I've had the opportunity to think a lot lately on why I work from home as opposed to finding a secure job where I could earn a lot more money. It's not that I didn't know the reasons before, it's that I couldn't have articulated them as well.
Almost as important as the reasons I do work from home are reasons other people have for desiring my situation. I believe that some of these are counter-productive to working at home. I'll start with them:
Reasons that don't make sense for the entrepreneur
1) Money
Sure, it sounds great. You're taking out the middle-man. You can offer your services without having your company take out all the middle expenses.
Be realistic.
Entrepreneurship is a risk. You're not guaranteed success or money. Be ready to accept that you'll possibly be making less money than you would at a full-time job. With no benefits. And less security. There's a chance that you'll make it big, but there's a much greater chance that you won't. Recognize that it's a gamble.
2) Fewer Hours, More Freedom
This sounds silly, but I have friends who want to start their own business so they don't have to work so many hours (ie, 40). If you're serious about your entrepreneurship, be willing to devote more than 40 hours if you want any measure of success. I haven't done that, you say? True. But few would call me successful. I've been lucky, but not everyone will be. Don't assume you'll be lucky too.
You can get more flexibility working for yourself. Don't confuse that with more time off.
-------------------------------------
Those are the reasons that come readily to mind that friends have had for wanting to "entrepreneur". Now, why do I do it?
1) Freedom with myself
I'm my own boss. I work for my clients and they are the people I need to please, but I get to choose how the work is done and what is important. I have creative freedom to do things how I see best, and I don't have any bureaucracy or red tape to cut through. I can work efficiently without having to justify myself to anyone but the end client.
2) Freedom with boss (clients)
I chose to work for the poker clients, but I was never excited about the work. Why? Because they didn't really care about their product. They were in it solely for the money, and they could care less about the end product we created for them as long as it did what it needed to. That's very unfulfilling work as compared to my primary client. When you work for a client that cares about what they do, you work in a situation where your own effort and hard work is recognized and appreciated. When I work, I work hard and I try to deliver a quality product. Maybe it sounds weak, but it's so much more meaningful to have that recognized.
3) Freedom with organizational structure
I aspire to grow my work to a level where I have enough work to warrant the use of several programmers to create teams. At that point, I have almost complete freedom over how the business will be run (I use almost because there are laws I'll have to follow). Perhaps I can avoid the office environment you find in Dilbert with creative management. Until I do have employees, I also control my internal systems. I decide the level of paperwork required and any other procedures. This is a liberating freedom.
-------------------------------------
I like working for myself, but more importantly I like my work.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Incompetence
I think one of my greatest motivators has been fear of my own incompetence. When I look at periods where I'm unusually driven, it's normally out of a desire to improve what I feel is an unacceptable state. My motivation does not come from wanting to be the best I can be...it's simply unacceptable to be below average.
It's not that I don't have other motivation - I can inspire myself to do better because I know it's the right thing or I know it will help me, but the innate drive to avoid incompetence is effortless and irresistible. I can never be below average for long about something I care about - I'll do whatever it takes to make sure that's not the case.
What does this say about me? I'm not sure. I don't even know for sure if it's unusual, but I imagine it is.
It's not that I don't have other motivation - I can inspire myself to do better because I know it's the right thing or I know it will help me, but the innate drive to avoid incompetence is effortless and irresistible. I can never be below average for long about something I care about - I'll do whatever it takes to make sure that's not the case.
What does this say about me? I'm not sure. I don't even know for sure if it's unusual, but I imagine it is.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Part 2
So, part 2. I'll be making a lot of ties between the discussion and Rand's works/philosophy...try to keep up.
I ended my last post mentioning the group of intellectuals that began gathering. This group discussed Atlas Shrugged as it was written. I have to admit I have some jealousy here...I have not once been in a group of great thinkers in discussion of what would become the second most influential novel of all time. Not once.
I'm going to jump ahead right into one of Branden's criticisms of objectivism.
"If you are thinking rationally, your feelings will follow. If your feelings and logic are out of sync, your logic is bad." He also says that feelings that don't match are simply "swept under the rug" - basically, they are ignored. Is it human condition to have feelings that don't make sense logically?
I don't want to discuss the chemical aspect (ie eating chocolate makes me happy when logically I'd be sad). I think, specifically, Branden was referring to his doubts and the fact that he didn't love Rand. What about the initial feelings of like, dislike, or the connection we feel with some people that we don't feel with others? I'm still thinking about it, but I think that all of our feelings do have a logical base. It's easy to argue that Branden simply had perceptions he was not aware of - basically, he gathered information that his brain had processed but it hadn't fully developed in his conscious mind. Maybe he repressed the information, as it was a truth he didn't want to face. I think that our initial feelings can also be described in such a way - we make a judgment, consciously or unconsciously, about a person based on the information we have - their appearance, their body language, etc. I don't feel my ideas here are well developed, I'm kind of writing as I think.
