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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


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

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A few days ago, on a thread under "Books" James Taylor gave high praise to Ayn Rand's "For the New Intellectual" and stated that, somewhat to his wonderment, when he "tried to talk to people at the ARI and TOC" about it, "the minute I mention this title the subject is changed or the communication terminated." I opined that FTNI was the worst of Rand's books (with the possible exception of "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution"). I gave my reasons. A number of other SOLOists chimed in, most (though not all) in disagreement. Then Linz entered the fray. In defense of FTNI, he wrote that "I would expect clever-dick smart-ass anarcho-Saddamites who specialise in snide one-liners to have a problem with something so fundamentally decent, but not TOC or ARI."

I replied: "And I would expect an overgrown schoolyard bully who now mongers war worldwide and who specializes in intemperate diatribes to be severely challenged by intellectual history."

Needless to say, this reply has not been posted. I am under moderation, you see -- apparently on a permanent basis, despite the three little Atlas thingies that appear next to my name. The SOLO readership must be "protected" against my "clever-dick smart-ass anarcho-Saddamism." Of course, one might think the most effective way of achieving this goal would be to just tell me I'm unwelcome around here and kick me out, but for some obscure reason that hasn't been done.

So, in effect, Linz can insult me all he wants, but if I retaliate in kind, he's way too thin-skinned for that retaliation to be allowed to see the light of day.

Sure, it's his living room. So if he doesn't want me around, why doesn't he kick me out?

Disgustedly,

JR

Post 1

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Uh I saw the reply I don't know what you're talking about.

---Landon


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I replied: "And I would expect an overgrown schoolyard bully who now mongers war worldwide and who specializes in intemperate diatribes to be severely challenged by intellectual history."

Needless to say, this reply has not been posted. I am under moderation, you see --


Actually you replied:

And I would expect overgrown schoolyard bullies who have graduated to real-world warmongering and who specialize in intemperate diatribes to be severely challenged when it comes to comprehending intellectual history.


I know it's minor details, but if you can't rely on yourself to accurately quote yourself what can you rely on?  The other point is that it WAS posted, giving further evidence that the moniker 'troll' fits you perfectly.

Linz has stated his arguments in detail around here enough times that each time he encounters shit-kickers like yourself, he is justified in giving us the cliff-notes description.  You on the other hand make statements such as this:
Her caricature of Kant's significance in the history of philosophy is absurd.
That's all you seem to be; a windbag of undefended statements.  I've seen people question you and you evade them via character assault and more undefended statements.  Why would Lindsay give you the time of day?

If you are such the expert in 'intellectual history', then show us that you are more than a one-trick pony by backing your assertion that Ayn's caricature of Kant is absurd.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/05, 6:56pm)

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/05, 6:56pm)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 
The SOLO readership must be "protected" against my "clever-dick smart-ass anarcho-Saddamism


So, in effect, Linz can insult me all he wants, but if I retaliate in kind, he's way too thin-skinned for that retaliation to be allowed to see the light of day.

 
This is just a guess, but perhaps the SOLO management is simply trying to discourage the kind of puerile breath-holding, foot-stamping conniptions that your post exemplifies, without actually banning the poster, in the hopes that said poster will, in time, mature enough to engage in reasoned debate.

Then again, maybe not...

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 9/05, 7:52pm)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff Riggenbach wants to know: "Sure, it's his living room. So if he doesn't want me around, why doesn't he kick me out?"
Well, I dunno, maybe you amuse him.

You could leave, you know.  I saw this sort of thing on the Usenet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins where people would filter each other out -- but then login differently so they could still reply.  Myself, I just ignore people I don't like. 

I thought about leaving.  I gave it a lot of consideration when Jennifer Iannolo packed up.  I like posting here.  The people who bother with me usually do not bother me.  I really appreciate the support of another consistent advocate of capitalism (read: anarchist) in you, Jeff.  I would hate to see you go, but if you must, then so be it.

I ticked Lindsay off right away by posting an essay against changing the world.  I did not know that changing the world is an important part of SOLO.  I was thinking only of myself -- how selfish of me -- from a Harry Browne Freedom in an Unfree World point of view.  After Linz's flame -- which I perceived as a totally uncalled for bolt from the blue -- I went back and actually read the primary documents here.  Then I knew.  He set the terms.  I failed to know them.  My mind is not changed.  I have said the same thing since about freeing yourself, rather than trying to change the world -- but I did not begin the post with "Lindsay Perigo is a big fat idiot."  SOLO is his forum.  If you do not like it -- and I do -- then start your own.

I agree 100% that our Atlases make us cool.  But you could wear Three Atlases embroidered on your shirt.  What makes you cool is that you earned them here.


Post 5

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Did he flame you, Michael? Iím asking honestly. I recall that he was close, probably wanted to, but didnít. He said, Ďto each his own. Michael fights a personal fight in his life; I want to change the world. We need all types.í I thought I recall that it looked like he was going to rip you up, but didnít.

