About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 1:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I must say that although I have come to understand that Regi is dishonest -- not just intellectually but in the crude sense of telling lies, such as saying that he does not attack people -- I did not think he was teetering just this side of being nuts.

His latest theory, which I just came across on his web site, is that anything incorrect in Rand's philosophy is the result of her having fallen under the insidious influence of Nathaniel Branden and of me. We are the ones who slyly introduced error into Objectivism, which only the genius of Regi was able to discern. And, as Cass explained, our malignant purpose at Solo (where Nathaniel, as you all know, has been pushing evil ideas for so long) is to insert our corruption of Objectivism into the minds of the young, and to see to it that our flawed set of ideas is accepted as the only "real" Objectivism.

Pretty clever of us, don't you think?

Barbara



Post 41

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 1:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

George, at the risk of being an anti-climax to my own post, I should tell you that I haven't received your e-mail.

Barbara



Post 42

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 2:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Check your AOL mailbox. It was not a PM.

George




Post 43

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 2:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh lord. I cannot believe that this whole time Regi was on to the real, subliminal purpose of my interview of Nathaniel Branden.

I hope, at least, that we--or rather, We--did succeed in indoctrinating at least a few young minds before getting our cover so skillfully blown.

Alec




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 2:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's so hard to take any of this Regi/Cass stuff seriously.  Cass, who believes Objectivism is rote memorization of whatever Rand ever wrote on a piece of paper, is accusing SOLO of not being Objectivist.  Well, by her standard, we certainly aren't!  I don't see any reason to get worked up over her opinion.  If she thinks Regi's site is more "Objectivist" in the sense of mindlessly following Rand's every whim, who are we to judge?

And as for Regi, he just likes to say that he doesn't care so when he fails, he can claim he wasn't really trying.  He says he doesn't argue with people because you can't persuade them (well, he can't anyway), and then goes on to argue all the time.  He says there's no point in waging a war for men's minds because you can't reach them, and continues to build a website. And now he says he doesn't attack people, while he writes articles about how we're all evil or whatever.  Maybe he knows his attacks are a failure.  Or maybe all of this is to try to prove that he's above it all.  Or maybe he thinks by continually contradicting himself he can be sure that he's right on every issue at least part of the time.  Who knows?  Who cares?

All this rambling about who is and isn't an Objectivist is funny, especially from someone who isn't.  Would we let communists define what capitalism is?  They'd define it as child-killers seeking to destroy the environment or some nonsense.  So why should we care when some people who are plainly and admittedly not Objectivists try to tell us who is and isn't an Objectivist?  Let's just take them at their word that they are not.

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 1/14, 3:52pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 2:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,

The reason people think you've attacked members of SOLOHQ is because...uh....you have.
 
Your first two anti-SOLO articles either explicitly or implicitly attack a number of individuals whom I care for and value highly. Part three of your anti-SOLO series (which I have just read) is an attack on SOLO as an organisation, and by extension every individual who considers himself a SOLOist. It's also a spectacular exercise in missing the point.

And whatever my own differences with Lindsay, this is one issue where I happily agree with him - the accusations you've levelled at Barbara are unjust and absolutely disgraceful.

MH





Post 46

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, so here's my unironic assessment. It's not my place to get into the silly, personal stuff, since my exchange with Regi on Solo threadville was brief and cordial enough, if not lovey-dovey. Those, such as Barbara, who feel personally slighted by Regi's snide, sarcastic references to them on his website, have every right to fight back.

My glances and readings of some of his works on his site have confirmed my initial opinion of his philosophical reasoning on "social" issues (psychology, homosexuality, etc.) as usually tactfully argued--yet utterly preposterous.

His method is the very ortho-Objectivist one of wordplay. He supports his arguments by setting up logical structures of premises that involve narrowly-, conveniently-, self-defined terms--whose definitions result in Regi's conclusion--but which bear no resemblance to reality and truth. He is a master of what I would call the "there's-no-I-in-team fallacy."

Sure, if you define steak as "the only good food possible", then of course chicken cannot "logically" be good, can it? Anyone who claims it is good is merely entertaining a self-destructive mystical delusion, compromising his own reasoning faculties to justify the impossible and rationalize his immoral desire for a buffalo wing. Or a breast, as it were. Because "blah" can only be "blah." And, in Regiworld, almost always "barf."

When Regi applies this method to mental matters, he displays a disheartening lack of apprecation for the complexities of the mind, which millenia of great artwork, in addition to science and philosophy, have tried to explicate.

Alec 




Post 47

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

George:"Check your AOL mailbox. It was not a PM."

I did -- and what's a PM?

Barbara



Post 48

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec said:
His method is the very ortho-Objectivist one of wordplay. He supports his arguments by setting up logical structures of premises that involve narrowly-, conveniently-, self-defined terms--whose definitions result in Regi's conclusion--but which bear no resemblance to reality and truth.
Well put, Alec.  As Linz pointed out long ago, Regi is a rationalist in the philosophical, not the colloquial, sense.

Jeremy Johnson said:
Regi, I'm glad to see you back at SOLO.
 Regi, I'm not glad to see you back.  Please go away.

