You don't debate. You just drop cheap shots. Let me return the favor:

I've seen you make idotic statements but did not feel inclined to point them out to you. I decided it would be like talking to several others on this board, a waste of time.

Have a nice Christmas.

Nick

I have had largely a crappy Christmas, right down to the Great Dane's diarrhea in the lounge. It's Boxing Day, and even though I should be back to work proper, I am sitting here composing a letter to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (NZ) about a policy decision announced by the IRD on the Friday before Christmas that is a treacherous betrayal of a position formerly held by the Department ... but finally, I get the relief of one belly laugh. And at the hands of the Humean. 

My statement was that I DON'T DEBATE YOU. I'm not trying to do so now. My point was that I had seen arguements that would have convinced me go past you, I make no claim this is due to dishonesty. I'm saying that in those cases I don't have the desire to develop a better arguement than the ones already presented.

I also don't have a desire to go searching through this site and pick out every single example of what I was talking about.

What part of "Too time consuming to be worthwhile" don't you understand?

On that note, you win. Everything you say is perfect there are absolutely no flaws in anything you say, and I'm going to eat Xmas dinner.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

The truth is I've seen other people give good arguements on a number of topics that just flew right past you. And to be completly honest, if those didn't convince you it's not important enough to me that I take time to develop an arguement that will convince you.

You have to name one of those topics. Being unspecific as you are is not a fair debate tactic. I can't defend myself against unspecified attacks.

I think there are a lot more of my points which go past other people, and nobody on this board is honest enough to point this out. Someone here should research the threads Leonid refers to and report that he has lied about what he claims I said. Those who see evil and allow it to go by, do not take a stand, are just as bad as those who perpetrate the evil.

Diogenes of Sinope was once observed carrying a lantern at mid-day. When asked what he was doing, he answered that he was looking for an honest man. I'm looking for an honest man, or woman, on this board.

bis bald,

Nick

I post here sporadically at best. I usually limit it to either if something registers as really wrong and either

a) I have a proper resonse that might convince somebody
b) I don't have anything that would convince anyone but want my opinion to be registered.

My last post was the later.

(I don't usually post when I agree with something because if I agree with it I never have much to add other than "Agreed!", "Good point!" or the like)

The truth is I've seen other people give good arguements on a number of topics that just flew right past you. And to be completly honest, if those didn't convince you it's not important enough to me that I take time to develop an arguement that will convince you.

I started a new comic project a couple of months ago and it's really getting going now. So, getting in long drawn out internet discussions using time that could be put to better use by doing character sketches and/or bios, or scriptwriting is on par with suicide to me. I'd be giving up part of my life that I don't want to give up for something that wouldn't be very satisfying.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

In general you represent why I don't like to be known as someone who studies mainstream philosophy. Your approach seems to be to think yourself in circles until every single piece of data you've ever encountered is utterly confusing, and then completely ignore all of your own conclusions and live your life by whatever you happen to feel like doing at any given moment.

That's certainly not the way I see myself. There are a lot of things in philosophy that are ultimately confusing, but there is enough certainty on which to base a life philosophy. There is freedom within parameters. I do not live my life by whatever I happen to feel like doing at any given moment, regardless of what Leonid says.

If you want to nail me down, present a first affirmative case. Introduce a proposition, a simple declarative value statement in positive form; i.e. "Women ought to be allowed in combat," or "Marijuana ought to be legalized," or "Alice and her friends in Objectivist Land ought to be found guilty." Then, support it with two or three contentions supported by evidence and reasoning. Make it a prima facie case and force me to respond to it, to take the negative and show where your weaknesses are. Finally, we can both take turns with rebuttals and then leave it up to the audience to decide which of us won.

Or, you can come up with a valid, deductive argument, a syllogism with two premises and a conclusion, and challenge me to disprove it, to show that one of the premises is lacking or that there is a fallacy in the over-all argument. This is the only way to beat a deductive argument. I can't be evasive and talk in circles if you set things up right.

If you want, you can take one of my affirmative cases and argue against it. I would have the burden of proof, and all you need to do is poke a hole in my reasoning, show where I am not proving my case. You can pick one of my propositions which I have not yet built into a case and challenge me to do so.