One thing that I found interesting (and I'm surprised my sole reader Lydia didn't brandish the topic angrily) is how Wilber tried to spread the credit of Atlas Shrugged upon the whole intellectual discussion group. This is at odds, of course, with her books if she considers herself a "prime mover". Roark, Rearden...her creators are the ones responsible for the end product, not those that help them create. I cannot verify it, but I've always felt Rand, at some level, based her leads upon herself. Of course we say that Branden is the basis for Rearden, but what I mean is that Rand also had an amazing passion for her work and for creation. I think she would hate to have the credit for her work and ideas go out to this group.
The book was released to a culture that didn't accept it. I've got two theories on this - one that's not mine and is smart, and another that is mine. First, though, I'd like to mention another book similarity. Rand was depressed that Shrugged was so horribly received. According to the interview, critics gave it horrendous reviews and the intellectual crowd rejected it as well. Rand reminded me, at this point, of her architect Henry Cameron from "The Fountainhead". Cameron was a "true" artist - he loved his work and his work was quality. Cameron was already disenchanted with society by the time we are introduced to him; he is jaded beyond retribution. If Rand was depressed she must have felt like Cameron - she must have felt there was nothing that could be done to make society appreciate true art.
Rand's leads have an uncanny amount of personal strength, perhaps an impossible amount. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect her to take that role: she sees them as ideals that even she cannot live up to. I suppose Rand didn't give up, she was merely disheartened...understandably. She had put so much effort into her novel only to have it dismissed as worthless - it's hard not to compare her to a lead.
So why didn't culture accept it? First, let me cite the work of a relatively unknown expert in objectivism. She asked me not to quote so I'll have to paraphrase:
The basis of Rand's objectivism was very similar to the basis of the philosophy of modernism - "a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, and reshape their environment..." Rand's ideas took place after a cultural shift had taken place and the intellectual community was focused on postmodernism. Postmodernism counters many of the founding principles of modernism by questioning if they truly exist. The similarity to modernism may have caused people to think that she was encouraging a return to an old philosophy - a philosophy believed to have been improved upon - and therefore dismissed her ideas.
While I agree with the above, I have another perspective to add. Rand was a bit of a victim of her own vision (yet again). One of the guiding principles of art, in her mind, was its originality. For example, her architect did not believe in simply using old styles of architecture, nor did he believe in taking the best of the most recent style and attempting to improve upon it. He had his own style - a wonderful, original style without any historical origins. I believe she attempted to craft her philosophy as such - she didn't want to build off an existing philosophy, she wanted to start anew ignoring what she felt were obsolete methods of thinking. Perhaps it was it's originality, and not it's similarity to modernism, that led to its dismissal.
For a good part of the majority of the interview, Branden discusses the bias of objectivism towards feelings, especially feelings that don't fit the logical framework. I don't have much to comment on this part, other than there is a statement worth thinking about: "All of the major mistakes I've made in life have been when I've neglected something I was feeling." I need to make some more major mistakes in my life before I can discuss this without feeling awkward. Branden feels there's a relationship between reason and emotion - that emotions should be used as guideposts.
I think what Branden means by this is that our emotions can be a source of information. They can be a way to tap into something we might not consciously realize. I don't know how valuable they are. A simple the example is that first impression emotion I made earlier. There have been people that I just didn't like after looking at them, or possibly talking to them once...but I didn't have any logical reason I could think of for this dislike. Obviously, that first impression was wrong and my emotions were, well, worthless. This doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to my emotions, it means I don't know how to tell which ones are valuable and which aren't.
So, time for an Aaron observation. "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" is Branden's most popular book. I think authors can relate best to others when they first start a philosophical or psychological journey. Most of us start with premises that are at least fairly similar - at the very least you will have an audience that starts with the same premises. I don't believe that everyone progress past the first steps, though, and I also believe that we don't all move in the same direction. Branden's later books are written after he's further along his spiritual path as he is an individual who is serious about personal growth and therefore not the type to stagnate in the beginning steps. It's much more difficult to find an audience for books written in this state - they almost have to have enjoyed his previous books and started a path similar to his to get value from the books.
It's interesting that Branden felt (rightly so, I believe) that many of his objectivist friends ended their friendship after the Rand breakup not because of Rand, but because they were worried Branden was continuing down an intellectual path and they didn't want to change their personal philosophy. It's common, I believe, to become content or to lose interest in developing our world-view. In my experience, most people actively stop developing their world-view when they leave school. I think a sure sign is when instead of looking for new ideas you look for material that supports your existing ideas. Basically, it implies that you think you're right...or at least right enough. I think I'm still in development...or possibly that I stopped when I was 7 or 8. I have always been very stubborn.
The last thought that had importance to me in the first interview was "Nobody was ever led to virtue by being told he was wrong." I disagree - sometimes you have to tell someone if they're wrong. I like it when people tell me I'm wrong - if it's something important, I'll react petulantly and probably ridicule them as a self-defense mechanism, but I'm likely to think about it later. So I like this idea, but the use of the word "ever" is poor. In the act of virtue-guiding, you have to choose your leash wisely.
