Apollo's Grove

"The Odyssey"-- Again?

2009-01-16T21:42:00.005-05:00

This semester my most exciting class is World Literature. Our first assignment, reading and discussing (most of) The Odyssey, may make a few of your eyes roll (although, if any of you have just one eye roll, please see a doctor). Despite its prevalence in modern curricula, every professor has a unique approach and I'm gaining new insight with my current class despite the number of times I've read this particular poem.

One of the most surprising insights, however, came even before we had our first in-class discussion. I was reading along one night in Book VIII, which relates the story of Odysseus washing ashore on an island of the Phaiákians, to whom Odysseus, through a shrewd series of decisions and while concealing his identity, presents himself as a guest. After a welcome sleep, the king of the island calls an assembly to welcome (and learn about) the stranger.

During this assembly, the men hold a series of games and contests to impress the stranger. Perhaps in the spirit of hospitality and perhaps in an attempt to suss out who this man is, they invite Odysseus to join in. He begs off, however, saying he has more serious things to think about than "track and field"; he only wants to go home.

A saucy young fellow, Seareach, isn't content with this answer:

The reason being, as I see it, friend,
you never learned a sport, and have no skill
in any of the contests of fighting men.
You must have been the skipper of some tramp
that crawled from one port to the next, jam full
of chaffering hands: a tallier of cargoes,
itching for gold--not, by your looks, an athlete.

Odysseus' speech-response is well worth reading by anyone who felt inadequate on the playing field, talking of the gods gifting different people with different abilities. It's also ironic, since Odysseus then shows just how capable he is in almost every contest his hosts can offer.

Seareach apologizes and presents his sword in recompense, which Odysseus accepts with forgiving words.

Why did this exchange strike me so? Because almost the exact thing happens in the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf.

Beowulf's date is uncertain; it was composed in an English monastery by a Catholic monk between the early 700s and the late 900s. Its mixture of Germanic warrior culture and Christian sensibility has been noted many times before. What is amazing to me, reading The Odyssey, is the similarity of the episode between Odysseus and Seareach to one between Beowulf and Unferth.

Unferth is a warrior but isn't an honorable guy; his challenge to Beowulf--after the latter had promised to defeat the monster Grendel--is described as a result of envy and spite.

Beowulf responds bitingly, saying Grendel knew "he need never be in dread / of your blade making a muzzle of his blood." Beowulf also follows through with action, just as Odysseus did; for Beowulf this means defeating Grendel and, when Grendel's mother exacts vengeance, promising to defeat her, too.

Unferth knows Beowulf has proven himself and just before Beowulf is about to go fight Grendel's mother, Unferth offers him, in apology--a sword!

It's the same narrative! Challenging speech, proof of what the hero claimed to be capable of, and an important, suitable gift in apology.

This isn't proof, but is certainly an indication, that the Middle Ages wasn't a period of total ignorance of the classical inheritance. The monks in their monasteries certainly amended and adapted the classical stories but the important thing is that they knew about them. The Renaissance wasn't a discovery of classical texts; it was a refocusing back to them and away from the Christian inheritance.

Reaction to Grapes of Wrath

2009-01-03T00:01:00.000-05:00

For a composition class about a year ago, I had to read a chapter (Chapter 19) of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and respond to it. In going through my files and doing some organization of them I discovered this and thought it'd make an ok post.

Steinbeck opens this chapter by describing the influx of Americans into California in the 1800’s. He presents the invaders as desperate men but essentially thieves of the land, which “belonged to Mexico and…to Mexicans.” He refers to the invaders’ “hunger for land” and describes their occupation as theft by force.

At no point does Steinbeck say that the invaders who pushed out the Mexicans were hungry for food. He describes their hunger “for land, for water and earth and the good sky over it, for the green thrusting grass, for the swelling roots.” The second wave of migrants, in contrast, had a different purpose.

The “Okies,” who moved westward in the 1930’s with the same desire for land as the original American invaders, are “restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do…for food [emphasis added].”

It is interesting to me that Steinbeck uses animal imagery in both cases, but to different effects. Although he only implies it, he likens the initial invaders of California as coyotes. They “growled and quarreled” and they had a “feral hunger”; the Mexicans, in contrast were “weak and fled”--a reaction that almost any more timid animal would have when it faced such a foe.

The original Americans are portrayed as grasping, greedy, and, later, decadent. The Okies are the working-class masses. Their desires are basic and noble: to feed their families and themselves, and to be independent men.

Steinbeck seems to say that when a man has no hope left and his “hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children…,” then there is no limit to what measures he is liable to take--and one should not blame him for taking them.

The argument is effective in invoking sympathy and pity for the Okies and a sense of outrage at the landowners’ treatment of them. The landowners became “little shopkeepers of crops” who “forgot the land, the smell, the feel of it.” The Okies were only the “dispossessed, the migrants” with “thin children.”

In this chapter Steinbeck also argues for a certain view of history. He maintains that when wealth and land become concentrated in the hands of a few, the masses inevitably will rise up to take it. And, if they take it, they will own it, because property is not an idea--it is not an abstraction--but simply a raw, physical fact. Either you occupy the land (or have someone defend it in your absence) or it is no longer yours.

The further implication is that when a small part of the people enjoys greater prosperity, the larger population inevitably suffers. With his description of the “tractors [that] moved in and pushed the tenants out” he implies that not only does the greater prosperity occur for only a few, it occurs at the expense of the masses.

In this theory, greater wealth that comes from greater efficiency or general abundance does not result in a ‘trickle down’ effect to the lower classes; rather, it resembles more a lake into which smaller rivulets of water pour in. The lake always drinks in as much as it can take, growing larger and perhaps overflowing--but it never allows the water to go in the other direction.

School Update

2008-12-31T20:45:00.001-05:00

Since I ended the Fall 2008 semester recently--my first true semester back in college--I thought this would be a good time to post an update on my school life. I loaded my schedule heavily with Humanities this past semester, taking British Literature, History to 1500, and Intermediate French.

All of my classes were interesting. I got a good review of French grammar, which we basically wrapped up with a couple of minor exceptions.

My Ancient History (to 1500) class has filled in a lot of holes in my understanding of that vast period; it included the different civilizations of India and China, which I wanted to understand but hadn't yet started study of. I especially enjoyed my instructor's emphasis of broad trends and comparing/contrasting civilizations; this approach made me better understand things like how geography affected religion & culture differently in Mesopotamia and Egypt or how traditions of China and India's classical eras were hearkened back to in later times. In preparation for my final in-class essay I studied similarities and differences in the development of Indian and Chinese civilizations. This class also made me realize that there is something to be said for formal instruction. In having to not only read and understand but also prepare for tests (which included fact-oriented multiple choice and more abstract essay questions), I cemented a broad framework of understanding to which I can attach details as I pursue further reading.

Although the history class runs a close second, topping my list of favorite classes this semester was my British Literature class. It both made me realize how glad I am I chose English as a major and how very much I have to learn. It was a sweeping survey course, running from the Anglo-Saxon period to the Victorian*. I'm happiest about the fact that poetry has been somewhat reclaimed for me and I have a broad (albeit simplistic) sketch of the main currents of thought influencing poetry during the times studied. Considering poetry was the main fiction genre until the novel's rise, it's important that it be understood as something other than the bad output of angst-ridden teenagers (not to disparage the very real effect of teenage angst).

I'm also extremely excited because I may have a concentration. I don't have to decide now, but I'm very intrigued by a conversation my professor had with me about pre-eighteenth-century literature.

In many cases I dealt with subject matter I'd never encountered before. I'm looking forward to Spring 2009 (which starts this January); I'll be taking a World Literature class, History from 1500-present (with the same professor as my Ancient History class), and Basic Statistics (I have to take one last math class and this one seemed like the most useful). Here's hoping for more fascinating material and more motivation!

*For those who're curious, we studied the following: the Anglo-Saxon period (the Elegies, the Maxims, and Beowulf); the Norman period (Marie de France's Lais and Lanval); Chaucer; Elizabeth I's speeches; Spenser's The Faerie Queene; selected sonneteers (Shakespeare, Sidney, Mary Wroth); Milton's Paradise Lost; the Romantic period (Barbauld, Charlotte Smith, Blake, Keats); Tennyson; and Wilde's Fairy Tales (comparing Wilde's The Nightingale and the Rose to Hans Christian Andersen's The Nightingale).

Multilingualism is Natural

2008-12-23T00:01:00.000-05:00

One of my most exciting developments over the past six months is a huge amount of progress in French, a language I've been studying off and on for about 11 years (yep, eleven!) without much success.

Thanks to this progress, I have a vocabulary of roughly 10,000 words, I can read articles and books with a dictionary (how much I have to consult it depends on factors like the time period of the text and my familiarity with the subject), and--most exciting for me--I've had several online conversations with native French speakers during which I was able to hold up my end of the conversation (and keep up with them, too). Again, with the conversations the subject mattered and there were phrases I didn't understand, but it was overall a success. (And it's been a motivator to keep working at it.)

This progress has come almost entirely with the use of a website called LingQ. The site was created by Steve Kaufman, a speaker of about ten languages who used principles of language learning that he discovered through trial and error. It emphasizes heavy listening along with audio transcripts (to train your ear) and online dictionaries (to quickly look up and save unknown words and keep moving). The most fundamental principles of the site are exposure to a large amount of the real, spoken language and selecting content that you're interested in. (It has a lot in common with principles of unschooling, but I've no idea if Kaufman is familiar with that approach to learning.)