I did post an article in the writer's forum on how to debate formally. We can follow those rules. Honest debate need not devolve into character attacks and false and unsupported accusations. This is what people do who don't know how to debate. (Dare I mention any names?)

bis bald,

Nick

In general you represent why I don't like to be known as someone who studies mainstream philosophy. Your approach seems to be to think yourself in circles until every single piece of data you've ever encountered is utterly confusing, and then completely ignore all of your own conclusions and live your life by whatever you happen to feel like doing at any given moment.

You're not the only one who seems to apporach philosophy this way, and that's what bothers me. And that's why I don't bother debating you.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Leonid
Hi,William
You said:
"I appreciate the comment, Gregster(!) and agree about the enigmatic spectacle."
I don't think there is much of enigma.The philosophical root of Nick's psychological predicament is clearly explained by Nick himself.
He said "Some people lean on a god. Others subjugate themselves to society or other people. Some people follow a doctrine or dogma, and some people use logic, not as a tool but as a guide rail. This is not really being independent."
The simple meaning of this statement is that Nick rejects principles.Not just wrong or irrational principles but principles as such.He exibits extreme case of relativism.For him to be independent means to be independent from reality.His reality has no identity, and no knowledge is possible to him,only probabilities. So reason and logic become equal to religion ( see his thread "Is logic new God"),Roosvelt is equal to Hitler since both,according to Nick, used excessive force during WW2,Iranian islamofascists are reasonable guys and can be persuaded but objectivists are dogmatic fanatic blood-thirsty ayatollas.(see his thread on Islam).He never generated one single idea of his own and his ecclectic mixture which he's keeping to present is ridden with endless contradictions.As long as he's holding his premises, no amount of psychological treatment will help him.In his last post he rejected the help which you generously and sincerely offered to him.He said "I was right about you from the beginning, that you didn’t really have my interests at heart, that you were trying to make me look bad, to destroy me as a person." And the reason for this rejection is obvious: as psychologist you know that nobody can talk delusional person out of his delusion.

Now, William, I was not outraged. I merely acknowledged that I was right about you from the beginning, that you didn’t really have my interests at heart, that you were trying to make me look bad, to destroy me as a person. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have emphasized my misspelled word that one time. You claim to have read so many of my posts and threads, yet you focus on those which criticize me, and those that criticize me are mostly from people like Mawdsley, who was trying to blame me for his failings. That doesn’t impress me with your qualifications as a great psychologist. You should have noticed this. Also, when you saw that I was obviously being attacked as invalid by people who couldn’t define “validity,” as I was on the Genius Forums, you should have intervened and been my ally. Those who are able to prevent evil but choose not to are, themselves, malevolent.

I was not able to reach the material you linked to in your earlier post because I am banned from Objectivist Living. I’d have to sign in to reach that material, and I am not allowed to do so. I can, however, reach some material, like where Kat said that I am such a victim and think everybody else is a bigot. That freed me from any guilt feelings about calling her a Bimbo. I said nothing about Barbara Branden, and I once respected her a lot, but she apparently doesn’t approve of me now. She complimented Mawdsley on his attempt to shirk responsibility for his own failings by pushing them off on me. I once felt honored when she spoke with me, this person from the history of Objectivism who has written books I own and have studied, but she also speaks with people who don’t know much about her at all and are not really very bright. Apparently, she respects them as much or more than she does me. That sort of detracts from the honor I felt.

Let me reiterate, I did not delete any material from OL. MSK deleted The Bigot at the Bar, and he told me why in email. He thought it was too antagonistic, and he and Kat didn’t want that on their board. I think it probably hit too close to home.

I have looked over your posts about Lincoln and Linz’s challenge to Ed Hudgins. It is kind’a like my challenge to Linz. I can see how some people think you are a wise-ass. It is your personality. You put personality into your posts, and some people are intimidated by it. Some people are intimidated by Don Rickles or David Letterman. I am just a bit wary. I don’t have that kind of personality, as I said long ago. You would win any contest of humor. I know it.

If we know each other and respect each other, a little good natured kidding is great. However, I don’t think you respect me yet. You still believe folks like Mawdsley and MSK and others who complain about me. You don’t come to my assistance when I am being treated unjustly. You join with my detractors. You mock me, like others do when they can’t defeat me with arguments and reasoning. I’m not sure that is yet good natured ribbing.