My metaphors are horrible.
I ended my last post mentioning the group of intellectuals that began gathering. This group discussed Atlas Shrugged as it was written. I have to admit I have some jealousy here...I have not once been in a group of great thinkers in discussion of what would become the second most influential novel of all time. Not once.
I'm going to jump ahead right into one of Branden's criticisms of objectivism.
"If you are thinking rationally, your feelings will follow. If your feelings and logic are out of sync, your logic is bad." He also says that feelings that don't match are simply "swept under the rug" - basically, they are ignored. Is it human condition to have feelings that don't make sense logically?
I don't want to discuss the chemical aspect (ie eating chocolate makes me happy when logically I'd be sad). I think, specifically, Branden was referring to his doubts and the fact that he didn't love Rand. What about the initial feelings of like, dislike, or the connection we feel with some people that we don't feel with others? I'm still thinking about it, but I think that all of our feelings do have a logical base. It's easy to argue that Branden simply had perceptions he was not aware of - basically, he gathered information that his brain had processed but it hadn't fully developed in his conscious mind. Maybe he repressed the information, as it was a truth he didn't want to face. I think that our initial feelings can also be described in such a way - we make a judgment, consciously or unconsciously, about a person based on the information we have - their appearance, their body language, etc. I don't feel my ideas here are well developed, I'm kind of writing as I think.
One thing that I found interesting (and I'm surprised my sole reader Lydia didn't brandish the topic angrily) is how Wilber tried to spread the credit of Atlas Shrugged upon the whole intellectual discussion group. This is at odds, of course, with her books if she considers herself a "prime mover". Roark, Rearden...her creators are the ones responsible for the end product, not those that help them create. I cannot verify it, but I've always felt Rand, at some level, based her leads upon herself. Of course we say that Branden is the basis for Rearden, but what I mean is that Rand also had an amazing passion for her work and for creation. I think she would hate to have the credit for her work and ideas go out to this group.
The book was released to a culture that didn't accept it. I've got two theories on this - one that's not mine and is smart, and another that is mine. First, though, I'd like to mention another book similarity. Rand was depressed that Shrugged was so horribly received. According to the interview, critics gave it horrendous reviews and the intellectual crowd rejected it as well. Rand reminded me, at this point, of her architect Henry Cameron from "The Fountainhead". Cameron was a "true" artist - he loved his work and his work was quality. Cameron was already disenchanted with society by the time we are introduced to him; he is jaded beyond retribution. If Rand was depressed she must have felt like Cameron - she must have felt there was nothing that could be done to make society appreciate true art.
Rand's leads have an uncanny amount of personal strength, perhaps an impossible amount. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect her to take that role: she sees them as ideals that even she cannot live up to. I suppose Rand didn't give up, she was merely disheartened...understandably. She had put so much effort into her novel only to have it dismissed as worthless - it's hard not to compare her to a lead.
So why didn't culture accept it? First, let me cite the work of a relatively unknown expert in objectivism. She asked me not to quote so I'll have to paraphrase:
The basis of Rand's objectivism was very similar to the basis of the philosophy of modernism - "a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, and reshape their environment..." Rand's ideas took place after a cultural shift had taken place and the intellectual community was focused on postmodernism. Postmodernism counters many of the founding principles of modernism by questioning if they truly exist. The similarity to modernism may have caused people to think that she was encouraging a return to an old philosophy - a philosophy believed to have been improved upon - and therefore dismissed her ideas.
While I agree with the above, I have another perspective to add. Rand was a bit of a victim of her own vision (yet again). One of the guiding principles of art, in her mind, was its originality. For example, her architect did not believe in simply using old styles of architecture, nor did he believe in taking the best of the most recent style and attempting to improve upon it. He had his own style - a wonderful, original style without any historical origins. I believe she attempted to craft her philosophy as such - she didn't want to build off an existing philosophy, she wanted to start anew ignoring what she felt were obsolete methods of thinking. Perhaps it was it's originality, and not it's similarity to modernism, that led to its dismissal.
For a good part of the majority of the interview, Branden discusses the bias of objectivism towards feelings, especially feelings that don't fit the logical framework. I don't have much to comment on this part, other than there is a statement worth thinking about: "All of the major mistakes I've made in life have been when I've neglected something I was feeling." I need to make some more major mistakes in my life before I can discuss this without feeling awkward. Branden feels there's a relationship between reason and emotion - that emotions should be used as guideposts.
I think what Branden means by this is that our emotions can be a source of information. They can be a way to tap into something we might not consciously realize. I don't know how valuable they are. A simple the example is that first impression emotion I made earlier. There have been people that I just didn't like after looking at them, or possibly talking to them once...but I didn't have any logical reason I could think of for this dislike. Obviously, that first impression was wrong and my emotions were, well, worthless. This doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to my emotions, it means I don't know how to tell which ones are valuable and which aren't.