Steve talks about multilingualism and its accessibility in this video blog entry. Check out the LingQ website and sign up for free here. (The site has a unique setup so be sure to watch the demos!)

The World in Words

2008-12-21T10:57:00.000-05:00

I'm enjoying a podcast put out by Public Radio International's program The World. It's called The World in Words, and not only is it hosted by a Boston-residing Brit (and what Anglophile doesn't love a nice British accent?), Patrick Cox , it's an interesting look at languages around the world. Two things that particularly intrigued me are Cox's references to "public radio clichés" (with his desire to avoid them) and a segment recently titled "yokomeshi," which deals with foreign words that are difficult to translate. Check it out!

Here is PRI's write-up of the podcast:

The World in Words with Patrick Cox focuses on language. We decode diplospeak and lay bare nationalist rants. And as English extends its global reach, we track the blowback from the world's 6,000+ other languages, in the form of hybrids like Chinglish, Hinglish, Singlish and Binglish. Binglish?

Christmas à la Karen Walker

2008-12-20T19:33:00.005-05:00

The Christmas Story, Karen Walker style:

It's Christmas, for goodness' sake! Think about the baby Jesus! Up in that tower, lettin' his hair down, so that the three wise men can climb up and spin the dreidel and see if there's six more weeks of winter. (Hear the audio clip in full Megan Mullally glory here.) (Edited 12-21-2010 to update link.)

Updates Coming

2008-12-18T22:52:00.001-05:00

Hey folks! I'm working on drafts of several posts, so check back for updates very soon. I hope December is treating you well so far!

Jason

Fagging Away At Language

2007-10-03T21:57:00.001-04:00

“It’s a tough work fagging away at a language with no master but a lexicon.” – Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre

Latin was my first foreign language, and my instructor kindled a spark in me that hasn’t flagged to this day. Because it wasn’t spoken, however, I approached the language as more of a code to decipher than a language to be translated. My skills at pattern-recognition and processing of various forms served me well and were sharpened as my knowledge increased. I learned to see a somewhat unfamiliar series of markings and recognize it.

This recognition has increased over the years with another language, French. In fact, I often describe my relationship with that language as with that of an old friend. This isn’t quite precise; it’s more like an old friend who speaks to my soul but whom I don’t always comprehend. In its formality and its retaining of forms that were once similar to, but have since passed away from, English, I find an elegance and precision that I wish weren’t so archaic in my native tongue. Still, for many years I approached French in the same way as Latin—as a code to be deciphered, not a mode of expression to be cultivated and adopted.

In the quote above from Jane Eyre I found a possible source of that approach. It’s the vestigial methods from the past that give me the feeling of fitting a key in a complicated lock. When understanding comes it is like a pleasant “click”—but one that comes too seldom to be anywhere close to the automatic understanding that mastery of a language requires.

Technology is helping. Podcasts, review books, the ease of access to classic texts, and the availability of online television programs all combine to put me in a better position than Bronte was to master the language before I ever set foot on French soil. I still feel the frustration, however, of limited means: I can’t afford public, much less private lessons, yet. And I can’t travel to the country that calls me with every word and phrase of its venerable language.

It’s possible that nothing makes limited means felt more keenly than wanting full immersion and being only capable of splashing around in a puddle.

Time

2007-09-24T00:06:00.001-04:00

Time is not relative. It's one's experience of time that is relative. Think of listening to the radio: As you become focused on a task, you 'tune in' and 'out' of the broadcast. But the broadcast has been going on the whole time. Similarly, we usually 'tune in' to time (e.g., by looking at a watch or calendar) only some of the time, but it's going on the whole time.

(Cross-posted here.)

What Type of Nerd Are You?

2007-09-23T00:37:00.001-04:00

Blissless Distractions

2007-09-21T20:46:00.000-04:00

I've posted something at Check Your Premises on parents, life, and keeping focused on your passions. Check it out!

Check Your Premises

2007-09-07T21:02:00.000-04:00

Now participating in a group blog called "Check Your Premises." Check it out at http://checkyourpremises.blogspot.com. Or, click on my profile and there will be a link at the bottom of the page.

Like Pan on the Hunt

2007-07-19T22:31:00.000-04:00

For us single people, it's amazing just how much time is spent searching for that suitable person. For those in 'the game' for awhile, it's not enough to find someone who causes a stir in all the right places or even an involuntary "hot damn" while out and about with friends. We know that initial spark doesn't last very long when the personality doesn't sync up. It seems to sputter and go out even more quickly the longer I'm out there, the longer I look for the total package.

To borrow a phrasing from The Rattigan Society, it's a metaphysical fact that to find the person most compatible with yourself you have to search through all of the folks who don't match you well enough for long-term romantic interest. The upside of this search is you find some people who are close to you but not quite enough to sustain it long-term -- and these people often become good friends. We gays comment on the fact that so many of our best friends are ex-lovers, but I think this is one of the things that's most commendable about our tendencies. We seem to implicitely understand that the things that attract us to someone shouldn't be forgotten just because we found we're not ultimately compatible in a long-term way.

Getting back to the main subject, however, I have to say it's sometimes exhausting to keep searching. There are times when you just want to mark every profile as 'just looking for friends', when you want to stop catching the cute guy's eye when you walk into the bar (or even stop even going to the bar), stop thinking about what you wear to the grocery store--in short, just stop caring.

Then you meet someone who pushes all your buttons, and you give in to the possibility that this time, it might be right. Then again, it might not. But...it might be.

Bookshelf: The Outline of History, H.G. Wells

2007-07-16T22:23:00.000-04:00

Used bookstores are wonderful things. In my neighborhood gem of a shop I recently discovered a book by H.G. Wells I didn't know existed: The Outline of History. And, it is exactly that--and much more. It's writing is smart, it flows easily between the concrete and abstract, it summarizes key points nicely, it has the right amount of repetition. In short, it is just the sort of history textbook one should have had in school but didn't. Unfortunately most of our high-school history textbooks were useless, not because they were outdated (though they were) but because they epitomized the anti-abstraction, anti-'lesson-learning' attitude of the 1960's through 1980's in which they were written.

An unexpected find like The Outline of History is what is so wonderful about used bookstores. Besides the simple but attractive and durable binding and the type that is pleasing to the eye, both at a discount price, one gets discovery--a thing sorely lacking in today's marketplace. There are plenty of products out there to make us look better or feel more pampred--but astonishingly few that make us feel like better people.

There are those of us for whom the somewhat musty smell of old pages envelops us in the unknown and the promise of becoming a person who knows and, even better, a person who understands. And with understanding comes a power that endures. It expands one's vision, not in a new-agey expectation of surpassing oneself, but in a concrete and very real possibility of actually becoming onself--and all that entails.
______
The bookstore in my neighborhood is Bound To Be Read Books. You can find it at http://boundtobereadbooks.com or contact them directly at info@boundtobereadbooks.com. And in keeping with the spirit of this blog, the owner is cute and the store cat is cuddly--or possibly the other way around.

Knowledge and Design

2007-06-05T23:47:00.000-04:00

(Note: The dates are not mistaken; this is the first post in quite awhile.)

I listened today to a bit of a radio program by Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated radio personality/commentator, and he had a scientist who has written a new book about intelligent design.

It occurred to me, as it has many times, that the whole question is less about science and more about epistemology. That is, it has to come down to a question of what knowledge is and what basic assumptions (axioms) one must have when discussing such a question. If one assumes mystical intervention, one throws out all need for evidence and argument. If one assumes the need for evidence and argument, one disqualifies the possibility of mystical intervention.

After all, if one's concepts must be traced, eventually, through whatever long chain, back to the perceptual level (as all concepts ultimately must be to be defensible in reality), then what event or implication in reality gives rise to the concept 'god'?

Further Ruminations on a Title

2006-07-03T17:14:00.000-04:00

I've decided to change the title and look of this blog. Issues of gay people and gay culture are still a focus and interest of my writing, but they were never intended to be the only focus. At one time I thought they would be primary, but I'm not so sure of that anymore.

It's simply that my interests have taken a wider focus than I expected, and I have more to say about other subjects than I expected.

To that end, I've renamed this "Apollo's Grove"; it's a tribute to the character of mythology that epitomizes my approach: seeking clarity and truth in the field of knowledge, a benevolence and positive attitude towards life in general, serious thought coupled with playful mirth -- and a fondness for good-looking men. After all, those Greek gods definitely had a fondness for beauty in its physical form!

I have to give a nod to the spark that inspired this change, Brad Gooch's book Dating the Greek Gods. It's a brief but delightful exploration of the characteristics of those gods and the application of their qualities to everyday life (and, of course, dating life). The book was a recent fun offshoot from my more intense study of the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.

Busy But Breathing

2006-05-19T20:08:00.000-04:00

Quick update:

Still editing the article content on www.TheAtlasphere.com

Wrote an article there titled "The Good on Good Friday." Access here.

Reading, reading, reading.

Ruminations on a Title

2005-12-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

The following post was written to explain the previous title of this blog, "The Passionate Plume of a Rational Queer."

The word “queer” originally meant not only different but “off” or “not quite right.” As it was used in books, movies, and other general culture in the early part of the twentieth century, it carried a negative connotation. Mild or not, the difference in usage was one of degree only.