Bis bald,

Nick

Hi Nick, happy holy days to you. I admit the last post contained lancing humour. One fault you admit is a bit of a lack there.

This little symbol is called 'evil" in the roster of 'smileys' in the reply form. I thought, "Nick might not know I am kidding, so I will add a 'smiley,' even though I HATE SMILEYS." I thought you might pause at a symbol that never appears in my post, and . . . never mind.

Hey, not all Bimbos are blond women. I think you put yourself in that category too.

Hey, I was once blonde. I've worn dresses and make-up. I've been called a bitch and a whore and a fag and whatnot. Lay your category on, brother. Here's a pic from those days:
La Sherkette in 1983-ish

You went for the cheap joke.

Not cheap. It was while searching for an image for Bimbo Bread that I can across the Kranky package. I was wrong about Kranky, too. It is a product of Bimbo. I thought you might like the light humour: 'Cranky' Otani. . . get it?

if this was a most read post, you had a chance to say something really important

It's not my last post, brother.

I'm sorry for you that you didn't get the reaction for which you hoped.

?? -- do you mean I hope you might take my post in the spirit of humour -- with a lance of sense included? Do you mean you think I hoped you would . . . well, what do you think I hoped you would do?

If I would have taken you seriously, I would have really looked silly now.

Not at all. If you had taken me seriously, you would have followed the links and seen what I was up to.

You wanted to deliver a punch line.

I always want to deliver a punch line, Nick. And I usually do. Sometimes like this one here, sometimes like this one here, sometimes like this one here. Sometimes . . . well, you get the picture. Other times, the irony is less apparent, as found here.

You didn't want to say something sincere.

Yeah. So the only reason I referred to Barbara Branden supporting you in your reaction to the Tsunami Joke was because, um . . . insincerity. The reason I twitted you for calling Kat a 'Bimbo' was because Kat also supported you. In fact, if you had followed the link provided you would have seen the evidence for yourself. All your Obectivist Living posts except for the ones you deleted can still be found with diligent effort. 140 posts. Three people care enough about honest debate to check the evidence and admit they were wrong. As in "I was wrong, Nick. I wasn't diligent."

You didn't call Paul Mawdsley "hysterical little girl." You called somebody "a super-sensitive, hysterical little baby." I don't know if it was Jenna Wong or Paul Mawdsley you were referring to. If you don't look at the evidence in context, neither will you. I am sorry you don't find me 'authentic' enough to take me at my word. I am sorry you don't understand my humour. Only four people here do, I am told.

My humour is not unlike a tinny little hysterical toy piano. I am stuck with it, just as you are stuck with yours. The only apparent thing we have in common is we appreciate the sound of our own instrument.

You were going for this all along, weren't you WSS?

Yes, indeed.

Whatever 'this' means. Unlike you, on evidence, I know the difference between strategy and tactics.

Nick, once you are through typing out your next outrage, you might read this. Then understand that I am here on sufferance. When I hound the Emperor, I do it to his face, backstage, in private email. He rules. Not me, not you. How's that for a social dynamic?

WSS

You were going for this all along, weren't you WSS? You didn't want to say something sincere. You wanted to deliver a punch line. If I would have taken you seriously, I would have really looked silly now. I'm sorry for you that you didn't get the reaction for which you hoped.

On the other hand, if this was a most read post, you had a chance to say something really important. Instead, you went for the cheap joke.

Hey, not all Bimbos are blond women. I think you put yourself in that category too.

bis bald,

Nick

David Kelley: Rational knowledge is acquired by integrating the facts, by sifting and weighing the evidence, and a vital part of this process is open discussion and debate. We should encourage this process.

Nick Otani: BTW, I don't think I went against MSK's posting rules, except where he subjectively determined my post about the Bigot at the Bar was inappropriate for his forum. [ . . . ] He doesn't want to face truth and think. He wants to have a pleasant forum full of Bimbos like Maudsley and Kat.