So, time for an Aaron observation. "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" is Branden's most popular book. I think authors can relate best to others when they first start a philosophical or psychological journey. Most of us start with premises that are at least fairly similar - at the very least you will have an audience that starts with the same premises. I don't believe that everyone progress past the first steps, though, and I also believe that we don't all move in the same direction. Branden's later books are written after he's further along his spiritual path as he is an individual who is serious about personal growth and therefore not the type to stagnate in the beginning steps. It's much more difficult to find an audience for books written in this state - they almost have to have enjoyed his previous books and started a path similar to his to get value from the books.
It's interesting that Branden felt (rightly so, I believe) that many of his objectivist friends ended their friendship after the Rand breakup not because of Rand, but because they were worried Branden was continuing down an intellectual path and they didn't want to change their personal philosophy. It's common, I believe, to become content or to lose interest in developing our world-view. In my experience, most people actively stop developing their world-view when they leave school. I think a sure sign is when instead of looking for new ideas you look for material that supports your existing ideas. Basically, it implies that you think you're right...or at least right enough. I think I'm still in development...or possibly that I stopped when I was 7 or 8. I have always been very stubborn.
The last thought that had importance to me in the first interview was "Nobody was ever led to virtue by being told he was wrong." I disagree - sometimes you have to tell someone if they're wrong. I like it when people tell me I'm wrong - if it's something important, I'll react petulantly and probably ridicule them as a self-defense mechanism, but I'm likely to think about it later. So I like this idea, but the use of the word "ever" is poor. In the act of virtue-guiding, you have to choose your leash wisely.
My metaphors are horrible.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Soccer
God I love to play soccer.
I love the feeling of not feeling anything but yourself and your body that comes, fleetingly, for an instant. I put everything my body can do into a movement, into a decision and it responds. I'm in a different mental state - the world no longer exists, there is only me. There's a confidence that comes with practice - a confidence that I can succeed. In these instants, there is no confidence, only a knowing that what I wish for will happen.
I love that feeling. I love those instants.
I love the feeling of not feeling anything but yourself and your body that comes, fleetingly, for an instant. I put everything my body can do into a movement, into a decision and it responds. I'm in a different mental state - the world no longer exists, there is only me. There's a confidence that comes with practice - a confidence that I can succeed. In these instants, there is no confidence, only a knowing that what I wish for will happen.
I love that feeling. I love those instants.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Branden Interview, Section 1
I haven't started writing it, but I can tell you now this blog entry will be long. I'll be discussing my thoughts and reactions to an interview of Nathaniel Branden by Ken Wilber. You can find links to the interviews below if you're interested in listening to them - it's about 2.5 hours, but not bad for listening to on a long trip if you have interest in the subject. If you're going to put them on CDs you have to put Part 1 and Part 3 on a CD, and then Part 2 and Part 4 on a CD (Part 1 and 2 are too large for 1 CD). In this section I'll only be discussing Part 1 and 2, I don't know when I'll get to the next two...possibly not until next weekend.
Download Links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Background Info:
Ayn Rand is an author whose most famous work, Atlus Shrugged, is consistently rated the second most influential book in people's lives (second to The Bible). She is the founder of a school of philosophy known as Objectivism; -"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".
Nathaniel Branden was a follower of the Objectivist movement and is thought to be the basis for the main character in Atlas Shrugged (Rand's portrayal of the "perfect" man). He and Rand were romantically involved during the writing of the book and he founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a school that offered lecture courses on Objectivism. He later left Rand and attempted to transcend the theories of objectivism, and became a writer.
Ken Wilber is a Buddhist writer/philosopher/psychologist/theologist. I can't say I know a lot about him, if you're interested feel free to Google.
Down to business:
Despite the obvious influence of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy it has been largely ignored by intellectual and was shunned by both media and many intellectuals on its release. I believe Rand had the misfortune of writing the right things in the wrong time. In the 1950s, many intellectuals had a strong belief that capitalism was failing and it was soon to be replaced by the superior collectivism. If her work had been released upon a culture more like ours: an anti-communist society with less trust of the government, we may have been more accepting. Nevertheless Rand's work strongly influenced many people, including Nathaniel Branden (who was first introduced to the work as a teen).
Early on in the interview, Branden brings up some teenage philosophy he felt guided him through a portion of the beginning of his life. He felt that the entire world was trying to push its view upon him and that it was important to maintain his individualism. In order to do so, he decided he wouldn't accept anything as truth that he couldn't personally verify. I think Objectivism supports this view in a sense - it puts ultimate value in the individual and his or her judgment. I also think Branden is right on in his evaluation of the mindset: "it was extremely helpful, but you waste a lot of time rediscovering the wheel".