As often happens, this general pejorative word became associated with a particular group in society: homosexuals. The reason isn’t hard to understand; after all, gay people were definitely seen as “a bit off,” that is, out of the mainstream in a peculiar way. So, they could already be seen as “queer.” From polite epithet to slur was a short step.

This is why, when certain gay members of society wanted to express their anger and defiance at mainstream society, they adopted the word queer. It was a loud nose-thumbing at those who had used the word to hurt and belittle. It was a way of saying, “I am here whether you like it or not” (or, as one group’s well-known slogan ran, “We’re here, we’re queer—get used to it.”

Now the term has been so long associated with homosexuals that it has lost its more general meaning.

(As a curious aside, our vernacular has come full circle. When I was in high school it became common for kids to describe things as “gay” that were stupid or lame. A polite term for a specific person (a homosexual) has been apportioned as a pejorative term.)

But the word queer makes some people uncomfortable. Those gays who took back the term from the bigots were a radical bunch. They did not believe in assimilation; they believe in things like establishing a “Queer Nation” and overturning civil society in a revolution of Marxian proportions (and it is no wonder that so many gays are socialists and communists—but that’s a topic for another entry).

As a result of this counter-cultural connotation to “queer,” gays who did seek assimilation into mainstream society while still retaining their gay identity—that is, those who sought to one day live in a world where saying “I’m gay” was accorded the same respect or even indifference as saying “I’m a writer”—refused to associate with anyone who used the word queer. The relation between liberals, socialists, and communists and the word “queer” was marked by a book published in 1996 entitled Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy. Like water in a desert for gay conservatives and libertarians (both political and social), this volume included contributions by such writers as Bruce Bawer, Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, and Paul Varnell.

Its overarching theme could be described as “Think for yourselves.” That is, do not give your blind allegiance to any group, even one that claims to be looking out for your interests; such unthinking loyalty may do you more harm than good.

Those who know my principles and values may be surprised to then see me using the term queer in the title of my blog. One of the reasons I did this is in fact because it is still edgy. It arrests the attention and in one fell swoop declares my intention and my orientation. I like the association with convention-busting radicals. And I am a radical, in the way often articulated by scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra: one who seeks to identify the root of a given issue or subject and address the fundamental causes of problems.

Such a name, however, requires a certain caveat. The association on which I capitalize also can mislead someone seeking to understand my position. So, I chose another “root” word to curb that possibility: rational. If reason is a human being’s means of interpreting the data his or her mind takes in from the world—that is, from reality—then reason is the means of remaining firmly tied to reality. That is, to that which is. Reason is the fundamental requirement of successfully operating in the world and thus obtaining what one wants from life. It is the “without which not” of creating that which is not, but could be.

In sum, I have chosen a name that identifies, succinctly, who I am: a rational queer.

The End of Faith

2005-11-23T14:16:00.000-05:00

Well, friends, it looks as if I've been no better at keeping up with the blog thing in November than I was in October. As small consolation, you can check out my review of The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published at The Atlasphere today. I promise things will pick up here soon!

--Jason

Anne Rice Returns

2005-10-26T12:22:00.000-04:00

Anne Rice talks about the next incarnation of her work—and the Incarnation—here:

http://www.annerice.com/msg092604b.htm

Only yesterday I discovered that Rice has a new book being released this Tuesday, November 1. Titled “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt,” this story is, at least from a character standpoint, her most ambitious. The narrator is Jesus of Nazareth himself—a seven-year-old Christ, who can resurrect the dead and bring clay animals to life.

Back when I searched for meaning in the stars and planets, I ran across Linda Goodman, who made astrology both grandiose and accessible to me with her humorous style and unconstrained imagery. It was Goodman who first made me realize that little is known about Jesus the child. She related the story of him going to visit the priests in the temple as a young boy, and conjectured that it was at that time that secrets were revealed to him that would allow the man to later fulfill his destiny. I was intrigued by the potential wealth of mysteries and discoveries that might be unearthed by scholarship into this period of Jesus’ life.

I am an atheist, and I’m wary of the danger that religion—any religion—can bring to a society and an individual. I am also a person who is fascinated by the hidden patches of history, and the entire period of human history from the Classical Period to the Middle Ages absorbs me and strikes me as full of possibility for understanding.

I’m saddened and disappointed by Anne Rice’s decision to re-enter the Catholic Church several years ago. I was sympathetic to her feeling of despair and loss when she became an atheist at twenty, realizing it was all poetic and beautiful and only that. It even makes me a little angry that she couldn’t find meaning in her own style of beauty and questioning and art, without needing anything more than the world as it is—with all of its meaning and lack of it—to find answers.

And still, I’m happy that she’s chosen a new voice to speak, a new story to tell, a new mystery to explore. If anyone can make this a story worth reading, Anne Rice can.

A Thousand Apologies

2005-10-21T11:13:00.000-04:00

...to whomever has faithfully kept in touch with this blog, expecting regular updates and being tragically disappointed.

I'm not quite sure how the month of October has flown by on a jet-propelled broomstick, but that's how it feels. A greater editing role over at www.TheAtlasphere.com has been partly to blame. Of course, I can't deny the Atlanta social scene hasn't played a part as well. I've also continued my study of French on my own (with the happy development of reading and understanding the French translation of Lois Lowry's The Giver (en francais, Le Passeur) and starting L'etudiant etranger. And, thanks to my good friend Kelly Elmore, I'm now studying ancient Greek. I'll make myself a classicist yet.

In any case, I am in the process of writing and promise November will be a little more expectation-meeting. Until then, take care of yourselves—and Shine On!

—Jason

The School of Hard Knocks

2005-09-30T22:58:00.000-04:00

Today I heard a very dear friend say something that both surprised and delighted me: “It’s taken me a long time to learn this, but I finally realized my own happiness has to come first.”

These words were spoken during a conversation about relationships and breaking up with people. He followed that sentence with an elaboration that a few years ago it would have taken him a year to break it off with someone he’d decided to stop seeing. Now, it took him only a few days to realize that a guy he’d been dating for six weeks wasn’t the right guy for him.

As a (rational) egoist, I obviously agree with my friend’s sentiment. This incident also reminded me, however, that it doesn’t matter what form in which someone is exposed to the right ideas or if those ideas are discovered on one’s own through “the school of hard knocks.” What matters is discovering—and living by—the ideas that will maximize happiness and allow human beings to flourish.

A sobering thought with all of this is that my friend is almost 40 years old. It took him several years of senseless cycles to learn a principle that I learned—thanks to the writings of Ayn Rand—only two years ago. The point of knowledge is not to say “I found it first” or even “I found it myself.” The point of knowledge is to maximize the chances of succeeding at one’s chosen goals (and deciding what goals will contribute to that ultimate goal of long-term, sustained happiness). If only these ideas were already part of the culture, how many more people would save themselves the trouble of those “hard knocks”!

Reflections on Gay Pride

2005-09-29T09:33:00.000-04:00

(This was originally written in June 2005 but hasn't yet appeared elsewhere.)

June is Gay Pride Month (albeit, by tradition rather than government proclamation). This time of year is a mixture of happiness and regret for most rationally minded gay people. On the one hand, as has been stated numerous times elsewhere, there is nothing to be proud of in simply being gay. Pride is an emotion resulting from achievements or accomplishments. Whether sexual orientation is innate, not innate but immutable, or a flat-out choice, there is nothing in being of a particular sexual orientation that is an achievement or an accomplishment.

But, despite the ‘official’ name given to this time of year, pride in that sense is not really what it’s about. It’s about visibility; it’s about celebrating and reveling in being true to oneself; it’s about fun and enjoying the company of friendly people in a still-sometimes-hostile world; and it is about achievement.

There is an achievement in being out (i.e., out of the closet). Even in 2005, gay people still face a certain marginalization. I would argue that the extent of this is actually overshadowed by the doctrine of “Political Correctness” which encourages people not to honestly examine their thoughts on sensitive subjects (and certainly not to express them) but simply to “think this” and “don’t think that.” It’s touted as simply “Think what you want but don’t say it,” but when one buries ones true ideas and opinions repeatedly, those are bound to be pushed out of the conscious mind – only to manifest in unsavory ways in the subconscious.

It is quite likely, however, that gay people will always face a certain marginalization, by simple dent of the fact that gay people will always be a minority. Whatever factors cause or contribute to sexual orientation, the vast majority of people are either straight or damn close.

The reason this minority status is important, however, is not because it carries any implication for the way society will inevitably treat gay people (that treatment is always a choice), but because every young gay person will at first, on discovering his sexuality, face the feeling of being somewhat alone and misunderstood in the world. We can alleviate this alienation to a certain extent by avoiding prejudices and misconceptions in our own lives and being willing to correct them in the young people in our lives; but a certain amount of alienation seems inevitable.

After all, no straight person has to make a big production out of telling his parents that he wants to date women. He doesn’t have to work up the courage to break the news, consider the right time, whether or not both parents should be present, or what to do if the news isn’t taken well. In fact, teenagers and even children get the repeated message that heterosexuality is the unstated norm and expectation. (How many times have you heard someone ask a little boy whose playmate is a girl, Is that your girlfriend?)

It’s similar to how a young genius will feel upon realizing his own mental capacity. When one is different, it follows that one will realize it and feel it in daily life.

