Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <11933@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 90 02:22:41 GMT
References: <7450@tank.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 56

From article <7450@tank.uchicago.edu>, by rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski):

>>
>>Now, how did Mr. Tracinski jump to this conclusion, might I ask?
> 
> By the general phrasing of the message, which indicated that Mr. Jones was
> only interested in posting on SPO in order to attack Objectivism rather than 
> out of any serious desire to understand Objectivist arguments. That is, his 
> purpose seemed to be merely negative--to attack Objectivism--not positive--
> to gain a further understanding of Objectivism.  This is not to say that
> SPO is only for those who agree with Objectivism, but that its purpose is
> of a positive nature.

What 'general phrasing' do you refer to? Here's what I said, exactly as
you quoted it:

   > I would like to have talk.philosophy.objectivism, because as an ex-
   > Objectivist, I would welcome the opportunity to air out the reasons why
   > I abandoned it. Perhaps I might use the exercise of posting to that
   > forum to clarify my own views. Perhaps I might even shed some light on
   > the subject for others. In any case, I think it would be fun to talk it
   > out.


There's not an emotional word in the lot. Perhaps the word 'fun' bothers
you?  Don't worry. I don't equate fun and malicious mischief.

But look at the 'general phrasing' you use: 'attack', '[no] serious desire',
'merely negative'. It's not quoted here, but I seem to remember an
allusion to a 'dumping ground'.

You read quite a bit more into this posting than I wrote. I'm not
an Objectivist. I was once. I think it would be enjoyable to
talk about it. It is not obvious to me that difference of opinion is
'merely negative' or that it constitutes an 'attack'. I have a friend of
twenty-two years who still considers himself an Objectivist, but who
nevertheless enjoys discussing the topic with me on the phone and on the rare
occasions when one of us can make the 1200 mile visit. Yes, it is true
that if I post to an Objectivist group I'll most likely say something that
is not right down the party line. That's not exactly like taking out a club
and bopping you one is it?

You say I don't have a serious desire -- there's that 'S'-word again --
to understand Objectivism. But in fact, I studied it for years. I am more
receptive to other's ideas than you may imagine, and quite eager to listen
to reason. Few things please me more. I think it was largely the promise
of reason that drew me to Objectivism.

The ironic bit of business I posted in response to your first reply was
a bit caustic, I confess. Sorry about that. You know how a reformed smoker
gets livid if somebody lights up -- how recovering alcoholics preach at
the tippler? Well, I once took myself very seriously. My 'self-esteem' was
so high, it was right off the scale. Now days, when my pomposity-sensor
starts beeping, I sometimes let the sarcasm get out of hand. Perhaps it was
unwarranted. Maybe the sensor needs adjustment. If you misread the tone
of my message, maybe I misread the tone of yours.