I’ve read all the posts by PM, MSK, and you. Instead of trying to change me, if you were a person who likes the same things I do and wants to see high levels of discussion and debate on these boards, you should stand up for me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was wrong, Nick. I wasn not diligent in finding all your posts at the other place. All I initially found were your remaining topics. You actually still have a profile and and a five page index of your remaining posts. According to one of my team of investigators, this is where we can find the initial exchanges that led you to call one 'Bimbo' an "hysterical little girl."

You found support for your take on race-inflected humour from several people, including she whom Emperigo used to call Majesty but now calls Witch, and from whom you call 'Bimbo' Kat**.

Bimbo bread is often found on Mexican supermarket shelves alongside the popular brand of yoghurt-flavoured flakes, Kranky Otani.

You actually do have a vast corpus of internet postings -- among them are real gems. I will later post links for your benefit and the benefit of your fan base at OL and here at SOLO. Oddly, this is one of the most-read threads here this week.

WSS

** 'Bimbo' is usually meant as a term of disapprobation, applying to an attractive but stupid woman. Besides this derogatory connotation, Bimbo also refers to a range of bakery products, among which is a wildly popular brand of white bread (in Hispanoamerica, especially Mexico, but also in Québec).

You chose to subjugate yourself to the social field of the armed forces while you were in it. You never once denounced your superior officers to their faces. You placated whom you felt you had to placate. You placated Paul Mawdsley intially because you feared banishment (only later did you move against the social field, the posting rules of MSK's forum, only later did you change your behaviour -- and you were no longer able to denounce him in his social field, because you had dealt yourself off the field entirely by your own actions). You placated Lindsay. You placated your son. You placated your wife. You placated and continue to placate your employer.

There's the story about how Diogenes of Sinope, the cynic, stood outside a theater in Athens and observed groups of people entering to see a play. First there were these well-dressed and well-groomed people entering. Diogenes shouted, "Affectation!" Then, a bunch of unkempt people wearing rags and messed-up hair came in. Diogenes shouted, "Also affectation!" The point is that both groups were phony, inauthentic, pretending to be something they weren't. I don't go against the norm just to be different, to show I'm not subjugated to it. That would be giving it too much power. It would still be subjugating myself to it because I would have to recognize it as the establishment to purposely be anti-establishment. No, I agree with Confucius. Convention is important. It allows for a certain order, and people have problems if they ignore it or act against it. However, there does come a time when one must decide if it is better, more authentic, to go on abiding by convention or making a stand. I have stood up against conventions. I have told supervisors to shove it. There were consequences, and I endured them. Perhaps I would be in a better job by now if I would have acted differently, but I don't think I would be as qualitatively happy as I am now. BTW, I don't think I went against MSK's posting rules, except where he subjectively determined my post about the Bigot at the Bar was inappropriate for his forum. That made me think anything meaningful and provocative would be censored at his forum, and I think I am right. He doesn't want to face truth and think. He wants to have a pleasant forum full of Bimbos like Maudsley and Kat.

BTW, I am still looking for common ground. I'm not sitting outside the fence in bitter recriminations. I'm standing outside some tents and pissing into them.

On this forum, I've criticized Objectivism with my Alice series and with a few other threads. If these Objectivists don't want to defend their philosophy, okay. I'll get by. I'll just keep posting my arguments without opposition.

bis bald,

Nick

And, I agree that we cannot impact everything with just our attitudes.

Good. I don't think we impact much beyond our mood with our attitudes. Sure, a consistently negative, whining, bitchy, 'victim-of-other-people' attitude won't get you too far with many folks . . . but I see your point. It's like the demented TMers who believe they change the course of war and peace by, well, meditating on it.

We cannot be responsible for everything that happens to us.

Of course. We can be responsible for the things in our control, and use our efforts to influence others. We can use many elements of our behavioural tool-kits as are appropriate to a given situation. Which is why I hammer Idiot Kevin, rather than spread him with fudge. Actually, the Idiot is so thoroughly indoctrinated with Chirch of Kookology, that neither fudge nor hammers will work to change his behaviour. Which is why I pull the ridicule sponge from my tool-kit: it is fun for me, and he is oblivious and unconcerned.

Try to tell a tsunami victim that he or she is responsible for being swept out to sea.