But one being different doesn’t mean that one must be teased, ridiculed, or considered anything less than fully human. And having a culture of respecting non-harmful differences can go a long way to lessening the impact of the coming out experience.

But a culture must be changed bit by bit, step by step, change by change. For today, and for especially those in the past, coming out is a process that takes an enormous amount of courage and integrity. Not only must one tell one’s family (if one ever tells ones family) – one must also live one’s entire life deciding whom to tell and whom not to tell, how to meet friends and potential partners, how to protect a union and any children brought into it, how to project into old age (in a gay subculture that is largely polarized by age and generally hostile to “senior gays”). Societal institutions and customs usually simply don’t apply (and when they do, they certainly don’t “fit” without considerable modification). Coming out is not one act; it’s a lifelong process.

So when I hear my otherwise sympathetic friends deride the entire notion of “gay pride” I can only smile indulgently. I share their literal sentiment; but I’m proud of being dedicated to who I am. I’m proud of standing my ground when my family wanted to sweep the “dirty secret” under the rug. I’m proud that I do not even hesitate to say, “I’m gay.”

Bookshelf: Rebecca (The End)

2005-09-29T09:25:00.000-04:00

I finished Rebecca last night. The climax came soon after my last post and overall I’m glad I got to it. It was tense and suspenseful and everything a climax and (aftermath) should be. I definitely have more respect for Du Maurier as a writer than I had before this point. But! I just don’t ultimately think the preceding sections—and my criticism of them stands—would have been hampered if the narrator had been more of character and less of a blob. In fact, I think had she taken possession of the house and attempted to build a happy life with Maxim, the climax would have been even more shocking and the resulting events even more suspenseful and emotionally involving for the reader.

There are a few possible reasons why the character had to be the way she was, but I don’t want to go into them here in case I ruin the book for someone else. I’ll just end by saying that, although I’m glad to know what Rebecca is about, perhaps the Cliffs Notes would have been a better value for the time spent.

Bookshelf: Rebecca

2005-09-28T10:12:00.000-04:00

(This is more of a “pre-review” because I’m not finished with this book. But I thought it might be interesting to post my initial reaction and later follow-up with a final opinion once I’m done reading the novel. I’ve got about 100 pages left to go.)

For me, fiction can have many functions. It can entertain, enlighten, enervate, and encourage. Certainly different people will approach books with different expectations (and an individual person doesn’t have to approach every fiction book with the same expectations). But one thing that for me is key—in both literature and other fictional pursuits such as theater or cinema—is that there is at least one character with whom I can, if not sympathize, at least want to understand. Failing that, if a book is filled with people I would never want to know in real life, then the story should somehow help me see a unique perspective on a subject.

Rebecca, Daphne Du Maurier’s novel from the early 1900’s, doesn’t seem to fulfill any of these requirements. The novel begins by presenting an unnamed girl of low station who is the paid companion of a wealthy idiot of a woman. The latter is wholly concerned with gossip and “well-connected” people. This concern is what brings into focus the attractive, mourning figure of widower Maxim de Winter, the heir and master of a magnificent house called Manderly (and its accompanying estate).

I was at first fascinated with the poor girl narrating the novel. I admired the fact that she had enough grit to stick with the distasteful but wealthy old maid because “£90 a year is a lot of money,” as she unselfconsciously tells de Winter. When de Winter begins to show attention to her, taking her on drives and treating it as perfectly natural that they should spend time together, despite their differences in class, I was quite simply overjoyed. What a fairy tale! (And despite most cynics of my generation, I think we need more such fairy tales to inspire and encourage.)

There were certain aspects to the narrator’s personality that didn’t endear me to her totally, but I thought them a result of her age and her being at a natural loss of what to do when caught in the attention of this prince-like figure. Having no guile and pretense is one thing; but she didn’t seem to have any self-possession at all. There were only small clues to this character flaw at first, and, again, I thought surely they would change when it truly dawned on her that Maxim really wasn’t just being kind but had feelings for her.

Oh, if only. Maxim proposes to the girl, she of course accepts, and they quickly marry (without a wedding) and take a short honeymoon in Italy. It is after this honeymoon that the reader accompanies de Winter and the new Mrs. de Winter to Manderly.

There are several memorable homes that tower in the world of literature. These include of course Tara and Miss Havisham’s mansion. (Curiously, both are places in which time is attempted to be stopped.) Manderly takes its place among this collection. Far from ruined, however, it has been splendidly maintained. Considering Rebecca died only 10 months prior, perhaps this isn’t as surprising as it is notable. You see, the inhabitants of this place have attempted to stop time, too. There is a closed-off west wing—Rebecca’s wing—that includes the former mistress’s bedroom into which Rebecca could walk tomorrow, pick up the nightdress laying on the bed and the brushes from the vanity table, and resume the life prior to her tragic death. The maids are not allowed into this room; it’s been maintained exclusively by the now-de-facto mistress of the house, Mrs. Danvers. And it is the new Mrs. de Winter’s relationship with this woman that stresses the most grating aspects of her personality.

The idea of the girl being awed by Manderly, at first, isn’t surprising. Raised in humble surroundings, her only ticket to luxury has been becoming practically the secretary of rich women. She has always been a visitor and never quite belonged in any of the places of affluence in which she found herself. It is understandable that at first she would be hesitant to cause change in the routine at Manderly, unsure of herself and the role she should play. And it is understandable, too, that she would be intimidated by Mrs. Danvers, a woman who has been at Manderly for many years and, the reader later learns, was practically the personal lady-in-waiting for the late Rebecca. With Rebecca gone, she fills in the necessary role of running the house, commanding the servants, coordinating the visits from the public, and in a number of other ways keeping things operating.

But while one can have sympathy for the narrator in her uncertainty and unfamiliar position, one’s patience is quickly sapped. Not only does she not attempt to make any sort of dent in the routine that has proceeded for years before her, she does not even attempt to learn what that routine is. She asks no questions and only discovers aspects of it in embarrassment when the servants contradict her (subtly, by suggesting an alternate to the girl’s suggestions). Knowing her lack of etiquette and social presence, and with a fortune at her disposal, she could have discreetly hired the best tutors in such practices. She could have slowly begun to imprint her personality on the house, which Mrs. Danvers—surprisingly—practically begs her to do (one finds out, bit by bit, that Rebecca was, to say the least, a strong personality, and this paradox of Mrs. Danvers is explained by the possibility that the old woman was used to being directed and was happy with that position).

I found myself longing for a personality like Cheryl Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, who quickly earns her elevation of position, despite how unhappy this makes her husband.

When Mrs. Danvers shows herself to be not only unpleasant and stiff but a downright snake, through a “joke” that causes acute embarrassment to the girl, Maxim, and several others, I wanted the girl to finally put the old woman in her place. Such desires were in vain, however, as the narrator shows herself again to be a spineless blob of a girl with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

Perhaps I’m too harsh. But I’m 250 pages into the novel, with 130 pages left to go, and I’m no closer to admiring this woman—or anyone else in this novel—than I was at the beginning.

Response to Comments on "Sexuality" Post

2005-09-27T11:38:00.000-04:00

I appreciate Barbara and Cam's posts (and your compliments, Cam!) and I'd like to address Barbara's question on whether or not it is much easier today than, say, 40 years ago, to accept the fact of being homosexual.

Cameron's response is certainly accurate; although as a society the "gay issue" is not the shameful, always-to-be-hidden secret it once was, neither is a gay adolescent's feelings on par with, as far as being viewed with respect and legitimacy, a heterosexual adolescent's.

For my part, I did not grow up in the urban, educated household that Cam speaks of and the difference in how the subject of gay people was treated definitely reflected a small-town mentality. While I can look back and be glad that I was early on instilled with a distrust of moral relativism (a skepticism which I later rejected and then embraced again), I also knew from my earliest memories on the subject—long before I knew myself to be gay—that gay people were simply "not ok." At times viewed as morally degenerate, at times simply and unfortunately ill, at no time was it considered a fact not worthy of scorn and derision. It was quite a joke for a young boy to be given a baby doll as a “gag gift,” because, of course, no one would ever truly imagine a boy playing with feminine things. And teasing could always take the form of asking after one’s boyfriend, if one had no girlfriends at a given time, because, of course, no one would ever truly imagine a boy capable of romantic feelings for another boy. (A boy child was fair game for this familial teasing from the earliest ages I can remember, and it was considered good-natured and normal.)

There are two resources which saved me from thinking myself unredeemably degenerate, odd, or sick. The first was books. I have been an absolutely avid reader for as far back as I can remember, and I was seldom seen without a book close by (even when our family would pile into the car to go to Sunday dinner at a restaurant, I had a book to content me on the drive there and back). Fortunately, the bookstore in the local mall had a gay manager who ensured his store had a well-stocked section on gay and lesbian subjects. Not only was I able to find resources I used myself, I was able to see the wide range of books published on the subject, books which treated being gay as simply a fact and not a condition to be treated or overcome.

The second resource, and one which I’m almost ashamed to say must have had a greater impact on me, is television. I remember in particular a stand-up special in the early 90’s on Comedy Central that featured only gay and lesbian comics. It was positively soothing to hear these adults so comfortable with topics such as the quirks of the gay and lesbian culture, dealing with homophobia, and coping with family dissension—comfortable enough, in fact, to make light of them with laughter. It’s amazing the number of implicit signals and messages one gets in any sort of social exchange, and television is no exception despite its more passive nature. It is an exchange, if for no other reason than the human mind can not help processing the messages it is receiving from the images and words coming from that screen (though, obviously, some television watchers are more active in that processing than others).

