation of Medicine and State. His portfolio has grown steadily through years of effort.

Social relationships? Do you want to work alone (for example, writing letters to editors). Or would you like to network with other activists focused on the same issue? Or do you want to associate with like-minded individuals on a series of intense but occasional, ad hoc projects (such as a temporary committee opposing a proposed state tax increase). Or would you prefer to be the founder or employee of an institution such as the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights? Examples are employees of The Ayn Rand Institute.

Cognitive level? To be most effective, all activism for a more objective society must be an integration of the deepest philosophical principles and the most particular facts. Which do you mainly want to focus on -- for example, propagating principles (such as rational egoism vs. altruism) or working with legislators to change the details of certain existing or proposed laws?

In other words, in the stream of philosophical ripples from the philosopher to the man in the street, do you want to be mainly a philosophical activist, an intellectual activist (who applies philosophical principles to current issues and offers alternative solutions), a principled political activist (stressing the guiding principles of proper government), or a political tactician who takes care of the detailed "mechanics" of political campaigns, such as scheduling a candidate's speaking engagements and so forth?

Apply a particular skill set you already have? Are you now a researcher, writer, accountant, filmmaker, office manager, speaker, salesman, trainer, legal adviser, clerk, or website designer? Would you like to do the work you love, but for an activist organization whose goals you support? The Institute for Justice may be an example of such an organization.

What medium? Through what medium do you expect to propagate ideas -- writing (speeches, weblog posts, magazine articles, books), speaking (in online or face-to-face interviews on radio or TV, or to "live" audiences); or focused personal communication in which you are a salesman?

Investment of time and money? Do you want to eventually work full-time as an activist, or do you want to devote part of your time each week? How much of your own money are you willing to invest in your activism; or would you like to find or create a job as an activist?

A small-scale example. My own activism is the one I know best. In influence, it is very small scale -- but I love doing it. The issue that fascinates me is broad: the war between reason and mysticism in our time. I am "specializing" in that war, but in certain defined ways.

Since I am retired (I am 67), I can devote full time to it. However, my activism is a by-product of my continuing central purpose in life, which is to tell success stories from history. Two earlier products of that central purpose in life are The Aristotle Adventure and The Power and the Glory. Indirectly both support my activism. They help spread ideas I support.

The next major product I plan to create is also a book (in eight or ten years). Between now and then, intermediate products will be mainly the posts I write for my weblog, The Main Event, but occasionally other, related articles such as book reviews for The Objective Standard, here and here. Those short-term writings are, in effect, entries in my work journal; they should become a base for the book.

As I learned initially from philosopher Ayn Rand, fighting for a better world is in fact living in a better world, a world in which I meet individuals who share my values, and we take action toward those values.

If you do choose to become an activist, welcome to a better world.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

The Most Important Books in My Life

At 67, I am beginning the last phase of my life. I am looking back, and one pattern I see is the role of books in my development. They awakened in me the possibility of a life worth living; they helped me solve personal problems that threatened my progress; and they provided the particular information I needed to achieve my four highest personal values: my work, my free-range lifestyle, my friendships, and my favorite leisure activity, reading fiction for happy endings.

The list that follows is a salute to the authors of the books that have enriched my life. The list may also remind those who labor to write books that your writings do have influence, even though you may never see the results.

The following list is organized by category, but the categories are roughly chronological in terms of their first appearance in my life. Not included are the earliest books and comics; none stand out to me now, though I remember reading them avidly for the action and for the exotic situations, as in the long series of Tarzan comics.

1. FICTION. At the age of 12. around 1956, I read Carey Rockwell's Stand by for Mars! (1952). This Tom Corbett Space Cadet Adventure, written for a juvenile audience, is a story of ambition, extraordinary circumstances, and success. It was one of many science fiction stories -- particularly of "future history" -- that I consumed in the following 20 years. (In junior high school, I was intrigued by history but could not make sense of it as a system.)

At about age 15, I began reading Conan Doyle's many Sherlock Holmes short stories. They introduced me to a logical mind, one that explicitly begins with sense-perceptible facts and proceeds to a conclusion that solves a problem -- all in exotic conditions uncovered in everyday life. What I yearned for at this time was a methodical way of dealing with life. I went through a period of near-suicidal depression.