Thanks,
Glenn




Post 49

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.  I'm sure someone will try to explain that, but I have this little mechanism in my brain that acts as a restrictor plate, like the things they put on cars so they can't go too fast.  It keeps me from flipping out over stuff.  *insert witty remark about my intelligence/psychosis/rationality here*

Guess I'll keep my trap shut.  I suppose I don't have a problem with continuing to lurk around, despite being more able these days to discuss things.  Eh, I'll get over it.  I never did mind about the...whatever.   I'll speak when spoken to (which shouldn't be often) but I don't like entanglements. 

So...adoo! and Happy New Year!






Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Barbara, Cass, Jennifer, Jeremy, Lindsay, George, Alec, Joseph, Matthew,
 
First. Thank you Jeremy. I do seem to have a way of stirring up the hornet's nest, so to speak.
 
Now everyone. I am disappointed that you think my expressing my views frankly, and arguing them as strongly as I can is attacking anyone. Because, that would mean you must all think you are attacking me. I hope you do not think that, but even if you do, I will not accuse you of attacking me. I think you all believe very strongly in what you say, else you would not feel so strongly about it, and be so upset with me.
 
Jennifer, I have no control over what people say on my forum, but I will take responsibility for whatever is said there. It is within my power to remove anything there, and I do not. Oscar Wilde once said the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. I have a granddaughter only a little younger than you, and I feel very much about you as I do her. I'm sure people say all sorts of things about her, both very nice and very bad. None of them matter, only that she knows who and what she is. If anything I have ever said to you, or anyone has said about you on my forum has hurt you, I am truly sorry about that. I cannot intentionally hurt anyone.
 
Barbara, I'm still looking for the book review you promised.
 
Now, George, if I am going to write about ideas I disagree with, how can I do that without naming the source of those bad ideas and where they are being promoted. Sorry, George, ideas do not just exist in the air. Somebody thinks them and they must be written somewhere. The particular ideas I wrote about happened to be part of the SOLO policy and objectives.
 
I do not see how any individual on SOLO (or any forum) could be so personally offended by what is said about someone else, or the forum itself, unless they hold an exteremly collectivist view of such things. I'm a "member" of SOLO.
 
Joe, I happen to completely agree with you, that "All this rambling about who is and isn't an Objectivist is funny ...." or at least silly. But when someone says, this is what Buddhism teaches, then proceeds to present Roman Catholic Doctrine, I can say, without being either, that the teaching of Buddhism is being perverted. When someone says, This is what Objectivism teaches, then proceeds to present hedonism, subjectivism and mysticism, I can say, without being either, that the principles of Objectivism are being perverted.
 
Matthew, I am very sorry to hear you call what I did an attack, because I know you are careful about not offending people. I think you are the only one who said your <i>care</i> for certain individuals (which I think is certainly true of others, but you said so). If the accusations I have made about anyone are untrue, I am sorry, but I will not cease saying what I believe is true. I have nothing to gain from any of this. What do you think my motives are? Don't spare me, I really want to know.
 
Alec, it is a little bit different than this: "Sure, if you define steak as 'the only good food possible', then of course chicken cannot "logically" be good, can it?" First the comparison would be better if it were Burger King and a gourmet meal. There is nothing wrong with eating at Burger King. For some people, that is about the best they will ever have. If they always eat Burger King, they may never even know there is gourmet food, and even if they know it, if they've spent themselves on Burger King, they will be able neither to afford, or enjoy the best. Most people settle for Burger King.
 
I'm here to say, there is something so much better. Those who have found it could never settle for less. Most people cannot afford it, but only because they are not willing to pay the price for it. Most people never find it, because they never look for it, because they have been taught, there is only Burger King. The Gourmet meal I'm talking about, Alec, if ever you have one, and I hope you do, it will so completely fill you, you will never give Burger King a thought again. It least I can tell people it is there, there for anyone who really wants it. Most will pass it by for the immediate, the short term, the shallow; but at least they will know there was something better, if they had only sought it.
 
Now I'll say no more, because I don't want anyone to get stung. (Fortunately, I'm immune to hornet stings.)
 
Regi




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,

I was afraid my post would be taken in that light, so I will clarify the meaning behind it.  As you said, the only thing that matters is that I know who and what I am -- you'll get no disagreement from me.  It's not the first time I've been discussed, and it surely won't be the last.   

What bothers me is that this site was labeled as sophomoric, and when I see such gossipy activities coming from the very people who placed those labels, it strikes me as very hypocritical.

Jennifer 




Post 52

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regi said: Now, George, if I am going to write about ideas I disagree with, how can I do that without naming the source of those bad ideas and where they are being promoted.

 

You can't, you have to name the source of the 'Perversion'. So, don't feign the , "I never attacked anyone by name" crap. You can't have it both ways.

 

Regi said: But when someone says, this is what Buddhism teaches, then proceeds to present Roman Catholic Doctrine, I can say, without being either, that the teaching of Buddhism is being perverted. I can say, without being either, that the teaching of Buddhism is being perverted. When someone says, This is what Objectivism teaches, then proceeds to present hedonism, subjectivism and mysticism, I can say, without being either, that the principles of Objectivism are being perverted.