Without popular culture—fiction, sitcoms, movies, “self-help” books dealing with everything from coming out to keeping a same-sex relationship alive—I would not have come to terms with my own sexuality as quickly as I did. The “local” culture formed from interactions with individual family members, schoolmates, and others to whom I was exposed would have had a much greater effect on me without those popular outlets. It would have been vastly more difficult to imagine anything other than the perception this “local” culture had.

For some, however, exposure to those outlets is severely restricted, replaced by greater interaction with the church, family, or others. For those unfortunate people I can definitely see more struggle with their sexuality than I had (and the struggle I had was acute enough). I think the perceptive individual will realize there are alternatives to the options suggested to those young people whose sexuality is not in the majority. The difficulty is still there, however, if for no other reason than heterosexuality is considered the norm, and from a very early age one is given signal after signal that implies this. Allow a boy and girl child to play together frequently and see if, at some point, some well-meaning neighbor or relative doesn’t say “Oh, so-and-so has a girlfriend” about the boy or the opposite about the girl. Now, obviously, such comments do not do damage to a mental faculty that has no concept of sexuality. But it never ends; at every step along the way, those well-meaning neighbors or relatives (or even parents) will imply that the child of one gender must think in “that way” of only of someone of another gender.

To realize how far we have to go, think about this: at what point did you, if you are heterosexual, have to sit down your parents and break the news that you had sexual feelings—or even simply wanted to date—someone of the opposite gender? At what point did you have to consider how such an announcement—concerning such a private, intimate part of yourself—would be taken by the family, if you would be considered depraved and sick, if you would be turned out of the house on your behind and disowned, or if your family’s better judgment would prevail?

Every single gay person, no matter how understanding or open his or her parents, has had to deal with the question of “coming out,” even if not by way of an announcement but only to confirm the suspicions one’s parents have. To use a well-worn phrase in circles of Ayn Rand fans: It’s earlier than you think.

Re-Post-Worthy Posts: Sexuality and Types

2005-09-23T11:18:00.000-04:00

Continuing my reposting of thoughts posted elsewhere:

The experience James mentioned in his post [unusually early self-exploration] is what all gay people must go through in the current culture. Intense self-examination at some point becomes necessary to resolve the seeming contradiction between "what everyone else feels" and "what I feel." That experience also drives home the idea that more than one set of traits (masculine, feminine) is potentially open and can be explored. At some point I hope that a person discovering his sexuality won't cause as earth-shaking an experience as it does for most gay people. For now, though, it's a big deal.

Regarding "types" in the gay community:

Regarding Barbara's questions on the source of the variety, that's quite a tough one. I don't have a definitive answer, certainly, but as you just asked for my thoughts I'll give them. There are a few factors. Certainly the 60's Sexual Revolution has much to do with it. The openness and comfort with sexuality that resulted from that time period must have surely allowed all people—including gay people—to tap into, explore, and entertain their sexual tastes and preferences. A second factor is the Stonewall Riots in 1969 which kicked off the Gay Rights Movement. Far from being the bastion of left-wing bias it's become, in its beginning the Movement was a demand by gay people for the humanity and equality that should be recognized in all individuals. After all, the riots began when a "raid" happened on the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York, for the umpteenth time. These raids were routine in a place where free association had to be bought by bar owners with kick-backs to the police. Those in the bar had had enough. The drag queens kicked it off by fighting back. The police were pushed back into the street, into which everyone poured and a march began. (And as a sidenote, my own experiences with drag queens has only deepened my respect for them, which began when I learned of this fact. To borrow a phrase, what bollocks!) A third factor that combined with this new spirit of "sex is ok" would be that men are more promiscuous than women. So, men would be more likely to pursue different sexual experiences more often, because they would be pursuing men who are just as promiscuous as they. Rampant sex was certainly the M.O. of the gay culture before the age of AIDS, and anytime you have a culture where men have a large amount of willing partners, you're going to have promiscuity. (That is not to say it's a necessity for or a characteristic of all gay men, of course.) So, all of this combines to form a subculture in which people are both willing to take their sexual likes and dislikes seriously and to seek out others who share them. All of the "types" I can think of revolve around what a person finds sexually attractive. Often when you get multiple types together, you'll have people who find they share personality traits as well. And so a subculture within the subculture arises.

Re-Post-Worthy Posts: Hedonism

2005-09-22T16:19:00.000-04:00

In an attempt to consolidate my thoughts and writings, I'm starting a feature titled "Re-Post-Worthy Posts" that will pluck posts from online forums that I think can stand alone. Please note they may be edited to remove irrelevant or confusing bits.

The first is a post in response to a conversation at www.solohq.com on hedonism—and the difference between it and the doctrine of one's own happiness as the proper focus of one's life. (Please note I'm no longer an active member of the site though my articles can still be found at http://solohq.com/Articles/Author_139.shtml)

One poster had said that hedonism "does not take into account that we are rational beings that need fulfillment through work, health, romance, friendship, great art, honesty, justice" and went on to say that, fundamentally, hedonism is escapism. Another posted the following definition of hedonism: "The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life." The contention was that nothing in this definition precluded anything in the first poster's list from being included under the term "hedonism."

And this is what I had to say:

Defining something and identifying the philosophical principle behind it are not the same thing. By saying hedonism is escapism one is not attaching a new definition to it. He's identifying that seeking pleasure moment-by-moment with no regard to long-term, lasting happiness is escapism. And that, the seeking of pleasure moment-by-moment, is how hedonism is used in most cases. I notice that the dictionary definition you supplied makes no distinction between pleasure and happiness. If it simply said "the doctrine that happiness is the sole or chief good in life" then it would be describing the Objectivist ethics. But it doesn't; it includes pleasure. There is nothing wrong with pleasure intrinsically—it's the signal built into humans to indicate "something's right." But it's sensory. Happiness is not simply sensory. One can easily introspect and tell the difference between a particular sexual stimulation (pleasure) and contemplation of a beloved partner after the act (happiness). And since human beings can project and plan over their entire life spans, higher and higher forms of happiness can be achieved. One can find the mate that is a perfect complement, one can find the career that will provide the right challenges and rewards for one's personality/psychology, and one can find friends who enrich one's life. These are long-term forms of happiness rather than moment-by-moment pleasures. They last. They can be contemplated & themselves bring pleasure even when the object is not present. Do you doubt for a moment that hedonism is understood to be the throwing oneself over to moment-by-moment, sensory stimulation? You can pull out five different dictionaries to provide various definitions, but those are possible uses—every definition doesn't necessarily accurately describe the concept as it's generally used and understood today. I said before that if you found a definition that only said happiness is the sole or chief good in life, you'd be describing the Objectivist ethics. To make it precise, one would have to say "the doctrine that one's own..." But if that's what most definitions said, I would say, "Then I'm a hedonist." But I would add, "According to the dictionary definition, that is. But since the dictionary definition is not how the concept is understood today, I would never call myself that."

Back to Business: Takin' One for the Team?

2005-09-21T15:40:00.000-04:00

A recent article on The Atlasphere (available here) has me thinking about the culture of Corporate America. Having been with the same large corporation (around 70,000 employees) for six years, I’ve seen plenty of the usual problems employees have with large corporate culture: the constant, sometimes senseless change; the alternating between wastefulness and budget restrictions; and the pressure to conform mentioned in the above article.

What most bothers me about corporations, as an arch-individualist, is the entire concept of a “team.” The sports origin of the word is obvious. Each person has a role, and is expected to do that role well, just as on a sports team. Yet the concept has morphed into a synonym for avoiding responsibility (or taking all of it), unfair rewards, and, well—collectivism.

Remember that collectivism, in its properly defined form, does not include a group of people who associate voluntarily. Technically, those who have to work together are doing so at the direction of a superior, but it is still voluntary—in America, at least usually, one is free to seek employment elsewhere under conditions that better meet one’s requirements.

But I’m taking a bit of “prose-etic” license here because the term implies the melting of identity and individuality into a formless, powerless blob. And, unfortunately, that is what too often happens on a “team” of people in a work environment. Although the team tag started as a recognition that each employee contributed an individual effort toward a shared goal or end result which the company needed to move forward and/or survive—just as with a sports team—in my experience this is far from the true outcome. Since every team member is held responsible for the project as a whole, what usually happens is that one or two extremely competent employees, who refuse to have their names associated with failure, shoulder the lion’s share of the workload; a greater number of less competent people attempt to help but, not being as able, do not contribute much and tend to go along with the de facto leaders; and a small percentage do very little or nothing (or nothing but express constant dissent), knowing that any recognition, praise, awards, or benefits will be bestowed upon the “team” as a unit.

It’s not my intention to belittle the need for cooperation between multiple people to accomplish a goal. There is simply not enough time or energy for a single person (or a small few) to complete all the tasks required for company success. But I see a better way to go about ensuring that success than reciting the absolutely revolting mantra, “There is no ‘I’ in team.” (Neither is there a “we” and “us” but that doesn’t seem to penetrate the anti-individualists’ dull skulls.)