Over the years, I learned that one question matters most in selecting fiction: Would I want to be alive in the world this storyteller has created? I can now answer "Yes!" for casual fiction writers such as Louis L'Amour (Utah Blaine), Rex Stout (Nero Wolfe series), Agatha Christie (Miss Marple series), Robert B. Parker (Spencer series and Randall series), Tolkien (Lord of the Rings trilogy only) and Keith Laumer. They are the writers whose stories I have collected, kept, and will read again and again until the end.

2. PHILOSOPHY. At the age of 17, in March of 1961, I watched a morning television show, an interview of Ayn Rand about her recently published book, For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Her book offered the elements of a framework for viewing my world and my life as a whole. The book, especially the title essay, introduced me not only to her philosophy, Objectivism, but also to the subject that would become the core of my life: the history of the lives of the philosophers. I soon read Ayn Rand's novels and -- by writing to the address printed at the end of Atlas Shrugged -- began obtaining the few, short, nonfiction works that were slowly emerging. I now had the framework I needed, but understanding it and applying it would require a long time. Fifty-one years after seeing that interview, I am still learning and applying.

3. HISTORY. In a Medieval History class at Tulane University, around 1964, I read sections of R. R. Bolgar's The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries. It gave me details that showed that ideas cause history, as Ayn Rand had held. Since then I have purchased hundreds of books on history. A few admirable examples are: John Marenbon, Early Medieval Philosophy and Later Medieval Philosophy; Frederic C. Lane, Venice, a Maritime Republic; and Frederick C. Beiser, The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte.

4. MONEY. When I began working my first professional job, as a writer in a marketing department of an electronics company, I followed the advice of a woman I met there; she was a refugee from the failed 1956 Hungarian Revolution: "Live on one paycheck, and invest the next one." I paid my debts from school and began to look for ways to invest for the future. I wanted to retire early. (The men in my family died young; so, I was told, I should expect the same.) That was around 1969. I read a variety of books on "Austrian" economics and a few on personal investment. The one book that best represents that stream of books is Harry Browne's much later Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong: How You Can Find Safety and Profit in an Uncertain World. I retired at age 45. I have followed Browne's "permanent portfolio" idea for 35 years. (I generally ignored the other half of the book, on a "variable portfolio.")

5. HEALTH. I faced heart disease at the age of 30. A wise doctor gave me a choice: take drugs for the remainder of my life or change my lifestyle. I chose the latter. Among other books, I read Live Longer Now: The First 100 Years of Your Life (1974) by Nathan Pritikin and others. (I have not studied the current version of the Pritikin Program.) Within 15 months, by following its guidelines, I lost 75 pounds and banished my heart disease.

Fifteen years later, my long, cascading series of other medical problems accelerated. Two books, which I read around 2002, led me to solutions to many of the problems. The first, which I still use, is for posture correction: Pete Egoscue's Pain Free: A Revolutionary Method for Stopping Chronic Pain. The second did not solve my many inflammation problems directly, but it did lead me to a diagnostic tool (an elimination diet) and then to a dietary solution: The McDougall Program: 12 Days to Dynamic Health, by John A. McDougall, MD. Thanks to Egoscue and McDougall, years of physical misery were coming to an end.

Books have provided information and fuel, and thus they have helped me shape my life to be what I wanted it to be. Thank you, to all the writers who labored so long and hard.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

What is profane culture?

This is the last in a series of three posts sketching my preliminary understanding of democratic, sacred, and profane culture.

In an online column, Dennis Prager, a tireless advocate of Judaism, discusses a song, "Fuck You," nominated in 2010 to be the Grammy Awards' Record of the Year. Prager says:

[T]he music industry, from producers to artists, is largely populated by people who regard social and cultural norms as stifling. Their professional lives are dedicated to lowering that which is elevated, to destroying that which uplifts, and to profaning that which is held sacred.[1]

A "song" such as "Fuck You" is considered profane by Prager because he holds that all individuals, as the creatures of a perfect God, deserve respect. (The term "fuck" also demeans sexuality.) In a religious context, a profane act is one that violates, demeans, or affronts the sacred, where "sacred" refers to God or something closely related to God.[2]

SECULAR EXAMPLES. I think the concept "profane" is valid in an objective, secular context as well. The profane is that which violates, demeans, or affronts the sacred in man. (See the previous post, "What does 'sacred' mean?")