Jon


Post 6

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since I submitted the comment above, my original rejoinder to Linz has been posted. No doubt it was the same Nobel Prize-winning genius who belatedly posted the original rejoinder who also posted this, now quite irrelevant, observation.

JR

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody Allen Gomez, who seems to believe that he knows a thing or two, intones:

"That's all you seem to be; a windbag of undefended statements."

Yes, you ignorant little punk, that's all I am. That's why I was invited by Chris Sciabarra to contribute a long article to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Centenary Symposium on Ayn Rand. That's why I was invited by Ed Younkins to contribute an essay to his new book, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged": A Philosophical and Literary Companion. People like Chris and Ed just can't get enough of my windy, undefended statements.

And what have you done to prove your own knowledgeability -- other than posting breathtakingly ignorant comments on this board?

JR

Post 8

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff-
Are you going to give us your CV , or are you going to back up your assertions.  I dont give a fuck where you were asked to contribute in the past, I'm asking that you contribute something here.  Namely something with a little intellectual content.  I STILL ask that you back up your assertions Jeff.  How was Rand wrong in her 'caricature' of Kant.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/06, 5:46pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

Now, now! Name calling is sooo beneath you!

My ignorant little punk friend Jody did make a point however. And you have not answered with facts or much of anything else, other than name dropping!


PROVE YOUR POINT! 


No one cares who you hang out with! We only want the facts, and I am sure that includes... ignorant...little punk... Jody!!!
 
 


 And what have you done to prove your own knowledgeability

This question applies to you, also!


gw



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Everybody,

SOLO is private property. Ownership - and that includes management selected by the owners - has its privileges. That includes the privilege of insulting non-owners, of tolerating postings that a more reasonable and consistently Randian management would not tolerate, etc. etc.... That is why Diana Hsieh, Kelly Elmore, Jennifer Iannolo, Barbara Branden, and Hong Zhang are not posting here any more. All of us who wish to publish our ideas to a Randian audience, and get feedback, have a choice in this matter: write enough to sustain interest in a private blog - as Diana and Jennifer have chosen - or put up with the (often objectively unreasonable) choices of the SOLO management team. I have chosen the latter. JR and everybody else is free to choose too. What no one is free to do is evade the fact that private is private, and ought to be.

Hey, I just noticed that all 5 of the former SOLOists whom I most miss are women. Like Ayn Rand. Oy....


Post 11

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been out of this mess. Seriously though, Jeff, what are you so angry at?

Post 12

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong left too? What a shame. How am I supposed to keep up on all the juicy gossip about who left what if there's no grandstanding?

Sarah

Post 13

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 1:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree Sarah.  I wish Hong had left with a little more flare.  I miss all the drama we had a few weeks ago.

Post 14

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did I miss something?  Why did Hong leave?

Gary-
Thanks for those comments.  We ignorant little punks and evil dicks have to stick together here.  Speaking of how vile you've been regarding the Katrina victims, did you get those trucks and drivers back safely?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You may have to add me to the pile of corpses to step over.  I have been subjected to way too much abuse here lately. I have been told in no uncertain terms that I do not belong here and that my views are not valid.  My words have been twisted and I have been called a communist.  I am tired of the outright callousness I have seen on Solo.  I am not leaving just yet, but I am not here to be a sacrificial animal and so I will stay away from the serious discussions where the blood-thirsty wolves lurk.  I will be a good little woman and stay in the kitchen, at least for now.

Goodbye.

Kat



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 2:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donald Talton:

"Seriously though, Jeff, what are you so angry at?"

Seriously, Donald, I'm not angry at all. I'm somewhat exasperated by the SOLO "editor" who put up this post ("Can't This Pompous Ass Take What He Dishes Out?") *after* posting my reply to Linz, at a time when it was now irrelevant and no longer applied. And I'm annoyed by twits and ignoramuses who strut around and pound their chests, amid delusions of their vast knowledge.

But I'm not really *angry* -- not at all.

The Learned Jody Allen Gomez:

"How was Rand wrong in here [sic] 'caricature' of Kant." [sic]

Well, this is a large subject, and one I haven't written about for probably thirty years. It's been many years since I've read Kant, too. Frankly, when I made my brief statement, I was assuming that most SOLOists who were interested in the issue at all had read the Critique of Pure Reason for themselves and would know what I meant without the necessity of explanation. Or, I figured, if they hadn't read Kant himself, surely they'd read some of the comments of other Objectivist or libertarian writers who feel Rand did Kant wrong -- such as SOLOist Fred Seddon. Who was it who lectured me on the theme that "Linz has stated his arguments in detail around here enough times that each time he encounters shit-kickers like yourself, he is justified in giving us the cliff-notes [sic] description"? Let's just say I was giving the CliffsNotes description.