We (yes, I have no beef with the word itself!) should return to the original meaning of the word team. As mentioned before, in a proper sports team each person has a role—which comes with unique responsibilities and calls for unique talents. The catcher on a baseball team does not attempt to run to the outfield because he can’t trust the person in that position to perform his role; and the coach does not reprimand the catcher when the outfielder misses the ball. Similarly, each work project can be divided into roles or sets of responsibilities that do not overlap with others but are essential to the success of the project. Who is to do that dividing? The person heading the project, who is usually the one selecting employees for it in the first place. And what if someone doesn’t do what was assigned to him? Then it is up to the Project Manager to coordinate the work accordingly, recruiting additional help or assigning the duties to another team member. There is no way to prevent the occasional instance of work not being done, but at least in this set-up there is no way for the entire team to be reprimanded for the laxity of a single member, and there is no hiding the reason the other team members are now given increased responsibility. Instead of attempting to manage everyone's feelings and discourage any disagreement whatsoever (the usual activities today), the Project Manager would return to his original role of managing the project. And the team members would each fulfill their unique, individual tasks.

Because I just couldn't resist...

2005-09-19T10:46:00.000-04:00

Of course I just had to find out what sort of Classic Leading Man I'd be, and here are the results:

Cary Grant

You scored 19% Tough, 9% Roguish, 4% Friendly, and 66% Charming!

You are the epitome of charm and style, the smooth operator who steals the show with your sophisticated wit and quiet confidence. You are able to catch any woman you want just by flashing that disarming smile. When you walk into a room, the women are instantly intrigued and even the men are impressed. When you find yourself in trouble, you are easily able to charm your way out of it, or convince others to help you. You're seen as dashing, suave and romantic. Your co-stars include Katharine Hepburn, Irene Dunne, and Joan Fontaine, stylish women who know a class act when they see it.

I think my favorite question was "Your friends consider you to be..." Of course I chose "the last person they'd leave their girlfriends alone with." (Hey, I took some liberties with switching genders when answering the question—all for the sake of accuracy, mind you.)

And this was interesting. Apparently I'm more charming than 99% of guys my age:

How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 26% on Tough
You scored higher than 19% on Roguish
You scored higher than 3% on Friendly
You scored higher than 99% on Charming

Because I know you were wondering...

2005-09-15T09:42:00.000-04:00

According to the website "OK Cupid" and their online test "Classic Leading Dame," your very own Rational Queer is also:

Carole Lombard

You scored 19% grit, 19% wit, 38% flair, and 42% class!

You're a little bit of a fruitcake, but you always act out in style. You have a good sense of humor, are game for almost anything, but you like to have nice things about you and are attracted to the high life. You're stylish and modern, but you've got a few rough edges that keep you from attaining true sophistication. Your leading men include William Powell, Fredric March, and Clark Gable. Watch out for small planes.

Hmmm. I never knew. (Thanks to my friend Rational Jenn for bringing the test to my attention via her blog!)

Response to Comment

2005-09-12T11:15:00.000-04:00

An anonymous poster left a comment in response to my last post. It read:

Not to change the subject, but I'm curious about your opinion on helping Katrina victims/evacuees. If I understand your philosophy of life correctly, the just thing to do is to be selfish - that by helping someone out we're actually hurting them (and humanity). Does this include such extenuating circumstances? Was Katrina nature's way of weeding out the weak?

I usually try to refrain from commenting on particular events as I don't want this to turn into a "current events" blog--with all the limitations and issues of relevance that imposes. But, assuming this question was offered in good faith, here's my response:

I'm not sure where you ascertained that my philosophy includes such a definition of selfish as you use (that by helping people we're hurting them or humanity). In fact, my morality *is* one of rational selfishness, but that does not preclude helping others. In a moral code of rational selfishness, one places one's own life as the top value, with all other values--including charity--under it. In such a code, "duty" has no place, so there is no “duty” to help others. However, I may help others through charity if I'm able to afford it. If I am *not* able to afford it, however, it would be a perversion of morality to give what I can not afford, putting others lives before my own. If it not a matter of my own life or death, then it becomes my own personal decision, in the context of all of my values and my life, whether or not I am willing to suffer some discomfort to help someone else. Thanks to the degree of freedom we have in the US, and the degree to which our economic system is still capitalist, most of us have items in our lives that are luxury and that, at certain times, we may be willing to forgo in order to provide a temporary relief to others. I fully support anyone’s decision to do that; I would *much* rather see voluntary charity happen than people clamoring for government funds (since those funds represent money taken from people and used in ways they have no direct control over).

And you will find, in such times, that it is the free society that has the greatest ability to provide voluntary, private charity. And prosperity, which requires freedom, also requires people to act in accordance with the facts of reality—including in matters of morality.

Regarding the idea that Katrina was “nature’s way of weeding out the weak”: nature, my friend, is not conscious. Since such a concept as “weeding out the weak” only applies to a volitional, conscious entity, this notion doesn’t even apply.

And In case you missed it, I am not a proponent of the ideas of Nietzsche, but of Ayn Rand. I strongly suggest you take a closer look at the latter’s writings in order to understand them better. They are not what you suggest in your questions.

My New Personal Ad

2005-08-22T11:38:00.000-04:00

I wonder if I'll have any better luck if I post this:

Young, single heathen looking for others who like buckin’ broncos and buckin’ trends. Must have one brain, used. Must have at minimum one opinion, new. Relationship history, education, and station in life (or lack) not important. Those who don’t argue when their pronunciation of “Ayn” is corrected will get primary consideration. Those who think this ad isn’t written in English will not receive a response. Please demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the Arabic numeral system by returning calls.

Who's Running?

2005-08-17T10:39:00.000-04:00

It’s always irked me when a lack of faith in a god is equated with being afraid of such a being. Many country music artists like this theme. Lines like “I tried to run, I’ve tried to hide / From the stained-glass windows in my mind,” while lyrical, present a false alternative. Such an idea is based on the premise that there even is such a being, completely ruling out the possibility that there isn’t.

I won’t go into, here, all the reasons why there is no god (or gods, for you pantheists). Suffice it to say that I’m an atheist.

This, of course, presents a dilemma when supporting music I like, namely country. But it’s a disadvantage that’s outweighed by the benefit I get from truly benevolent music, music that doesn’t seek to denigrate or bring down but rather to lift up or simply help someone cope with pain. (I’ve written an article, published elsewhere on the web, on why I like country music. I plan to reprint it and others on my upcoming website.)

The point today, however, is that one doesn’t have to be “running” from anything in order to not believe in a deity. In fact, it is often fear that draws one to belief in the supernatural; if the world is perceived as a big, scary place, one whose rules are unfathomable, one may seek comfort in the idea that someone or something, able to see the “bigger picture,” knows what’s going on and why. If such a being existed, it would only make sense to attempt to entreat it on one’s behalf, which is all that prayer is. What most theists don’t realize is that such prayer anthropomorphizes the god—it denies its identity as being of “unknowable by human understanding.” Entreating anyone is an attempt at persuasion. Persuasion is a psychological tool, based on what one has observed of human behavior and motivation throughout one’s life.

One tactic is to debase oneself: “Dear God, I am only a worthless seeker, waiting to be guided to your purpose by your Heavenly Hand.” This is based on the strategy of (falsely) aggrandizing someone by reducing one’s own stature in his eyes. It only works on a person who’s a bit sadistic. A self-confident, independent person does not want to be surrounded by bowing, scraping serfs but people of equal or higher stature to which one can relate or look up to (and therefore increase one’s own skill or understanding). A Nietzschean power luster, however, wants people who can be controlled, manipulated—and guided.

Another tactic is to flatter the other: “Dear God, in Your infinitive wisdom, only You have the power to help me in this endeavor. Please help me succeed if it is part of Your divine plan.” This works on those who need to be “pumped up” in their own eyes by constant and obsequious praise. Again, I maintain that an independent, rational person would not be susceptible to this strategy. A person who judges others and himself based on the facts of reality would already know his own worth—it is not created by the acknowledgement of others, because in order for it to be acknowledged the worth had to exist first. The rational person appreciates it when his worth is noted, because it implies that one is dealing with someone who is looking at reality and who believes in justice (which is as much as praising the good as it is punishing the bad). But that knowledge is not a motivation to action.

These are only a couple of the ways that people pray, but I hope they demonstrate my point: Prayer is an attempt at manipulation, based on knowledge of human psychology. (And further, human psychological problems—not a healthy psychology.) Yet prayer is relied upon heavily by the true theist; it reinforces the comfort that the idea of a god brings—the comfort of “It’s out of my hands.”

A rational person knows he is his own causal agent and the ultimate goal of his life is to thrive. He must look at the world with independent eyes, refusing to close his mind to what is true and refusing to keep it open to what isn’t. He must judge himself and others by a fact-based standard, one that acknowledges what is proper for a human being to live and thrive. And he can not lose sight of what is metaphor and fantasy and what is real.

It is patently ludicrous to believe that such a person, operating by such standards, is “afraid of God.” To state “there is a God” is to claim a fact. Accumulated facts form knowledge. And one isn’t hiding from knowledge by committing oneself to gaining it by the only possible method—a rational one.

The Playboy and the Monk

2005-08-12T10:51:00.000-04:00

Due to a project at work, I’ve been working a lot of overtime lately. The advantage in being a peon (a senior peon, but a peon nonetheless) is that I actually get paid overtime when I work it—I’m not salaried (or “exempt” as my company calls it, i.e., exempt from receiving overtime pay).