The weapons in the profane assault on the sacred in man include the following.

1. Speech, in many forms. The issue here is not a curse or other expression that pops from my subconscious after I accidentally drop a brick on my foot. Instead the issue is the conscious choice of a word that assaults one's sense of the sacred. Examples include: (a) "Trash talk," which is "disparaging, taunting, or boastful comments especially between opponents trying to intimidate each other" (The Merriam-Webster online dictionary). Trash talk is communication used between individuals who are in conflict with each other, not trading with each other. Trash talk thus abandons etiquette -- the set of rules and principles designed to facilitate trade between individuals for mutually selfish benefit in society.[3] (b) Sexual terms used as a verbal assault and expressed in demeaning slang ("screw you"). (c) Terms that reduce a value-charged situation to a foul concrete ("makes me vomit"). (d) Slang terms for human organs or bodily functions -- when they do not even need to be named in a particular context -- often with a psychologically revealing special focus on excretion ("sack of shit," "pissed off"). (e) Unearned, undignified, and unwelcome familiarity ("Hey, bro!" or individuals as "folks"). (f) Gangster ("gangsta") talk, including terms of violence and denigration of others. (g) Foul language in general, including fig-leaf acronyms ("WTF").

2. Ways of dress, such as shoes with intentionally untied laces, sagging pants, and torn clothing (as a sign of "poverty chic") -- all for "effect."

3. Personal mannerisms such as slouching or moving in a deliberately jerky or otherwise undignified manner.

4. "Art" that demeans the sacred, directly or indirectly -- such as "gangsta rap" or a painting of a beautiful woman whose skin is marred by disease.

5. Styles of confrontation with other individuals, such as an "in your face" style of speaking that is loud, harsh, insulting, condescending, or physically an invasion of the victim's personal space.

6. Graffiti and other forms of vandalism, as assaults on property rights and other values.

7. Ridicule of an objective valuer, for example, laughing at the holder of objective values by belittling his accent or weight -- allegedly as "humor."

8. Attacking someone while avoiding responsibility, for example, by hiding behind the verbal shield of "jus' saying'" or "just kidding." This approach also denies the target the dignity of being faced openly and honestly, as well as respect for his ability to defend himself as a rational being.

ORIGINS OF PROFANE CULTURE?. I see two possible causes of widespread, sustained profane culture -- psychological and philosophical. The common psychological cause -- easily observed and traced to its roots -- is envy, which is hatred of superiority (real or imagined), or, as philosopher Ayn Rand stated it, "hatred of the good for being the good."[4]

The philosophically motivated democratic movement strives to make everyone equal, often at the price of lowering the high. Is it the cause of profane culture, which tears down the sacred? I seldom see serious, long-term advocates of democratic culture explicitly encourage profanation. What I do see is advocates of democratic culture sanctioning profanation by remaining silent about it. In my experience in speaking with advocates of democratic culture, their usual justification for silence and sanction is their claim that profane culture is merely another manifestation of the culture of "the people" and therefore deserves toleration.

APPLICATION. The kind of world I want to live in is one that rejects the profane and reveres the objectively sacred. Profane culture appears in the lives of upholders of the sacred only if there are no gatekeepers for the sacred or if the gatekeepers are lax. "Open" online discussion groups -- in which any anonymous person can say anything -- are an example.

Making Progress is not an "open" discussion group. Your respectful comments -- additions, deletion, or corrections -- about my notes above are welcome.

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] Dennis Prager, "'F_ _ _ You' from the Music Industry," in "Dennis's Columns," at dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=e952f04d-ae6b-4187-accb-fc26591ed637&url=f---_you_from_the_music_industry. For more on my philosophically negative but personally mixed views of Dennis Prager, see: reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/03/prager-on-reason-and-mysticism.html and http://reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/08/dennis-prager-mystic-activist.html. [2] For a Christian's discussion of sacred and profane in a religious context, with Biblical quotations: jackhammer.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/sacred-common-and-profane-culture/. [3] For discussion of insults: aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/cause-of-history-ideas-or-insults.html. [4] For the concept of envy in Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism: Ayn Rand, "Envy," The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

What does "sacred" mean?