Change perspective: Observe, as the little British gal did, that the sea is rushing out far beyond shore. Integrate that observation with your knowledge of tsunami behaviour (this outrush is part of the wave action; within minutes there will be a deadly inrush). Alert the folks in earshot that they must run to higher ground or be swept away . . . then those who did not heed the rational warning and run . . . are they responsible?

Try to tell Martin Luther King Jr. that blacks who were persecuted in the old south could change the effect of the discrimination against them by changing the way they act on the social field.

Well, not be contrary, but what the segregated blacks did was start by changing their behaviour. They changed the way they dealt with the social field. The social field reacted. They refused to submit. In the end, segregation was legally overturned.

He would agree but not in the way the subjectivists mean.

He's dead. I can tell him, but have no idea how he might answer. In any case, who are "the subjectivists"?

There is a way of changing the way we act on a social field.

No. there are many ways.

It is to stop trying to be polite to it; stop trying to placate it. Denounce it for what it is and stand for what one believes in.

Right. Like the brave Rosa Parks and all whom she inspired to social action. Yet this is only one way, and I certainly don't believe you equate yourself with Rosa, Martin, or assorted tsunami victims.

I don't subjugate myself to a social field.

You most certainly do -- depending on the field and its rules.

You actually subjugate yourself to social mores whenever it serves your long-term interests, in most matters.

You chose to subjugate yourself to the social field of the armed forces while you were in it. You never once denounced your superior officers to their faces. You placated whom you felt you had to placate. You placated Paul Mawdsley intially because you feared banishment (only later did you move against the social field, the posting rules of MSK's forum, only later did you change your behaviour -- and you were no longer able to denounce him in his social field, because you had dealt yourself off the field entirely by your own actions). You placated Lindsay. You placated your son. You placated your wife. You placated and continue to placate your employer.

In some cases, yes, you altered your behaviour, yet, I would mark some of the changes as lurches, from cringing to overturning the table. From playing a fearful game ("I was afraid I would be banned!") to playing a vengeful game ("I told him he was a fool, uneducated, an idiot, beneath me, stupid, a pig, worse than a pig, etc."). Deleting posts, rejecting counsel, battling with list managers, overturning your own rules of conduct, beseeching allies whom you had spurned and disdained, racing to other venues to vent your outrage and finding . . . no support.

The social field can learn to get along with me or keep on as it is. I will keep on as I am.

Well, by your rules and mores, of course. The thing is, if one of your goals was to find a field in which you could participate fully, teach, correct, inform, play, coach, inspire, direct, lead, encourage, even learn . . . you have diminishing returns. By your own count you have been banned, moderated, mistreated, abused, ridiculed, dismissed and ignored on 37 lists.

Anyhow, those are the facts. How you arrange them on the chessboard of your morality, on the mental scoreboard of your struggle to achieve your goals . . . well, how have you done? You have managed to stay true to yourself, and you seem satisfied that there is nothing you would have done differently. Your pattern is unbroken. Your self-satisfaction is retained. In your eyes, you have done nothing wrong, only the other guy is responsible for your position. You are satisfied with your authentictiy, without friends, with zero social life outside the internet, without family, without things that previously brought you simple human pleasures.

I will make two predictions, both predicated on your behaviour.

1) You continue with exactly the same patterns of behaviour on this list, this social field. In so doing, you alienate not only the list owner and his allies, but the vast majority of readers. As with OL, the Genius List, and every other single place you have appeared, you end up thwarted.

2) You alter your behaviour in a small but significant way (and not by lobotomy), the change in behaviour resulting from either a calculated risk assessment or a non-logical leap into the future. You get closer to your goals. You make an ally or two. You find you are happier and more fulfilled -- more authentic.

See, Nick, the value of honest debate. The values of weighing, sifting, listening and considering. Finding common ground and building on it. Taking part in the game, rather than sitting outside the fence in bitter recrimination.

As an aside, I have been banned once and have been moderated; the list owner and his close supporters consider me "mad as a snake," a lunatic, a verbose blight on their social field, a jerk and worse -- a pomowanker! For you to consider me a placator is a source of rich amusement to me.

WSS

I diligently searched for exchanges between you and Paul on OL. There is only one remaining. Whether you succeeded in deleting your posts or whether MSK removed the threads containing your interactions with Paul, the evidence is not apparent, so there is nothing to weigh and sift.