The influx of cash has revealed—not for the first time but notably—two very dueling aspects of my personality.

I want to spend. A lot. I want to withdraw 10 times the amount I normally withdraw from the ATM. I want to have a wad of cash in my wallet when I open it. I want to buy, and buy, and buy. I want to go out to dinner and finally return to that generous previous self who paid for the entire meal. In fact, I just want to go out to dinner—a lot. I want to count and re-count the money in my wallet and decide, no, I just don’t have enough to last the weekend, so I’ll withdraw some more. I want to lose count of how much money I’ve spent and not care. I want my fingers to positively reek of that paper-money smell.

And…

I want to save. I want to look at my bank balance at least twice a day and just feel safe and comfortable and content. I want to spent less than I normally do for my regular expenses, just so that figure doesn’t dwindle any more than it absolutely must. I want to eat ramen noodles and maybe, for a treat, some bread and water—and only that. I want to go nowhere but my work and home and the coffee shop, where I’ll read things I bought long ago and finally get through my towering collection of books. I want to resist the urge to go out on the weekends, and instead stay home and watch movies I borrowed from a friend. I want to browse the bookstores, relishing the feel of new books in my hand and “new book smell” in my nostrils—and not buy a thing. I want to go to the clothing stores and try on things, and revel in the colors and new styles, and leave only with the clothes on my back and the money in my wallet—oops, scratch that, there’s no money in my wallet because I won’t have been to the ATM in two weeks.

Perhaps these conflicting images are simply indicative of the fact that I like extremes. I’m either early or late, rarely on time (unless I was early and got lost). I like dark chocolate and white, but rarely milk. I want to be hungry or full, rarely “satisfied.” I like to get as hot and sweaty with physical activity as I can, or sit inside in the air-conditioning and relax. I like to get up really early or really late. And I like to spend a lot—or save.

There may be a commonality between the last two extremes. Both require an excess of money. Both are seeking the comfort and security that excess can provide; the first is the comfort of physically having the money in one’s grasp, able to whip it out when necessary, with no worries of not having access to cash. The other, by contrast, is the comfort of knowing the money is there if one really needs it, and can be withdrawn at will.

I think, however, that the latter comfort is the more enduring. Once the money is gone, the anxiety of being without it returns. If one saves it, however, then it’s always there until one needs it. A little bit of excess cash can allow one to “live large” for a bit; but accumulating a lot of excess cash allows one to plan long-range, for major purchases, and improve one’s lot in life. That’s really what saving is about—delayed gratification so that the gratification can be more substantial.

Perhaps the lesson in all of this is that comfort shouldn’t come from money at all; yet, if you live on this earth, you will always have to trade value for value for the things necessary to survival and, beyond survival, human flourishing. Money is simply the medium of exchange for those values.

And that’s the real crux: money is simply a means to an end. That end may be short-range or long-range, but unless one at least ultimately uses it, it’s worthless. It can not be used as nourishment, shelter, or even protection from the cold. Unless of course one weaved a lot of it into some sort of blanket—but that would just be weird.

The Immoral Death Tax

2005-08-11T12:30:00.000-04:00

My good friend Jenn Casey sent me this letter (available for the next seven days, I believe)from the Wall Street Journal today. I promptly sent the following to my two Georgia senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson.

Dear Senator:

The Wall Street Journal has published a letter today by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist entitled “No More Hiding.” Its subject is the estate tax. (According to WSJ.com, it is available on page A12).

I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed in this letter and urge you to review and consider it. The death tax is distinctly Un-American--and immoral--in that it is a violation of property rights, which are simply an extension, in practice, of the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that *every* human being has. These ideological considerations also, however, carry with them practical considerations for our country. What incentive is there to build and grow productive enterprises with this sort of axe hanging over an entrepreneurs' heads?

It does not matter to me if I never have to face the tax, were it to continue past its planned termination date of December 31, 2010. Although I am a standard middle class worker, I am one of the (perhaps) few who believe that tax reductions to the rich are in fact what this country needs more of, not less. Every American has a right to keep what they earn legally, whether that is $20,000 a year or $2,000,000. And every American has a right to *dispose* of his earned wealth however he chooses--including passing it along to his children without the government seizing a portion of it.

Respectfully,
Jason Dixon
Atlanta, Georgia

Advice to the Homo Homo Sapiens

2005-08-05T16:18:00.000-04:00

Do not make of your sexuality a religion, thinking yourself imbued with talents and virtues by reason of it that could not possibly have come from that faculty of yours. It would be a form of faith, and faith is the enemy of reason, and therefore the enemy of life. Accept yourself, enjoy your sexuality, even revel in it—but remember to anchor yourself to reality and things as they truly are.

Homosexuality allows one, in the contemplation of another’s body so much like one’s own, to contemplate oneself. One can delve deeper and deeper into the curious mysteries of musculature, chemistry, pleasure, form and function. It’s therefore tempting to recede into exclusive contemplation of those who like oneself. It is tempting to spend one’s time with only those who can understand, first-hand, the joy that comes from a person in general the same, but in particular so very different.

However, if one goes that route, he cuts himself off from a wide array of other experiences and understanding. It is fruitful to understand those who are physically different but emotionally very much the same; it can remind us that we are all human beings, prone to a certain nature, but with infinite variety within that nature. It is also fruitful to spend time with and seek to understand those who are the same sex but attracted to their opposite. Much can be learned from the exploration of nonsexual bonding and affection.

It is not about balance, it is not about tolerance, and it is most certainly not about being “open-minded.” It is about being active-minded. It’s about learning all one can about this life and those fascinating creatures, human beings. It’s about sucking the marrow of life by way of experiences with those who share it—all of them.

Flamespotting: John Corvino

2005-08-03T10:06:00.000-04:00

I love finding great writers, and I’ve found one recently that might become a favorite. John Corvino is a philosophy professor in Detroit; his primary focus is ethics. Yet he’s reasonable, humorous, and—perhaps most surprisingly of all—rejects outright moral relativism. I’m just starting to familiarize myself with his writing so I’m not entirely certain of where he stands philosophically (although I do know he’s an atheist, so that’s a start).

In the writing I’ve read so far, his method is stellar—identify the underlying premises in fallacies about homosexuality and gay life, in order to understand and combat them. Makes me think of another philosopher and favorite writer of mine; I wonder if Mr. Corvino has ever heard of Ayn Rand?

You can find a bio and list of articles at the Independent Gay Forum, for which he’s written many articles. My favorite so far is his series, “Homosexuality and Morality.”

(As an aside, the title for this little column is a nod to my very good friend Jennifer Iannolo, who wrote, in part, the following, in an article by the same name.

“No, this is not the story of a fag-hag…Instead, it is the story of my life’s mission.

“I am a seeker of the spark in others — that magnificent, radiant quality known as competence…I am vigilant in the pursuit of such beings, as they too often flit by in a state of hurried productiveness. Sometimes I have to grab them by the arm and shout, 'Wait! I am a kindred spirit! Share a moment with me, please!' Their presence is too precious to let slip by.”

I hope, in seeking these sparks to praise and share, to find so many that a regular post isn't enough; and may it encourage you to praise and share the sparks you've found.)

Ideology and Facts

2005-07-27T15:24:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I spoke of M. L. Rossi’s 2003 book, What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World. I mentioned Ms. Rossi’s left-of-center tendencies and her framing certain issues discussed in the book in terms of those tendencies. It’s necessary to expand on my last statement: those sensitive to spin will be able to easily ignore the ideology and focus on the facts.

To be precise, what I meant was that it’s easy to separate Ms. Rossi’s ideology from the facts. I do not believe it’s possible to separate ideology as such from one’s understanding of and interpretation of the facts. (In fact, if one has a reality-oriented—and therefore objective—ideology, that ideology should not be separable from the facts and will actually proceed from those facts—and all others, since there’s only one reality.) What exactly do I mean?

To take one example, there is the issue of wealth. If one sees wealth as a static quantity, one that is not made but simply “here”—somehow—and needs only to be distributed, then one will see societal struggles as simply a matter of the “haves” keeping wealth from the “have-nots.” If there is no concept in one’s mind of creating and earning wealth, then the “haves” must have what they have as a result of accidence, chance, force, or exploitation. This includes business that seek to find and retrieve oil from the ground in other countries. Nevermind that that oil would remain underground, useless, were it not for those businesses; nevermind that to even retrieve the oil themselves those owning the land would have to either apply a process of rational and painstaking inquiry into reality and discover the method by which to extract it or trade value for value to someone who has that knowledge; nevermind that in order to create wealth from the oil it is “the people” who need the businesses; nevermind that it is not by praying to one’s god, slitting one’s neighbor’s throat, or any other manner of barbarity that one creates wealth, but rather by a commitment to reason, reality, and dealing with others by trading the effort of one’s mind and body with that value created by the effort of someone else.

No, those businesspeople are exploiters because they couldn’t resist the desire to better themselves and their society—and, by consequence, mankind.

Ideas have consequences. One’s ideas will shape the way one interprets the events and conditions one observes (and one what does about them). Is objectivity impossible, then? Is the whole human history one of people deluded by their own “preference” in ideas? The answer is no, and the reason is that “preferences”—i.e., whim—have no place in the discussion of ideology. (One’s political leanings are a result of one’s ideas; one’s choice of dinner dessert is not. The latter is a mere preference.)