Branden sent a letter to Rand when he was almost 20 years old with some questions about the book. It's ironic that Rand's husband, Frank, is the one that recognized the intelligence in young Branden's letter. He suggested that she contact him and help him develop his ideas. I think it's important to note that Branden mentions that upon meeting Rand he felt, for the first time in his life, that he belonged. Stealing from God's Debris (page 112 or so), this was a meeting of two "idea people". Not only that, but their ideas connected in a way that allowed them to build upon their own ideas (just speculation). As an idea person myself I can verify - it's a very rare but a very exciting moment to meet someone like that. In fact, let me clarify even more...since it's my blog, I get to write about myself.
Well first of all, that passage from God's Debris is wrong. It's wrong on many levels, but most importantly it's wrong in stating that idea people only like to talk about their own ideas, they don't like to listen to others. Anyway, I'm really not very good at small conversation. Fortunately I have very good listening skills and since most people are perfectly fine talking about themselves this doesn't cause many problems. But the truth is I get bored easily talking (listening) of things with little significance. I suppose it's normal to get bored talking about things you don't care about - there are just a lot of things I don't care about. You know, it's probably safer to stop this train of thought before it causes problems. I really wanted to say "stop this train of thought before it hits me" but that doesn't make sense - its just a funny image.
So when Rand and Branden met, she asked him three questions. I feel she must have thought these questions very indicative of a "good thinker" - most good thinkers think other good thinkers should think similarly to them. That's a mouthful. She asked #1) What do you think of reason? #2) Is man intrinsically good or bad, and #3) What do you think of life? Is it good or bad?. Each of these questions have their own significance - they are covered in the interview, but I'll review here.
The reason Rand asked question #1 was because of her supreme reverence for reason as the only source of information. The question was basically "Do you believe there is any other way to gather information other than through reason?". It's an interesting question because to answer yes is to completely discredit intuition or any metaphysical guidance. I recently read "Power vs. Force", and I somehow simultaneously enjoyed and hated the book. I hated the book because the main idea the author tried to push was that every idea, action, object...everything had an objective numeric value to our life (between 1 and 1000). By thinking about the object and listening to our body, we could find the value of that object. The basis for the idea is that positive things make your body go strong, weak things make your body go weak. A real-life example (that does work, by the way) takes two people. Have one person hold their arms out straight (Person A), and have the other person try to push one arm down (Person G). You'll need to do this twice - once while the Person A is thinking about how (possibly even saying out loud) they simply can't stop the other person from pushing their arms down. The second time, Person A should be thinking/saying confidently, that they can hold up their arms and stop Person G. For whatever reason, the positive thought affects our bodies ability to resist. Person A may not stop Person G, but person G will certainly notice an increased resistance. Anyway, it's a long jump from their to the author's conclusion. I did find value in the book though because even though I hated the method, I enjoyed some of the results. It was interesting to hear the numeric valuations of various objects and philosophies, even if I had no faith in the method with which they were conceived. I suppose the most interesting valuations was that of the different states of conciousness. Maybe sometime I'll write more about this. I doubt it. Back on topic.
Rand asked question two mostly because she wanted to verify there wasn't any Christian belief that man is born corrupt and there is no chance to redeem ourselves. Man, I hate the idea of original sin as well, but I’ve covered that before.
The third question was interesting and I think it has a little to do with common philosophies at the time. Sadly, I don't know enough about philosophy to name them but I'd bet on existentialism and determinism - maybe my New York philosophy expert (or any other reader) can help me out here. Anyway, the point is that she wanted to make sure that Branden didn't believe it wasn't possible to be happy or to achieve anything in life (Branden's words were "life was impossible because the cards are stacked horribly against you"). Branden's answer was exactly what she was looking for and also what I believe - if we find the right way to live we can be ecstatic. It's interesting that in Atlas Shrugged Rand's characters could never be happy as long as they were part of (dysfunctional) society. The answer she wanted from Branden is at odds with her philosophy as written in her books.
So Branden spent more time with Rand, a small intellectual group was formed, and I'm going to call it quits on this post for now. It's much longer than I thought it would be, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through my notes about the things I want to discuss. I'll post this as is, but I may remove it or edit it after I get a night's sleep and realize I should cut the parts that aren't interesting (all of it) and leave the parts that are.
Download Links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Background Info:
Ayn Rand is an author whose most famous work, Atlus Shrugged, is consistently rated the second most influential book in people's lives (second to The Bible). She is the founder of a school of philosophy known as Objectivism; -"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".
Nathaniel Branden was a follower of the Objectivist movement and is thought to be the basis for the main character in Atlas Shrugged (Rand's portrayal of the "perfect" man). He and Rand were romantically involved during the writing of the book and he founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a school that offered lecture courses on Objectivism. He later left Rand and attempted to transcend the theories of objectivism, and became a writer.
Ken Wilber is a Buddhist writer/philosopher/psychologist/theologist. I can't say I know a lot about him, if you're interested feel free to Google.