This is the second in a series of three posts sketching my preliminary understanding of democratic, sacred, and profane culture.

RELIGIOUS MEANING. Normally I see the term/concept "sacred" used by religious individuals, for example, Biblical writers writing about the prescribed construction of the sacred Ark of the Covenant, at Exodus 25, and the penalty of death for touching the sacred ark, at 1 Chronicles 13:9-10.[1] Religionists typically apply the term/idea of "sacred" to elements of their own religion, which is a worldview based on mysticism. Sometimes advocates of conservatism -- the ideology defined by the four essential values of God, Tradition, Nation, and Family -- use the term "sacred" to describe personal characteristics such as honor. Even then, the religionists often tie this use of the term back to their religion through such supernaturalist notions as "God-given rights."

OBJECTIVE MEANING. Does "sacred" have meaning outside a religious context? Philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982) explains the historical background for such a concept:

But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before man graduated or developed enough to have a philosophy.[2]

Within that frame of reference, Ayn Rand points at

a special category of abstractions, the most exalted one, which, for centuries, as been the near monopoly of religion: ethics ... with the emotional connotations of height, uplift, nobility, reverence, grandeur, which pertain to the realm of man's values, but which religion has arrogated to itself . . . .[3]

In a religious and therefore supernaturalist context, she explains, such concepts as "sacred" have no earthly referent. In a secular context, however, such concepts do have objective meaning. Ayn Rand continues:

What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. ... It is this highest level of man's emotion that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.[4] ...

[Consider] the look on a child's face when he grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph .... If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as 'sacred' -- meaning: the best, the highest possible to man-- this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone.[5] (Bold added)

A PERSONAL DEFINITION. What is the sacred in man? I use the term sacred to refer to those personal attributes -- and their artifacts -- that an individual requires to survive and flourish. Examples are his pride (moral ambition), his dignity, his capacity for exaltation, his central purpose in life, his faculty of reason, and his self-esteem.[6]

I think that an objective man psychologically has a "sense of the sacred." It is an expression of his awareness -- at all times, even if only in the background of his mind -- that his life is his fundamental value and that maintaining that value requires -- as inviolable -- certain other supporting values to be sacred.

A man who has a sense of the sacred does not laugh at himself; nor does he sanction diminution by others. A man who has a sense of the sacred is dignified and he is respectful to others -- as were the moral characters of Ayn Rand's novels and as was the novelist herself.[7] A man who has a sense of the sacred is a man who strives to be the best he can be in all ways -- from the quality of his work, at whatever level it may be, to his manner of dress and style of speaking. In contrast, a profane man not only accepts low standards, he flaunts them.

Next post: What is profane culture?

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] For a Christian's discussion of sacred and profane in a religious context, with Biblical quotations: Kent Brandenburg, "The Culture War: Sacred, Common, and Profane Culture," Feb. 21, 2008, on the weblog Jack Hammer, at: http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/sacred-common-and-profane-culture/. Brandenburg rejects multiculturalism, egalitarianism, skepticism, and other modern ideas that undermine the idea of the sacred in Christianity. He is a clear and entertaining writer -- and a worthy opponent in the war between reason and mysticism. [2] For the quoted passage: Ayn Rand, "Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand," pamphlet, p. 10, cited in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, under "Religion," p. 411. [3] For the quoted passage: Ayn Rand, "Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand," pamphlet, p. 10, cited in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, under "Religion," p. 414. [4] For the quoted passage: Ayn Rand, "Introduction to The Fountainhead", 25th Anniversary Edition, reproduced in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 415, excerpted from The Objectivist, March 1968, p. 4. [5] For the quoted passage: Ayn Rand, "Sacred," in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, quoting from "Requiem for Man," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 303. [6] For the meaning of "exaltation," see Andy Clarkson's inspiring and informative collection of comments, at his weblog, Exalted Moments, http://exaltedmoments.blogspot.com. The antidote for encountering elements of profane culture is the experience of one's own exalted moments or even merely the observation of others' exalted moments. [7] In Ayn Rand's novels, examples of moral characters, at various levels of achievement, having a "sense of the sacred" are Howard Roark (The Fountainhead), Austin Heller (The Fountainhead), John Galt (Atlas Shrugged), and Dagny Taggart (Atlas Shrugged). (For the latter, I am thinking in particular of the scene in which Dagny Taggart kills the guard outside the torture chamber.) For glimpses of Ayn Rand's own sense of the sacred, study Scott Connell, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

What is democratic culture?

