In 1957 with the first publication of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand said she was going to stop the mystic, collectivist, altruistic, machine--that is, the anti-autonomous man machine--then running the world.  She said she'd do this by filling up the world with people who were so selfish--so individually selfish, so Objectivismly selfish--that they would not tolerate the likes of those who preached people didn't have any kind of needs of consciousness, let alone no fundamental, basic need of consciousness such as the need for freedom.

  

If freedom isn't a legitimate human need why do we value it so deeply?

  

Are we born valuing it or as we develop and grow older do we learn the reasons why we should (hence, do) value it?

 

The answer to this depends on how we interpret the meaning of the philosopher's assertion that human beings are born tabula rasa, that is, are born as a blank-slate. Is it as BiO Spiritualism interprets it--that is, as the way in which BiO Spiritualism paraphrases Biocentric Psychology: our survival needs are innate not learned and our to-be-developed blank slate capacities to satisfy those needs are programmed by us in our non-omniscient volitional choices as we act and re-act to the world in which we live OR is it as Behaviorism and all other non-need-psychology schools of thought interpret it: our blank-slate human needs have to be learned and hence they are not innate and our innate human capacities to satisfy our helter-skelter needs are programmed by the environment and/or genetics as we flailingly re-act to the world in which we have to propagate our gene pool.

 

The difference here is critical and it forms one cornerstone of what can be called "psycho-hermeneutics" (as in interpreting your own psychology rather than relying on someone else to do it for you) and the beginnings of a truly New Spiritualism. A spiritualism that cares about precision and being right (needs are not learned, they are discovered). A spiritualism that worships non-contradiction and cares about truth (learning how to properly exercise our capacities to satisfy our needs is what is learn-able). A spiritualism that starts by saying that truth and falsehood are not the same thing. That truth--as Aristotle said--must be preferred. And by implication, the false must be--not de-ferred, but--dis-valued. How much preferred and how much dis-valued is part of the subject matter of psycho-hermeneutics as already presented in Chapter 17 (e.g., when the skin deep Skinnerians say man has no depth--no soul/no consciousness--they are ... no right, that is, they are wrong).

 

For an example of truth vs. false consider that in Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism freedom is a human need. In Behaviorism it is not. Both of these positions cannot be true. In Behaviorism--the alleged "science" of psychology as proclaimed by the mainstream American intellectuals of the last century--not only is freedom not a human need, but neither is dignity. Contrast this with the psychology of the early Objectivist, Dr. Nathaniel Branden. As an Objectivist he accepts that freedom is a basic human need, and as a (life-centered, Biocentric) psychologist he argues so also is dignity [i.e. authentic self-esteem] a human need. He "preaches" that freedom and dignity are such basic human needs that without them we are not human beings. Dr. Branden's first major book on psychology: The Psychology of Self Esteem is totally and completely dedicated to teaching developing man how to become dignified--that is, authentically self-valuing--man. This book was published the same year an American explorer stepped on the moon and it is an intricate study and blueprint for man--the explorer--to follow as he discovers how to create and build his autonomous self out of nature's raw materials.

 

We all have the raw materials. As did all humans before us.

 

But "we" are here and now, so one question for us as modern day men and women is: Can we achieve autonomy (be self ruling in the self functions: TFAJ) in spite of the culture we live in? That is to say, that is the question for those of us who value autonomy. For those "others" who dis-value autonomy...for T.H.E.M. the question is: How can I do my part to help the Behaviorist's and their friends kill off autonomous man? Is sending them my tax money to support their research good enough or should I do more?

 

The second question in the foregoing could very easily be one of the follow up questions that T.H.E.Y. ask themselves. But it isn't the only one to be asked. There are many other better questions that "they" could ask themselves but do not. Some of these better questions are: what is freedom? Where does it come from? Is it guaranteed to individuals or does it depend on some kind of action on the individuals part? Is freedom valuable or is the valuing of it merely a conditioned--associationally "learned" in the Skinnerian-Pavlovian dog sense--response and consequently human beings can just as easily "learn" to dis-value it? For correct answers to these kinds of "better" questions we have to turn to the Objectivists, who, as a group of professional intellectuals, have become--not by default, but by choice--the intellectual guardians of freedom in America (and by default, on the planet).