Briefly, quoting imprecisely from memory and without double checking anything in any books (I haven't time for that at the moment -- three or four weeks from now, I'll be happy to dig into my library for more exact citations), Kant does not maintain, as Rand absurdly claims, that "because we have eyes we cannot see, because we have ears we cannot hear," etc., etc., etc. What he maintains is that because our sense organs are what they are, because they have the particular makeup, the particular character, they do, they cannot bring us knowledge of the way reality is in itself; they can only bring us partial knowledge, knowledge within limits. Kant never maintains that our senses cannot bring us all the knowledge we *need* or that the knowledge provided by the senses is of no value. He merely stresses that our information about the world in which we live is, *by its nature*, partial and selective. Anyone who has ever seen a mirage in the desert knows what Kant is talking about. Our senses deceive us; we must apply reason and make inferences (on the basis of outside information -- information not immediately available to the senses that "see" the mirage) in order to reach a true understanding of the situation.

This seemingly simple and even self-evident observation has profound implications for many issues in philosophy, which is why it is frequently credited with touching off a "Copernican revolution" among philosophers.

Also, in describing his "categories of the understanding," Kant made the pioneering steps toward a correct understanding of the extent to which concept formation -- and even, to an extent, perception itself -- is theory-bound, i.e., dependent in some degree on unconsciously held assumptions that direct the individual's attention when s/he is observing the world outside his or her head.

Rand's ravings about how Kant was the most evil man in mankind's history and how he preached that knowledge was impossible (which he certainly did not) and how he thought that there was another dimension that humans simply could know nothing about (Kant's concept of the "noumenal world," which is clearly intended metaphorically to refer to aspects of existence of which humans can have no direct sensory awareness) -- what is one to call this but "absurd"?

JR

Post 17

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Commie Rat Katdaddy,

Please don't go. Comrade! :-)


Punk Ass Jody,

Still waiting on "Callous" to return & that will probably do it.  For now anyway.



And, why did Hong leave?


gw


Post 18

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang left after posting this.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

SOLO is private property. Ownership - and that includes management selected by the owners - has its privileges. That includes the privilege of insulting non-owners, of tolerating postings that a more reasonable and consistently Randian management would not tolerate, etc. etc.... That is why Diana Hsieh, Kelly Elmore, Jennifer Iannolo, Barbara Branden, and Hong Zhang are not posting here any more
And Hong has left too, I am dissapointed to hear that.

I don't think anyone disputes the concept of private ownership Adam, they see something good here at Solohq and want to help keep it good or make it better.  As with any person or project, it needs to be subjected to rational criticism.  What Linz wants to do with that is up to him, if he deems it rational and feels that it would make the site a closer representation of what he envisions it to be, then he should implement it. 

Now, what does he envision SoloHq to be?  If he wants it to be a circus of Linzdroids accomplished by brashness and offensiveness to non Linzdroids then some might say he seems to be working productively toward that goal.  We have lost a lot of good an interesting people because of all this, and many others seem to be teetering on the edge.  Why is that?  Is SoloHQ a better place now (i.e. more in line with what Linz envisioned)  Just because Linz does something and he owns this site does not prove that  A) it is a good idea and B) that it is in the best interest of his long term vision of SoloHQ.  People make mistakes.  They get distracted by tangents or find themselves traveling down the wrong road sometimes, and sometimes it takes someone with common interests and some constructive criticism to help them see the correct path again other times that constructive criticism is completely wrong.

Whenever I and a friend disagree about something, or they dont like something I am doing, I am always open to that.  If they point out a fault in my that I had not recognize and upon recognition know I do not want I immediately do what I can to ammend that.  I do not know if Linz emplores a similiar tactic, but given the recent history here and presuming the above description is accurate (which I do not necessarily believe) then drawing this out to a logical extension suggests that if you do not adhere 100% to all of Linz's opinions on matters than eventually you too will be subjected to the same types of attacks and the longer you stay the more likely that is to occur.

Just as a reminder to everyone, Solo HQ's Credo says :

SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists.
  • "The total passion for the total height."
  • Rational passion & passionate reason.
  • Say what you mean, & mean what you say.
  • "This above all, to thine own self be true."

Welcome to the web site for SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists.
SOLO was set up - to invoke George Walsh's famous remark when he helped David Kelley launch the Institute for Objectivist Studies - for those who consider themselves "homeless Objectivists" still. Itís for those who, after 15 years of IOS/TOC, want an alternative to barking-mad dogmatism other than timid, sonnambulist ecumenism.

SOLO seeks to galvanise all Objectivists who recognise that Objectivism is a tool for living, and who repudiate any reason/passion dichotomy. We seek to be a magnet and a home for those who are exuberantly rational and rationally exuberant, who aspire to the "total passion for the total height," intellectually and emotionally, simultaneously and harmoniously.

We aspire to a culture of sincerity & integrity; where mind-games, deceit and posturing - and having to read between the lines - in one's dealings with others, are a thing of the past; where Shakespeare's "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. ..." is second nature.
Regards, Michael F Dickey


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.