Hank examines the flaw in Lillian’s scheme during Thanksgiving dinner with the family. The family helps bring Hank’s “trail” into focus with their non-response to Hank’s treatment of Philip. Hank wins the court case using his new understanding and the words Francisco gave him at the party. Hank goes to see Francisco to learn more about him. Hank tells Francisco he ordered copper from him for the most important order of his career. Francisco reminds Hank he warned him not to have any dealings with d’Anconia Copper. Ragnar seizes the shipment and Hank wants to kill Francisco.
SUBPLOT (loose ends)
The Wet Nurse did not inform on Hank when he had the chance. He asks Hank what is a moral premise.
There are more railroad disasters from tracks wearing out and splitting.
Hank admits without the joy he gets from work he would break and quit.
Coal is being substituted for oil and the leading supplier, Ken Danagger, retires.
Francisco admits to Hank he hasn’t been a playboy.
Francisco swears he is Hank’s friend.
COMMENTS
Scale – Hank has progressed past Dagny. “Hank, I’ll never think that it’s hopeless, not ever again.” Hank continues to connect with Francisco only to feel betrayed. Philip is a mess. He is against Hank, but he says he needs money.
Hank's Quest - Hank discovers the flaw. During Thanksgiving dinner Hank realizes his virtue is being used against him! "Her (Lillian) only power was the power of his own virtues. What if he chose to withdraw it?" During the trial, Hank states his beliefs when it comes to business: "I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with..." Does Hank believe this about sex and marriage?
Hank's Next Quest - At the end of the trial, Hank does two things:
1. Realizes the flaw and its implications: "He was seeing the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world."
2. Focuses on the next mystery: "Why were they willing to betray the best within them? He could not name the reason, but he knew that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark within the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer." (Remember the "best within us" question that was posed in the opening chapter?)
Heroes – Once again, Ms. Rand believes the masses (Eddie Willers, Wet Nurse, and the courtroom applause) want someone to look up to. EDDIE: “whatever they do to you is supposed to be in the name of all the people…I just wanted to say that I…that it won’t be in my name, even if I know that that doesn’t mean anything.” HANK: “It means much more than you suspect. Perhaps more than any of us suspect.” “Rearden had turned to glance back and had caught the Wet Nurse looking after him as a boy would look at the hero of his childhood’s favorite adventure story.”
Sex – Hank realizes he is wrong about his view of sex with Dagny. Hank doesn’t hold to the Law of Causality when it comes to dealing with people. People need to have a good self-esteem (cause) to enjoy sex (result). Sex (result) doesn’t truly increase one’s self-esteem (cause) in the long term.
Remember the model from chapter 2? We can now add sex to it! The sex you enjoy through your body is a result of your desires, which come from your values through your self-esteem:
Values ------> Self-esteem/Desire -----> Your Body -----> Enjoyment
Press – “I am in full agreement with the facts about everything said about me (Hank) in the newspapers – with the facts, but not with the evaluation.” Is the press’ job to print facts, evaluations or both? What do they say their job is? I don’t think people in the press are evil. I just wonder if it is an occupational hazard, just part of the job necessary to sell papers.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION (worth rereading)
Francisco’s speech on sex is worth rereading. Not just what it says about sex, but what it says about the individual’s beliefs.
-"You know, Mr. Rearden, I would suggest that you get a transcript of your trial and read what you said. Then see whether you are practicing it fully and consistently - or not."
-"There's a way to solve every dilemma of that kind, Mr. Rearden. Check your premises."
-"...because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value."
-"Did it ever occur to you that it's the same issue? The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think - for the same reason - that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice or code of values."
-"But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."
Francisco has made two incredible speeches. One dealt with money; the other with sex. Francisco stated both are results of fundamental beliefs, not causes. Sex shows their philosophy of life; money shows their moral code. There’s an old saying, “Republicans have money scandals, and Democrats have sex scandals.” What does it tell us about the tendencies of both parties? Could it be…
Republicans try to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind? They think the enjoyment is the result, not the cause? They should be working for the joy of the task, not the joy of what it will bring them? They are “greedy”?
Democrats don’t have a good enough self-image to see themselves as humans? They see themselves as animals serving their instincts? They are “victims”?
When I build models, I pay close attention to whether the model is getting tighter or looser. Is the model able to handle all situations and predict outcomes or do I need to add a lot of “special cases” to handle the contradictions? It’s easy to blow up a bad model, just feed it and make it try and hold up under the weight of all the data. Hank comes to this realization and tests it at the trial. He complies with their model so it can reach its end quicker.
Another way of looking at it: Creation is achieved through truth. You can’t create anything of value without truth. (How would you create anything of value using only untruths? A definition of TRUTH is “facts that create”.) The positive end of the scale wants growth and achieves it by pursuing truth. The negative end of the scale wants comfort and tries to achieve it by pursuing their point.
In order for the negative side to convince themselves and others of their point, they must present truth in an equal or greater quantity as their flawed point. People make the mistake of believing EVERYTHING someone says when he or she recognizes ANY truth in the presentation. Deconfirmatory logic tells us to try and disprove everything. Whatever is proven wrong should be discarded. Whatever survives the scrutiny should be retained. Therefore, the quickest way to prove someone wrong is to agree with him or her.
Try this the next time you’re having a debate: Take their side and try to apply their point to other areas (Big Picture) or into the future (Long Term). Taking their side immediately lowers their defenses. If their point is true it will hold up and may even explain situations in other areas, in effect creating knowledge. This would result in their model becoming tighter. If you are interested in growth, you will have achieved it because you will have learned something. You win if they are right!
If their point doesn’t hold up, what you’ve done is made the amount of flawed perspective greater than the truth it was presented with. The presenter now has three options: add more truth, cut back the model, or admit they were wrong. Adding more truth usually results in a looser model, filled with “special cases”. Usually people cut back the model by saying, “I never meant for it to apply to that situation.” Again, you win!
I remember this by thinking of weed killer. Weed killers don’t work by “killing” growth. In fact, it is just the opposite. Weed killers accelerate the growth of one aspect of the plant faster than the other aspects can keep up. Long-term growth depends on several aspects working in harmony. The weed essentially dies because one aspect grew TOO FAST!
Likewise, evil is full of contradictions eventually choking itself. Evil is unsound and will disintegrate. It can’t hold up in the Long Term. The quickest way to expose it is to speed it up. Don’t fight (delay) it and don’t give it your consent (sanction). In the end, evil needs your consent to keep going. The moocher version needs your energy (guilt) and the looter version needs your resources (mind). Ultimately, you are responsible for the evil you experience against your eternal self, because you are the only one who can let it affect you. NOTHING else can. Remember, Francisco said: "If you want to defeat any kind of vicious fraud - comply with it literally, adding nothing of your own to disguise its nature."
SUPPLEMENT
“For I am persuaded beyond doubt that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things impending and threatening nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Amplified Bible) What else is left after this deconfirmatory process other than one’s self?
“If we who were the movers, the producers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently bear punishment for our virtues – what sort of ‘good’ did we expect to triumph in the world?” (Hank) The results come from the cause. The morality of the world is a result of the morality of individuals.
“There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions.
But there is one thing we have not taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. However well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the fleet ought to be on." (CSL-MC)
Looking back, the first book of Atlas Shrugged dealt with the morality between individuals. This book (second) deals with the morality inside individuals.
“Agree with thine adversary quickly” (Jesus)
“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil” (Jesus)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (St. Paul)
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (St. Paul)
Next Chapter: Account Overdrawn
No comments:
Post a Comment