Down to business:
Despite the obvious influence of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy it has been largely ignored by intellectual and was shunned by both media and many intellectuals on its release. I believe Rand had the misfortune of writing the right things in the wrong time. In the 1950s, many intellectuals had a strong belief that capitalism was failing and it was soon to be replaced by the superior collectivism. If her work had been released upon a culture more like ours: an anti-communist society with less trust of the government, we may have been more accepting. Nevertheless Rand's work strongly influenced many people, including Nathaniel Branden (who was first introduced to the work as a teen).
Early on in the interview, Branden brings up some teenage philosophy he felt guided him through a portion of the beginning of his life. He felt that the entire world was trying to push its view upon him and that it was important to maintain his individualism. In order to do so, he decided he wouldn't accept anything as truth that he couldn't personally verify. I think Objectivism supports this view in a sense - it puts ultimate value in the individual and his or her judgment. I also think Branden is right on in his evaluation of the mindset: "it was extremely helpful, but you waste a lot of time rediscovering the wheel".
Branden sent a letter to Rand when he was almost 20 years old with some questions about the book. It's ironic that Rand's husband, Frank, is the one that recognized the intelligence in young Branden's letter. He suggested that she contact him and help him develop his ideas. I think it's important to note that Branden mentions that upon meeting Rand he felt, for the first time in his life, that he belonged. Stealing from God's Debris (page 112 or so), this was a meeting of two "idea people". Not only that, but their ideas connected in a way that allowed them to build upon their own ideas (just speculation). As an idea person myself I can verify - it's a very rare but a very exciting moment to meet someone like that. In fact, let me clarify even more...since it's my blog, I get to write about myself.
Well first of all, that passage from God's Debris is wrong. It's wrong on many levels, but most importantly it's wrong in stating that idea people only like to talk about their own ideas, they don't like to listen to others. Anyway, I'm really not very good at small conversation. Fortunately I have very good listening skills and since most people are perfectly fine talking about themselves this doesn't cause many problems. But the truth is I get bored easily talking (listening) of things with little significance. I suppose it's normal to get bored talking about things you don't care about - there are just a lot of things I don't care about. You know, it's probably safer to stop this train of thought before it causes problems. I really wanted to say "stop this train of thought before it hits me" but that doesn't make sense - its just a funny image.
So when Rand and Branden met, she asked him three questions. I feel she must have thought these questions very indicative of a "good thinker" - most good thinkers think other good thinkers should think similarly to them. That's a mouthful. She asked #1) What do you think of reason? #2) Is man intrinsically good or bad, and #3) What do you think of life? Is it good or bad?. Each of these questions have their own significance - they are covered in the interview, but I'll review here.
The reason Rand asked question #1 was because of her supreme reverence for reason as the only source of information. The question was basically "Do you believe there is any other way to gather information other than through reason?". It's an interesting question because to answer yes is to completely discredit intuition or any metaphysical guidance. I recently read "Power vs. Force", and I somehow simultaneously enjoyed and hated the book. I hated the book because the main idea the author tried to push was that every idea, action, object...everything had an objective numeric value to our life (between 1 and 1000). By thinking about the object and listening to our body, we could find the value of that object. The basis for the idea is that positive things make your body go strong, weak things make your body go weak. A real-life example (that does work, by the way) takes two people. Have one person hold their arms out straight (Person A), and have the other person try to push one arm down (Person G). You'll need to do this twice - once while the Person A is thinking about how (possibly even saying out loud) they simply can't stop the other person from pushing their arms down. The second time, Person A should be thinking/saying confidently, that they can hold up their arms and stop Person G. For whatever reason, the positive thought affects our bodies ability to resist. Person A may not stop Person G, but person G will certainly notice an increased resistance. Anyway, it's a long jump from their to the author's conclusion. I did find value in the book though because even though I hated the method, I enjoyed some of the results. It was interesting to hear the numeric valuations of various objects and philosophies, even if I had no faith in the method with which they were conceived. I suppose the most interesting valuations was that of the different states of conciousness. Maybe sometime I'll write more about this. I doubt it. Back on topic.
Rand asked question two mostly because she wanted to verify there wasn't any Christian belief that man is born corrupt and there is no chance to redeem ourselves. Man, I hate the idea of original sin as well, but I’ve covered that before.
The third question was interesting and I think it has a little to do with common philosophies at the time. Sadly, I don't know enough about philosophy to name them but I'd bet on existentialism and determinism - maybe my New York philosophy expert (or any other reader) can help me out here. Anyway, the point is that she wanted to make sure that Branden didn't believe it wasn't possible to be happy or to achieve anything in life (Branden's words were "life was impossible because the cards are stacked horribly against you"). Branden's answer was exactly what she was looking for and also what I believe - if we find the right way to live we can be ecstatic. It's interesting that in Atlas Shrugged Rand's characters could never be happy as long as they were part of (dysfunctional) society. The answer she wanted from Branden is at odds with her philosophy as written in her books.