 

Regi, the difference between Miss Branden's views on Objectivism and the late Mrs. Rands is nuanced and peripheral in nature. The fundamentals are identical. To equate those disagreements with the difference between Catholicism and Buddhism is so completely over the top that itís ridiculous. You're not saying that Branden or Perigo are expanding on Mrs. Rand's philosophy (if you said that, they would agree) you are saying that they are perverting it. To pervert something calls for a degree of intentional malice within the person. When you apply that term in reference to a person like Miss Branden, it leaves people cold. So please don't feign surprise and wonder at the reaction you have gotten.

 

Regi said: I do not see how any individual on SOLO (or any forum) could be so personally offended by what is said about someone else, or the forum itself, unless they hold an extremely collectivist view of such things. I'm a "member" of SOLO. and also he says: Most will pass it by for the immediate, the short term, the shallow; ....

 

Yep, your right Regi, I too am amazed how what you have said can personally offend anyone. As a shallow member of a collectivist group, I should have much thicker skin. As a person that spends time exchanging thoughts with the malicious and perverting Miss Branden, I should be less temperamental.

 

Regi said: What do you think my motives are? Don't spare me, I really want to know.

 

Envy and Control.

 

 

 

Sincerely, George W. Cordero

 


(Edited by George W. Cordero on 11/27, 12:19pm)




Post 53

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy said:
Guess I'll keep my trap shut.  I suppose I don't have a problem with continuing to lurk around, despite being more able these days to discuss things.  Eh, I'll get over it.  I never did mind about the...whatever.   I'll speak when spoken to (which shouldn't be often) but I don't like entanglements.
Jeremy, I'm not sure what prompted this; I hope it wasn't my post.  I was disagreeing with your statement that you were glad to see Regi back, because I'm not glad.  But, it was Regi that I was asking to go away, not you.  I hope there was no misunderstanding here.

Thanks,
Glenn




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems to me that part of the dificulty of judging people is that they rarely act in seamless harmony with what they claim to be.

John



Post 55

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gosh, didn't I read somwhere that Regi had been "banned" and "thrown out?"

Rats.

Regi, I read your "SOLO Perversion" articles. I was insulted, being a reagular reader and poster.

If Regi is back, can the rat be far behind???????

I suggest that anyone wishing to know how our old friends Regi, Rat, and Stoli feel, should read the discussion board under his "hatred errr Perversion of SOLO article.

Also, if Regi isn't an Objectivist, he's awfully conserned about defending it.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 11/27, 5:17pm)




Post 56

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
DOUBLE POST DELETED

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 11/27, 5:08pm)




Post 57

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It certainly was your post, Glenn, but that's no big deal.  I wasn't affronted by it or anything.  When I read your post I realized that that was the general sentiment regarding Regi around here.  I, obviously, think quite different, but for reasons that would be pointless to explain.  Folks can take that how they will, but by no means is this a parting of ways.  I'm not the pissed off type.  I'll just remain silent most of the time because I've learned enough from and about SOLO while talking about "the issues".  I don't see the need to talk about them any more.  I didn't feel any great loss when I was unable to interact more frequently with SOLOHQ, and I think that's because SOLO had done such a good job of educating me.  That's all.  It doesn't mean I'm going anywhere, if I'm not asked to leave.
(Edited by Jeremy on 11/27, 5:17pm)




Post 58

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
wow,

All this from lil 'ol me saying "this aint Objectivism"!!!  ?????

How does it go?   "methinks the lady doth protest too much" ???

 (with apologies to the Bard. for "lady" read, "the whole lot").

Regi,
I understand that - as you explained to me - you cannot bring yourself to deliberately cause hurt and dismay to anyone. It's one of the reasons - only one of many - why you stand so tall in my personal Pantheon. 
Still, can't help but, sort of, half wish, you could have sent that brilliant, sarcastic, extremely witty response you shared with me.
I'm still laughing, 24 hours later.  And, by the way I agree with what your  friend said about it all.  Amounts to "why bother".  

Re your comments attacking Regi for something I said, Jennifer, you really must try and do some reading around the philosophy of individualism and personal responsibility dear.  No-body in the whole wide world can be held responsible for a single iota of anything I do or say, but me. Lesson no. 1. Got it?
ciao




Post 59

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara, re your latest, copied below:
 
His latest theory, which I just came across on his web site, is that anything incorrect in Rand's philosophy is the result of her having fallen under the insidious influence of Nathaniel Branden and of me. We are the ones who slyly introduced error into Objectivism, which only the genius of Regi was able to discern

in which you appear to be saying that any comment regarding yourself and your -er - Nathanian Branden which displays you in a negative light with regard to Ayn Rand and her work, is the word of Regi Firehammer only.
Er, you want to talk about a book about to published bysomeone NOT Regi, which has been described by one reviewer as "judgment day for the Brandens"?  You know, in the name of balanced comment, honesty, objectivity etc etc?? 




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.