This is the first in a series of three posts sketching my preliminary understanding of democratic, sacred, and profane culture.

Understanding a culture in a particular period involves identifying not only the elements of that culture, but their interrelationships too. Are there patterns among the cultural elements? Which of the elements are causes and which are the effects?[1] This post is a sketch of one pattern among many in the overall culture of America today.

ORIGIN. The democratic movement is the movement of individuals who are striving to establish and expand a democratic society.[2] The term "democracy," for these individuals, names a concept that covers far more than only a particular form of government. One democratic activist, Yale University professor of constitutional law Jack M. Balkin, explains his view of democracy and identifies the root of the democratic movement:

The ultimate goal of our constitutional order is not merely to produce democratic procedures but a democratic culture: a culture in which all citizens can participate and feel that they have a stake, a culture in which unjust social privileges and status hierarchies have been disestablished. . . . Democracy inheres not only in procedural mechanisms like universal suffrage but in cultural modes like dress, language, manners, and behavior. Political egalitarianism must be nourished by cultural egalitarianism.[3]

Democratic advocate Randy Fullerton Sardis, an admirer of Balkin, elaborates:

Democratic culture is about individual liberty as well as collective self-governance; it concerns each individual's ability to participate in the production and distribution of culture. Removing the political, economical, and cultural elitists from their thrones and allowing everyone a chance to participate in the production of culture, sounds like a wonderful idea in my opinion.[4]

Culture, in its broadest meaning, refers to all those artifacts which can be produced by individuals in one generation and bequeathed to later generations. Democratic culture is the set of cultural elements produced by members of the democratic movement as part of their effort to create democracy.

EXAMPLES. Examples of democratic culture include: magazine articles calling for "net neutrality"; rap music lyrics berating the "elite"; Harvard philosophy professor John Rawls's book Theory of Justice (1971); a progressive income tax used to fund redistribution of income from the most productive to the least productive; "stakeholder" organizations who try, in corporate stockholders' meetings, to influence business policies and products to benefit "the people"; tax-funded "public" libraries that give everyone equal access to information; and support for folk art or the "everyday art" of "the people."

PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS. Certain institutions are also examples of democratic culture. An institution is an organization designed to continue operating even after the resignation, retirement, or death of the founding members. For instance, consider one particular institution, The Center for Democratic Culture, which is housed in the Sociology Department of the University of Nevada. Its CDC Mission Statement reveals the institution's underlying philosophy:

The Center for Democratic Culture ... derives its philosophy from American pragmatism, which regards democracy as an ongoing experiment in collective living and institution building. Democracy, according to [philosopher of Pragmatism] John Dewey [1859-1952], begins at home in a neighborly community, and is first and foremost a quality of experience.[5]

"Quality of experience" is a euphemism for life in an all-encompassing culture and society of egalitarian collectivism. And that is what democratic culture is: the culture of egalitarian collectivism.

Next post in this series: "What does 'sacred' mean?"

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For a brief explanation of the principle of cultural detection: Leonard Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, hardcover, pp. 143-144, the first one and a half pages of Ch. 7. [2] For the nature of a movement: "What is a movement?," July 5, 2008, on Making Progress, at aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-movement.html. For an objective definition of political "democracy," as a dictatorship by the majority of a society, see: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html. [3] Jack M. Balkin, "The Declaration and the Promise of a Democratic Culture," 1999, pp. 6-7 of my printout, www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/declar1.htm. (Caution: The text duplicates some paragraphs.) [4] Randy Fullerton Sardis, "What is a Democratic Culture?," Feb. 3, 2009, p. 3 of my printout, on the weblog at atuuschaaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-democratic-culture.html. [5] For the CDC's mission: www.unlv.edu/centers/cdclv/mission/index2.html under Mission/Statement in the upper left corner.