So Branden spent more time with Rand, a small intellectual group was formed, and I'm going to call it quits on this post for now. It's much longer than I thought it would be, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through my notes about the things I want to discuss. I'll post this as is, but I may remove it or edit it after I get a night's sleep and realize I should cut the parts that aren't interesting (all of it) and leave the parts that are.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A Work/Life Update
Hey! My first update on Blogspot. I'm switching because I don't like that Xanga requires you to register to leave a comment - now whoever you are, you can comment freely! The actual update is fairly mundane, sadly...just a little Aaron information.
I keep telling everyone how work is keeping me so busy and about all this work I have. Have you ever wondered what I'm actually doing, and especially how I manage to do this and still be so destitute? Be honest, now. Anyway, these are the reasons I have abandoned my family so.
#1: Big Block
I've been working with Big Block since day 1, basically. I started work with them late 2002 and provide constant programming support for them. It sounds weird, but they never run out of things to update. I'm fairly confident this work will be here as long as I want it to be.
#2: HB Machine
Those of you with strong recollection skills might remember that HB Machine was my "college job". They have been in touch with me recently about updating some software that I wrote while I was working there...yeah it's pretty ridiculous. They are still using this antiquated, novice, poor-quality software that I wrote while I was in school. Anyway, it seems possible that I'll be doing a significant amount of work for them. I had to get up early today to finish off a proposal, so I better get the work. Yay, money.
#3: Poker Kingz
This is the newest client to add to the list. It's a fairly cut and dry thing - they're paying us to write some software for them, we'll probably finish early next year. They have high aspirations, but for whatever reason I'm not excited or optimistic about this work. Don't tell them that!
#4: HAR Management for ODOT
It's ironic - this is the work with the most potential that I pay the least attention to. This is the software for the traffic department (if you talk to me I'm sure I've mentioned it). The plan has been, for a long time, to finish it and then sell it. Progress has been sluggish to say the least -- it can be difficult to work on something without any guaranteed payout. Or maybe I'm just lazy. Either way, if we don't finish this by early next year we might lose our opportunity. By we I mean mostly me.
-----------------------------------------
I guess I'll take a little more time and give a life update. My friend from Colorado (Dan) is still living with me (he's only been here about two weeks). He's trying to find work, and by my standards has had decent luck. He'll be moving out once he finds work. Matt Johnson, everyone's favorite solo pianist, might join me in my glorious abode while he studies how to teach English (in Japan) for an undetermined amount of time. I'm still playing soccer 2-3x a week, and still on a pretty good streak of no serious injuries in soccer, well, ever. I miss spending time with all the nephews and nieces and am going to have to make time to see them soon - maybe in November I'll return to the good ol' schedule or some variation.
Still single of course, though the US customs agent asked my 3-4 times if I got married in Vietnam. My answer was the same every time: a look of incredulity followed by a definite no. I don't understand why he felt he might get a different answer if he asked it more than once. I suppose I was pretty exhausted, maybe I wasn't putting enough enthusiasm into my rejection so my "No" came out as "Ask again later" in some magic eight-ball sort of way. Oh, while I'm on the subject of Vietnam I have a sizable pile of souvenirs sitting on my floor to distribute. Also on the subject and Vietnam and my being single I'll clear something up: Yes, I met a very nice girl in Vietnam. She spoke German, and the three years of German I took in high school meant we could communicate very well. Yes, we're staying in touch and no, there is basically no chance of being anything "more" than friends: she lives in another country and we don't share a primary language. How could I ever be with someone that didn't appreciate my extraordinary vernacular? She is a great person though, and I'm glad we're staying in touch. There's even a remote possibility I'll go to Germany with some friends and visit - then I can really put my German to use! Deutsch fuer das gewinnen!
Speaking of appreciating my vernacular, I accidentally met an interesting person who has unintentionally motivated me to get back into reading (yes, you Lydia) - I've been slacking off because I have these 3 books at the top of my personal reading queue, none of which I'm really that interested in but all of which I want to read. I've decided I'll just read the books I want to read now, and I'll get to those books when I want to read them. So I went and got "The Fountainhead" (Ayn Rand), "The Alchemist" (Paul Coelhe) and "No Boundaries" (Ken Wilber). I also want to read "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" (Nathaniel Branden) but the library doesn't have the book, so I'll have to buy it. Oh, the last two books were chosen because I decided to listen to this dialogue between Wilber and Branden and it reignited an interest in their philosophy. I'm considering posting a review of the discussion as my next post.
On the larger scale of things...I'm very happy with life, and with mine. I get frustrated because I have a very clear vision of the person I want to be and I'm not always that person, but that's probably part of life. One of the advantages to being single is that it gives you a great opportunity to grow as a person. Very often, when people find someone they love they lose themselves in that person - for a while anyway. Instead of identifying themselves as an individual they identify themself as part of a pair, and life is for the enrichment of that pair.
Well, now you all know why I never get any work done on project #4. I wanted to take a 1/2 break and it's been almost an hour. Oh well, blogging can be important too. Hope you enjoyed the read, reader. Sincerely, the writer.
