In response to my remarks about how he should not just walk away rather than apologize, Joe responds in two comments I put together here in two pargraphs:,
The difficulty is in the elimination of falsehood. Man prefers falsehood. This is to say that man prefers blindness. It is extraordinarily simple and rewarding beyond belief to glimpse truth. But the veil of falsehood must be dropped. The resistance to the dropping of the veil of falsehood is ordinarily enormous. A man can live his entire life wrapped in the veil of falsehood. But truth exists. It goes nowhere. It bows to no one. It makes no compromise. Truth does not hurt as has been said by some. Jesus said it frees. That’s true. It does free. That freedom simply means we are no longer bound by the falsehood that previously bound us. That falsehood is practically unlimited. Joe knows this is true.
Many years ago Joe Rorke said that there were two things that he did not want to be. He said he did not want to be a teacher and he did not want to be a preacher. Joe Rorke is not a teacher and Joe Rorke is not a preacher. Joe Rorke is nothing more than a voice in the wilderness. Truth may pass through Joe Rorke but Joe Rorke is not truth. Joe Rorke does not possess truth. Nobody possesses truth. Truth is.
Comment by joe rorke
MY REPLY:
It would be both tiresome and false for me to say Joe’s approach is hte Objectivism of Ayn Rand.
But the arguments he presents here I became used to to oer forty years ago from that group.
The argument Joe presents here is that the world consists of Joe Rorke and truth.
So one’s outlook is based on 1) onesself and 2) objective fact.
As I told the Objectivists, these are wonderful points, but it all runs into one objecdtive fact:
It doesn’t work.
In the real world each Objectivists is willing to fight his own battle and leave the problems of others to them. He has no obligations.
Like all forms of Wordism this would work fine if everybody in the world went along with it.
But in the real world, if they didn’t have other people who have moral obligations to defend them, Objectivists would be slaves inside a week. As I told the Objectivists, what I see is their being chained down as galley slaves — after all, which one is going to be the one to take on the slave driver FIRST — and then finding ways to minimize their effort at pulling their particular oar.
They pronounced me Irrelevant to truth.
Robert Ardrey discusses a troup of baboons where some males, who had not earned the right to breed yet, went out and led the leopard away from the troop. Some died doing it, as they knew they would. Obligations to something besides purely abstract truth are seential to the survival of every social animal.
On the other end, we have the “power comes from the barrel of a gun!” crowd. They say military heroism is the only ethic. Obedience is the only ethic. So after the obedience crap of the group that calls itself the Greatest Generation, Objectivists were an intellectual relief of gigantic proportions.
I AM a preacher. IAM a teacher. I don’t think I have made a secret of that.
Joe says I manipulate. The Objectivists call me a “thug,” which means someone who would use force to make people defend society. Both are right.
If Bob’s Blog is a success, it will manipulate the hell out of you. You will be a force for what ***I*** want you to be a force for.
Lawyers tell me I would take the law into my own hands.
They are dead right. The only Constitution I recognize says that We the peole are taking power wihtout any Great Principles or any appeal to the Lord or hte King.
Innocent people get punished because we are human. Many say that it is better for one innocent person to go free if a hundred guilty ones have to be acquitted, too. The problem with that is that it doesn’t work. Every time one of that hundred commits a crime, it will punish another innocent person.
This is all a balance. It is messy balance and a nasty one. Every Wordist contrasts this with the perfection he offers. All of the Wordist approaches which offer us some kjind of perfection are a human disaster. Joe wants no part of this balance. He wants to be Joe.
As long as there are patsies out there who willl make it possible for Joe to be Joe, this will work just fine. At this point Joe is more valuable to the balance than any of hte self-sacrificers, but our would be useless and helpless without them.
But they are wrose than uselss without the Joes.
Joe and the Objectivists are part of the very balance they claim to rise above.
#1 by Mark on 01/28/2006 - 4:44 pm
You know, after reading this 2 times I’m still uncertain as to the underlying meaning of it all. I’m more of a black and white kinda guy and advanced theory makes my head hurt. Give me a brick and a hammer and I can make red sand. Give me mathematical theories behind that hammer and I’ll probably sneak off to look for a few more bricks to take a whack at while you’re talking physics and what-not. I honestly think we need Peter to chime in on this one and give us his opnion, and maybe explain what was said.
My head hurts. I’m gonna go look for some aspirin…
#2 by joe rorke on 01/28/2006 - 9:59 pm
Bob, I was quite certain that you would not understand what was said in this piece. It has nothing to do with objectivism. You like to categorize and type cast things and people. I expected that. I just wanted to take you down a deeper road and see if you could grasp it.
There’s more. Are you seated? Good. I hope so. There is no Joe. That is just a name. A man is not his name. If I took “Bob” from you and gave you “Sydney”, would you still be “you?” There is no you. It’s just a mental machination.
These are just words or they describe reality. Which do you think it is? There is not “my” reality and “Bob’s” reality. There is just reality.
Joe (it’s just a name) has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. What I have mentioned has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. The place I’m talking about is a completely different place from what you have in mind. Obviously, you haven’t been there. I have heard you criticize it on one occassion without knowing what you were criticizing. I notice you tend to flail away at times. I understand that. It’s all part of your life experiences. You have had to defend yourself far more often than I have. So you flail away.