I never deleted anything on the OL. I wouldn’t have the ability to delete another person’s post. It is highly probable MSK deleted stuff, although he accuses me of doing so. Anyhow, if you did find the posts to which I refer, I suspect you would side with Mr. Maudsley and agree that I insulted him and that he was justified in going over the top, being hysterical with me. This seems to be your pattern.

I accept, then, that Mawdsley, in your opinion was a hysterical girl in an earlier exchange, and that this earlier exchange fixed your attitude to anything he might later say to you. No problem.

You frame me as someone who lets his attitude about someone’s character impact his perception of anything that person says to me later. If PM’s statement would have been objective and right, I would have accepted it, regardless of my opinion of him as a person. It was not. It was inauthentic and tied to his problems from our earlier exchanges, as I explained.

With regard to your statement "We can be responsible for what happens to us," let us take this as another point of agreement.

And, I also explained that I agreed to this only to a certain extent. I gave some examples of where this doesn’t work. You don’t seem to be focusing on those.

If you don't mind, I'll make a couple of points and ask a few questions. I hope you answer, but if not, I will understand. You have written, Nick: "Someone who alienates people routinely will generally have more problems getting what he or she wants from those people."

Remember the context in which I make these statements. This is a point someone like Confucius might make, and yes, it is true. Convention is important to him. However, a Taoist may emphasize authenticity over order and getting along with people. If I have to be phony to not alienate someone, I have a judgment call to make. I have to wonder if it is worth it. Sometimes, it’s better to alienate someone than to sell out.

Now, I think you will agree that some people do tend to alienate others, for various reasons. You will also agree that some of these people will generally have problems getting what they want from others.
Let us put you out of the argument, then, and talk about somebody else. Let's call this fellow Idiot Kevin. Idiot Kevin wants a few things out of others, but is having some troubles, now and again, in getting those things. You and I both know a few Kevins, I am sure.
If you know a Kevin, who had these kinds of troubles, what kind of information would you seek from him? Meaning, what would you want to know about Kevin in order that he would have a better chance of getting what he wanted. I am thinking that I would ask Kevin to tell us what kinds of goals/things he wanted in his interactions with us. Is that sort of what you would do?

I’m really tiring of your attempt to lecture me. I am a teacher and know about alienating audiences and such. I’ve taken several psychology courses at the college level. I’ve been a successful teacher in adult education for twenty years, dealing with thousands of people on an individual level. I don’t think I need this lesson in how to play nice with others.

If Kevin wanted me as a friend, I’d say he would have to earn my respect, not just demand it from me or try to bargain for it. Or try to convince me it is my problem for not being more likeable. I have known people who seemed desperate for companionship and alienated people because of that, then they became more lonely and desperate, and it was a vicious circle. I’m not looking for friends, though. I’m looking for people who can understand and challenge my views and force greater production from me. I don’t have to be likeable or have social skills to write logical arguments, and someone doesn’t have to like me as a person to find possible flaws in those arguments. Normally, when two people debate at a high level, they may never see eye to eye but still have some respect for each other. This doesn’t happen, though, with my debates. My debates usually turn ugly. I think it is because I have not found someone yet who is my equal. We challenge each other until flaws become exposed, and then egos get in the way. I will usually get bored if I have to explain things over and over to someone who refuses to get it, someone who seems willfully ignorant. Or, if that person becomes disrespectable to me and uses insult rather than argument to win points. You can try to tell me this is somehow my fault, but I don’t agree. I think I would respect someone who respects me and continues to debate me at my level.

Re: "You, WSS, stand for compromise, for not antagonizing the bigots" -- How do you know this about me?

I don’t believe you authentically have my interests at heart. Your intention is to make me look bad, to destroy me as a person. Otherwise, you would not have emphasized my misspelled word in your last post.

You take the side of people like PM and MSK and all those who criticize me. You say they don’t hate me, but the effect is the same. They kick me off their boards and then say critical things about me which I cannot defend against, after having been banned. They comment only to ridicule, to say mean things to me. Or, they shun me. If this is not hatred, it amounts to the same thing. It is how the bigot treats the bartender.