Edit: Immediately after finishing this post I checked my email. I had some mail from HB Machine (#2) basically saying whatever I recommend is what they'll do. Yay, money.
I keep telling everyone how work is keeping me so busy and about all this work I have. Have you ever wondered what I'm actually doing, and especially how I manage to do this and still be so destitute? Be honest, now. Anyway, these are the reasons I have abandoned my family so.
#1: Big Block
I've been working with Big Block since day 1, basically. I started work with them late 2002 and provide constant programming support for them. It sounds weird, but they never run out of things to update. I'm fairly confident this work will be here as long as I want it to be.
#2: HB Machine
Those of you with strong recollection skills might remember that HB Machine was my "college job". They have been in touch with me recently about updating some software that I wrote while I was working there...yeah it's pretty ridiculous. They are still using this antiquated, novice, poor-quality software that I wrote while I was in school. Anyway, it seems possible that I'll be doing a significant amount of work for them. I had to get up early today to finish off a proposal, so I better get the work. Yay, money.
#3: Poker Kingz
This is the newest client to add to the list. It's a fairly cut and dry thing - they're paying us to write some software for them, we'll probably finish early next year. They have high aspirations, but for whatever reason I'm not excited or optimistic about this work. Don't tell them that!
#4: HAR Management for ODOT
It's ironic - this is the work with the most potential that I pay the least attention to. This is the software for the traffic department (if you talk to me I'm sure I've mentioned it). The plan has been, for a long time, to finish it and then sell it. Progress has been sluggish to say the least -- it can be difficult to work on something without any guaranteed payout. Or maybe I'm just lazy. Either way, if we don't finish this by early next year we might lose our opportunity. By we I mean mostly me.
-----------------------------------------
I guess I'll take a little more time and give a life update. My friend from Colorado (Dan) is still living with me (he's only been here about two weeks). He's trying to find work, and by my standards has had decent luck. He'll be moving out once he finds work. Matt Johnson, everyone's favorite solo pianist, might join me in my glorious abode while he studies how to teach English (in Japan) for an undetermined amount of time. I'm still playing soccer 2-3x a week, and still on a pretty good streak of no serious injuries in soccer, well, ever. I miss spending time with all the nephews and nieces and am going to have to make time to see them soon - maybe in November I'll return to the good ol' schedule or some variation.
Still single of course, though the US customs agent asked my 3-4 times if I got married in Vietnam. My answer was the same every time: a look of incredulity followed by a definite no. I don't understand why he felt he might get a different answer if he asked it more than once. I suppose I was pretty exhausted, maybe I wasn't putting enough enthusiasm into my rejection so my "No" came out as "Ask again later" in some magic eight-ball sort of way. Oh, while I'm on the subject of Vietnam I have a sizable pile of souvenirs sitting on my floor to distribute. Also on the subject and Vietnam and my being single I'll clear something up: Yes, I met a very nice girl in Vietnam. She spoke German, and the three years of German I took in high school meant we could communicate very well. Yes, we're staying in touch and no, there is basically no chance of being anything "more" than friends: she lives in another country and we don't share a primary language. How could I ever be with someone that didn't appreciate my extraordinary vernacular? She is a great person though, and I'm glad we're staying in touch. There's even a remote possibility I'll go to Germany with some friends and visit - then I can really put my German to use! Deutsch fuer das gewinnen!
Speaking of appreciating my vernacular, I accidentally met an interesting person who has unintentionally motivated me to get back into reading (yes, you Lydia) - I've been slacking off because I have these 3 books at the top of my personal reading queue, none of which I'm really that interested in but all of which I want to read. I've decided I'll just read the books I want to read now, and I'll get to those books when I want to read them. So I went and got "The Fountainhead" (Ayn Rand), "The Alchemist" (Paul Coelhe) and "No Boundaries" (Ken Wilber). I also want to read "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" (Nathaniel Branden) but the library doesn't have the book, so I'll have to buy it. Oh, the last two books were chosen because I decided to listen to this dialogue between Wilber and Branden and it reignited an interest in their philosophy. I'm considering posting a review of the discussion as my next post.
On the larger scale of things...I'm very happy with life, and with mine. I get frustrated because I have a very clear vision of the person I want to be and I'm not always that person, but that's probably part of life. One of the advantages to being single is that it gives you a great opportunity to grow as a person. Very often, when people find someone they love they lose themselves in that person - for a while anyway. Instead of identifying themselves as an individual they identify themself as part of a pair, and life is for the enrichment of that pair.
Well, now you all know why I never get any work done on project #4. I wanted to take a 1/2 break and it's been almost an hour. Oh well, blogging can be important too. Hope you enjoyed the read, reader. Sincerely, the writer.
Edit: Immediately after finishing this post I checked my email. I had some mail from HB Machine (#2) basically saying whatever I recommend is what they'll do. Yay, money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