Ideas must be fact-based. Ideas must be based on reality, not on “preference” or whim. This is how one remains objective. If one’s goal is human flourishing, one can not endorse force, theft, and slavery—neither the slavery of the have-nots to the haves nor the slavery of the haves to the have-nots.

Bookshelf: What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World

2005-07-26T16:01:00.000-04:00

A typical lament heard within the US and around the world is that Americans don’t know enough about the rest of the world. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that one of the very groups of people charged with informing us—newscasters—are one of the groups constantly reminding us of this “fact.” It’s my opinion that if the typical American needed to know more, he would. Because of our geographical (and to a certain extent cultural) isolation, however, it’s simply not necessary for most Americans to know every little detail about every little country in the globe.

I’ll grant that we could stand to know more, particularly given that our government is increasingly being called upon to make decisions about global involvement. For those wishing to become better informed, an excellent first step is M.L. Rossi’s What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World (Plume, 2003).

The book is divided into three sections: Tickers, Slow Tickers, and Talkers. The first section is about volatile countries the US is either already involved in (e.g., Iraq) or watching closely (e.g., North Korea); the second section is about countries that the US should keep an close eye on (e.g., Iran); and the third is about countries, as described in the Introduction, that “people are talking about—or that are headed by loquacious leaders.”

Each profile of a country (or in some cases, a region) gives a rundown of stats (such as ethnicity, populatation, language), background, a map showing other countries and bodies of water with which the profiled country shares borders, and why that country is important. I was surprised by how "digestible" each profile is.

There are grating aspects to this book. Ms. Rossi tends to view a lot of the world (particularly the Middle East) in terms of imperialism, money, and oil. She also reveals left-of-center tendencies when speaking of government social programs and poverty. But in the main the book provides plenty of factual information about countries that are current players in the world stage; those sensitive to spin will be able to easily ignore the ideology and focus on the facts.

Bedrocks of Bigotry - And How To Counter Them

2005-07-15T15:53:00.000-04:00

Racism and other forms of bigotry have their roots in philosophy, without doubt. Bad ideas and ignorance of good ideas definitely influence those who indulge in such irrationality. But they have their roots in psychology, too.

Out of the gate, humans have a psychological tendency to see the world in terms of “us” versus “them.” Those who are different are curiosities; the more isolated one is from other groups, the more there is a tendency to view “them” as homogenous. Because one sees more of one’s own group (whether that group be race, sexual orientation, or even gender), one tends to see the members of that group as individuals – sharing a common trait or traits, but different from each other in a number of ways. “They,” however, can be viewed as “all the same”; to a certain extent, even, the characteristic that makes the others different from one’s own group can be interpreted as the predominant or fundamental one.

The antidote to this (both socially and personally) toxic viewpoint is to strive to present different individuals within our own group as just that – different individuals. Avoiding stereotyping is important, but so is avoiding whitewashing. Many in the movement to further gay equality demand that the media and gay organizations only present “positive” portrayals of gay people. But this agenda can only ultimately hurt us. Yes, we should criticize, at the top of our lungs and with all of our persuasive power, those who portray gay people as predominantly pedophiles, mentally deranged, or licentious hedonists. We should also criticize, in the same manner, those who seek to present only a particular type of gay person – whether that type be the diffident, polite neighbor couple, the bitchy, dithering fashion queen, or even the butch but strangely-still-not-masculine leather daddy. (And, of course, those who deal in only these stereotypes should be criticized most strongly of all.) But we also should not silence those attempts to present stories of gay people as they are. There are certainly gay people who are bad people. While their orientation is certainly not the cause of wrong behavior, we should not be afraid of showing its presence.

The strongest counter to all of this is personal visibility – coming out. Not only am I convinced that, in the main, needless closeting of oneself is psychologically damaging, there is no doubt that being in the closet is socially damaging to gay people as a group (although the personal value in coming out should be the primary consideration, not any sort of social consequences). Many feel that since they do not identify with any public gay image, they will risk being associated with an unchosen identity. Yet, I would argue, those are the very people who should come out – because they are so different. We desperately need to see many, varied gay individuals, to impress upon others that gay people are just like everyone else in the respect of being – well, many, varied individuals.

Despicable

2005-07-13T20:17:00.000-04:00

As if the daily news out of Iraq wasn't bad enough, today Yahoo News carries a story of a speeding car bomb colliding with an American Humvee carrying soldiers handing out candy and toys to children. Leave it to collectivist swine to sacrifice children for the sake of their despicable cause.

As troubling as this is, however, I'm also disturbed by this sentence in the middle of the article:

The slaughter of so many Shiite children is likely to raise tensions further between the majority Shiites - who dominate the government - and the minority Sunni Arabs, the foundation of the insurgency.

Must all mainstream news nowadays be couched in the language of multiculturalism and collectivism?!? Examine the premises here: the Shiites will hold Sunni Arabs - as a people - responsible for the fanaticism of a certain number; and the tensions are solely a result of the fact that one group is the majority and another the minority (i.e., that pressure-group warfare were the only possible outcome, as if the doctrine of individual rights had never been discovered, articulated, and utilized as the foundation of an entire country - the United States).

2005-07-13T11:41:00.000-04:00

I found the following from Independent Gay Forum interesting, particularly item 3 (which complements nicely my previous post on psychology).

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell49.html

I highly recommend this site overall, by the way. I find it very useful to visit it when I'm running low on confidence in our modern gay community. To learn more about its mission, see here.

Burn on!

2005-07-08T15:34:00.000-04:00

A façade kills true emotion. Maintaining a front (whether it is of being “cool” or whatever) focuses one’s attentions on continuing that effort instead of understanding what one is truly feeling. It’s perfectly ok to maintain the sanctity of one’s own innermost core by not revealing it to every single passing stranger – or even to every single friend. But when one refuses to fully, explicitly understand the emotions a situation – or a person – causes, one risks deadening one’s emotional capacity and becoming the façade.

Sometimes sincerity is confronted with cynicism. This isn’t always a battle between a cynical friend and a sincere (or, as the cynic would put it, “naïve”) friend. Sometimes it’s a battle one fights with oneself. For those honest souls out there who are afraid of embarrassing themselves, just remember that there is a difference between the saccharine, fake over-enthusiasm that should be met with incredulity and that genuine enthusiasm you exhibit.
If you really feel it, don’t be afraid to show it. It will keep the fire going. And it might even attract a kindred soul to your flame.

The First Marriage Revolution

2005-07-07T09:52:00.000-04:00

Though I don't intend to use this forum to simply paste links to news items, I thought the following article from The New York Times made some decent points. (Please note that viewing the article will require free registration.)

Op-Ed Contributor: The Heterosexual Revolution By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Traditional marriage, with its long history, was upended by heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians simply noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

Ya Got To Have Friends

2005-07-06T14:17:00.000-04:00

I returned last night from another amazing weekend with my friends in Tennessee. With others from New York and New Zealand, it was quite a crew. We had a combined celebration of my birthday and Independence Day and the party lasted from Friday to Tuesday. How hard it was to say goodbye and get back on the road home!

This weekend did remind me, as most extended times with this particular group do, how important being simply “oneself” is. These are the folks with whom I’m most at ease, most open and honest, and – as a result – most truly myself.

There’s an interesting side effect to this result: any remaining “issues,” particularly façades or poses, are immediately evident to my mind. I can tell, with a simple feeling of unease or dissonance, that something I’m doing at a particular moment is in conflict with my true nature or personality.

This is amazingly useful for “rooting out” automatized reactions or habits that need to be corrected. And it’s amazingly refreshing to have a group of people with whom such discoveries about oneself can be found.

What Is Psychology?

2005-06-30T11:13:00.000-04:00

I’ve recently started a book in the “Teach Yourself” series titled simply, “Psychology.” It’s a basic primer on the subject and explores the self, the self and others, psychological development, and other areas in the field.

What has struck me as significant in reading the book is the degree to which the author makes a distinction between traditionally held views of psychology (e.g., the Freudians, the behaviorists) and the views widely held today. It seems, from this preliminary reading at least, that no longer do psychologists view humans as 100% conditioned beings with no free will. The author, in fact, takes pains to simply and succinctly point out the absurdity of such a view and separates the idea of humans conditioned by environment, circumstance, and other people from the idea of humans influenced by such factors.

I don’t know if this paradigm is held by the majority of psychologists today or if this is a notable exception. But if this point of view is (or becomes) dominant, there may be hope for understanding ourselves – and others – yet.

Another Blank Page

2005-06-29T19:04:00.000-04:00

As an aspiring wordsmith, I have to wonder if the blank, white page has always excited chilly terror in the veins of writers. Of course I realize it’s not simply terrifying; it’s exhilarating, full of promise and hope and the scent of the future. But the terror’s there, too.

I’ve put off the “blog thing” for quite awhile. I took an initial stab at an online journal once, but – just as with every paper journal I ever started – I made entries only sporadically. One doesn’t convince others to read one’s words when those words are few and far between. (Though I don’t think those others should be the primary reason for any journal, even a public one.)

But, with writing calling more and more lately, I definitely need a finger tapping my shoulder, reminding me to organize my musings and actually commit them to paper. This medium may do nice nicely, even if the finger – and the paper – is virtual.