  

One such Objectivist is Dr. Peikoff who some thirteen years after Dr. Branden wrote the definitive psychological primer on how to become dignified man, Dr. Peikoff published his first book "The Ominous Parallels. The End of Freedom in America".  In this book Dr. Peikoff--the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand's Objectivism following her unfortunate, sad death this same year--meticulously traced and identified for the whole world to see, the philosophical roots beneath and hence the cause of the German Nazis who initiated World War II and killed off freedom in a way never seen before. With this book Dr. Peikoff predicted that freedom in America was going to die by forces similar to those inhabiting the inner-conflicted ideologues--the Social Democrats--of Germany's Weimar Republic following World War I. The Social Democrats of that era thought they could integrate the nonintegrable, that is, they thought they were exempt from the laws of consciousness and as such that they could do the impossible. They of course didn't come out and say directly, "We think we can do the impossible", rather they "predicted" they could by implying they could. They implied they could integrate Marxism and Capitalism by integrating Capitalism's methods into Marxism's ideals. In essence "they" said: "Let's promote Marxism by using the Capitalists. Capitalistic man isn't very bright when it comes to [a sheep's view of] ethics so he should be pretty easy to control. We'll use his productive superiority to promote our ideology." As a result--of trying to integrate the nonintegrable--the (German) Weimarcians made themselves and their country along with them ineffectual obstacles to the (Nazi) thugs who eventually took over Germany. The thugs and their accomplices then, took over Germany by predicting that they and their social designers could design and produce what nobody else could: a square circle society. Then, these Nazi thugs and their sympathizer thugs proceeded to show the world what a real "square circle" looks like, and how to build one.

  

If one believed in God, which I no longer do, but if one did, it is here that one would stand erect, look up while throwing one's hands skyward and say: "thank god for America".

  

And Americans.

 

Today is a day in the first year of the first century following all of last century's dire predictions.

 

And where do we stand?

 

In this, the first year of the first century following Dr. Skinner's prediction and efforts to destroy autonomous man as well as all the voluminous anti-Skinnerian by-products of numerous Ayn Rand disciple-authors--including the Herculean efforts of the still fighting Dr. Peikoff--we stand where freedom stands every day of its life: on the edge of the precipice of apathy and mental laziness. In the face of this--that is in the colloquial sense of a "in your face" attitude--the President of the United States of America in his year 2000 budget has authorized--unopposed in a silence of meekness and moral cowardice that can be heard around the world--the President has authorized Government agencies to dole out five billion dollars per year (to start and because of the nature of the bureaucratic mind to escalate every year per year thereafter) to Dr. Skinner's followers and sympathizers for them to use in putting the final touches on what Skinner had started--albeit not originated--and envisioned: a totally planned, socially engineered society completely devoid of autonomous men and women.

 

If you think my last sentence is excessively long, wait until you live under the kind of engineered society you might have to live under if the "collectivists" achieve their utopian dreams of a ruled, dictated, totally controlled "society".

 

Along with the irrefutable fact of the [Five Billion Dollar] Government Grant to Behaviorist sympathizers it appears quite possible that three other things are just as true. One, George Orwell will end up being off by no more than 100 years in his prediction made in the 1940's that "1984" would be the year totalitarianism takes over America. Two: if Objectivism and Biocentric Psychology do not explicitly embrace each other and/or if enough of us don't embrace both of them--or some very close relatives thereof--for ourselves, then you, me and everybody will be double speaking "doublespeak" well before the occurrence of the Centennial celebration of "1984". A "celebration" that is being planned right now by your wannabe social engineers and social designer-controllers. And three: Dr. Peikoff succeeded (almost single handedly albeit with a little help from his friends) in warding off a Weimarcian society in America while at the same time inadvertently providing the Behaviorists, Cognitive Psychologist-Neurologists and all bureaucratic minds EVERYWHERE (thanks to the Internet) a reverse blueprint to follow as they work to bring to fruition their "utopian" view--updated and "modernized" out of necessity--of an America ruled by a VOLUNTARY TOTALITARIANISM.

 

Voluntary totalitarianism is pure Democracy's ultimate, inevitable, inescapable, "logical" end.

 

Your success at becoming autonomous man is our only defense against it.

 

 

 

 [concluded in next issue]

 

 

 

 

 

 

As of this time BiO Spiritualism Counseling Centers are only available online.

 

If you feel you need more than "sounding board" advice as same is afforded you via BiO Spiritualism's Online processes (including the multiple benefits you can get for $$$ FREE $$$ from just reading the content in www.gdeering.com`s BiO Spiritualism and Gary's Venns websides) you are best advised to seek out a therapist with whom you can establish a rapport and get some serious psychological (that is, psychological as in Selfishness Training) work done.  

 

For some insight on how you can help yourself manage this aspect of your growth and development go here and click on the "How to choose a therapist" article.

  

Read on ...