But you cannot flail away at truth and you cannot flail away at reality and accomplish anything but exhaustion.
You put together those two paragraphs that you say Joe introduced and I don’t think you came close to understanding them.
At least you admit that you didn’t hear this from Ayn Rand. If you heard this over forty years ago and had the capacity to understand it, you wouldn’t be the man you are today. You haven’t begun to understand this level of understanding.
Now. I notice over time that you speak of that which “works” and that which does not “work.” I am forced to ask: is your enemies (and you clearly have them) plan of action “working?” Has your enemies plan of action been “working” for a long period of time? If so, does that mean they are doing something right? You say that “this works” and “that doesn’t work” and so on. Fine. Now let’s define what you mean by saying that something “works.” Pardon me for talking like a lawyer. I can’t help it. It’s part of the Joe that doesn’t exist. But your people are going to have to understand what you mean when you say that something either “works” or it does not “work.” Let us assume nothing. Let us presume nothing. Make it clear. Feel free to refer to “Joe” as a horse’s ass but your people must understand clearly what you are saying.
I know this: truth works. Reality works. Does Reality say that your enemies are smarter than you are? Because Truth and Reality are the same thing.
It’s totally unfair to hide behind the concept of “Wordism” when addressing my commentary. If you can get away with that you can claim that every idea that you don’t like is founded upon “Wordism.” The shield of “Wordism” will protect you from all Truth. Well, it won’t. Of course, the people associated with politicians cannot be expected to exercise fairness of any kind. But a gentleman does exercise fairness.
Somewhere in the Bible it says, “and with all thy getting, get understanding.” Now that concept has to be defined. What is understanding? I don’t recommend going to a political actor to get it. They have their own kind of understanding. But it’s not worth two cents. There’s a much higher level of understanding.
I like your definition of the Objectivist being the galley slave. It’s quite true. That, too, defines the Real World. The Real World encompasses many things. Now, the Objectivist is a galley slave precisely why? If he’s minding his own business who is that predator who oppresses him? I don’t suppose you support the concept that man is essentially human dung, do you? Even the schoolyard has its bullies.
The Objectivists were wrong. “You” are not irrelevant to Truth notwithstanding the fact that there is no “you” other than a mental machination. The mind suggesting to “you” that there is a “you.” And that’s how you live your life. Truth remains. Reality remains. And it will never be deterred. So what is the enemy doing today to undermine your existence?
Bob, a person is not obligated to Truth. He merely accepts it and surrenders to it…..as in Step 1. Or he fails to do that. If he fails to do that his life is miserable.
I’ve decided I’m not going to permit you to categorize “Joe” with the Objectivists. You don’t know where “Joe” is coming from. It’s just convenient to categorize “Joe” as an Objectivist. Nice try. No cigar. But we’re still having fun, are we not?
#3 by Dave on 01/29/2006 - 1:57 am
The thing about wordism is that it is not a point. Points are objects of rumination and there is nothing to ruminate on because the penalty phase for moral failure begins immediately in this world of ours.
Related to this is Bob’s resentment of the “Greatest Generation”. I think his resentment is really resentment at the stupendous confusion of mind this “Greatest Generation” nonsense represents as WWII was a moral travesty beyond belief. The pain of its crimes were sown into the very fabric of reality and worst of all the bad outcomes persist through descent, not the least of which is a culture of cowardly bullying aimed at getting the stupid and gullible to embrace self-disrespect. Such self-disrespect comes in many containers. Perhaps Objectivism is one of them: “Here kitty kitty. Want consolation? I got PLENTY consolations”.
#4 by Peter on 01/29/2006 - 3:00 pm
I always thought Objectivism was just another Jewish confidence game. Wasn’t Ayn Rand just another gypsy with trinkets to sell? I never paid it much attention because I never saw anything in it. Confidence games are always hard to understand. They make it up as they go along, and if you could follow what they said you would see through it.
All I know is that Objectivism is just one way to sell Libertarian-Judaism. Not being an expert, I always thought it meant there was just one rule: no Force. That means that crooks can do whatever they want, and if you try to stop them, you would have to use Force, and that is forbidden.
“Objectivism”, I thought, is just a way to say that what you want is the whole world. Nobody else exists. Those who want to help others, or who want to live among a bunch of nice people (community) are stupid. Since you are the whole world, there is no “subject”. You are the “object.” So what others want is not an “objective” fact.
The end is always the same as Socialism: the worst crooks with the least self-constraint become the dictators to everyone else on how they must live.
If you tried to stop them, that would be Force. Objectivists are genocidists.
#5 by Peter on 01/29/2006 - 3:20 pm
Confidence games aren’t supposed to make sense. They are meant to confuse you so the con man can get away with something.
In this case, it means that those in power must be free to do get away with everything they do.
#6 by Peter on 01/29/2006 - 11:07 pm
“Free market” means the powerful are free to do whatever they want and charge you for it.
I like to call it “Judeo-Libertarianity.”
#7 by Peter on 01/29/2006 - 11:12 pm
Another name for it is “Mob rule” or “the Mob rules.”