Now, I don’t care. I don’t need your friendship or even respect. However, you haven’t really earned my respect. You claim to have read all my output on several boards, yet you only focus on these critical things people say about me as a person. There is much more out there which is more valuable than this. There were also critical things said about Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr., and every President of the United States. Just because people said them, it didn’t make them true. When people are significant, they make enemies. If I don’t make some people upset, I don’t really do my job of being provocative. You haven't included all the good things said about me in letters of recommendation I've posted on my board. You haven’t really shown me you are a competent psychoanalyst. As I said earlier, you take the path of least resistance. Rather than backing the lone black man in a red neck bar, you join with the red necks. You don’t take stands I can respect. It’s just, if someone pisses people off, it must be that person’s fault, not the fault of the social field. As far as I can see, you are not a Socrates or a Martin Luther King Jr. or a Howard Roark. You would join with their detractors and say they have social skills problems.

Bis bald,

Nick

Here is where we agree, Mr NO:

Competition is as healthy for the production and exchange of ideas as it is for the production and exchange of material goods….

Rational knowledge is acquired by integrating the facts, by sifting and weighing the evidence, and a vital part of this process is open discussion and debate.

Competition, production, exchange, integrating facts, weighing evidence is a good process in discussion. Can't disagree at all.

So, I approach your 'impressions' of me with a spirit informed by our agreement. Using the principles we both agree with, we can come closer to mutual comprehension and if not agreement, a reasoned disagreement.

You reject my psychological opinions. No problem. We move on.

I asked how you got the impression that Paul Mawdsley was a hysterical girl. You replied: You didn’t include the exchange when I first encountered Paul Maudsley. I made some point which I thought was mildly ironic about what he was saying and he went off on me. He was insulted. He told me to back off. He was hysterical.

I diligently searched for exchanges between you and Paul on OL. There is only one remaining. Whether you succeeded in deleting your posts or whether MSK removed the threads containing your interactions with Paul, the evidence is not apparent, so there is nothing to weigh and sift.

I accept, then, that Mawdsley, in your opinion was a hysterical girl in an earlier exchange, and that this earlier exchange fixed your attitude to anything he might later say to you. No problem.

With regard to your statement "We can be responsible for what happens to us," let us take this as another point of agreement.

If you don't mind, I'll make a couple of points and ask a few questions. I hope you answer, but if not, I will understand. You have written, Nick: "Someone who alienates people routinely will generally have more problems getting what he or she wants from those people."

Now, I think you will agree that some people do tend to alienate others, for various reasons. You will also agree that some of these people will generally have problems getting what they want from others.

Let us put you out of the argument, then, and talk about somebody else. Let's call this fellow Idiot Kevin. Idiot Kevin wants a few things out of others, but is having some troubles, now and again, in getting those things. You and I both know a few Kevins, I am sure.

If you know a Kevin, who had these kinds of troubles, what kind of information would you seek from him? Meaning, what would you want to know about Kevin in order that he would have a better chance of getting what he wanted. I am thinking that I would ask Kevin to tell us what kinds of goals/things he wanted in his interactions with us. Is that sort of what you would do?

Maybe you wouldn't bother with Kevin; let me know before I go any further. Thanks.

Re: "You, WSS, stand for compromise, for not antagonizing the bigots" -- How do you know this about me?

WSS

I don't understand this. Maudsley spoke of social dynamics: "We can change the effect of the social field on ourselves by changing how we act on the social field."
Where do you get the impression of an 'hysterical little girl' from?

You didn’t include the exchange when I first encountered Paul Maudsley. I made some point which I thought was mildly ironic about what he was saying and he went off on me. He was insulted. He told me to back off. He was hysterical.

I really didn’t know what the problem was, and I backed off as diplomatically as I could. Had I blown up back at him, as he was yelling at me, I’m sure I would have been kicked off the board. Still, he kept posting about how messed up I was, and several of his buddies on this board came by to support him. Some of this was ridiculous, but I tried my best to avoid confrontation. I was still new to the board and feared being immediately removed.

Later, however, he made a big point of being gracious and made an overture toward me, but I told him, then, I thought he threw a hissy fit at our first meeting. I told him I had no interest in being friendly with him but that I would be objective. I would treat him as an adult, as I would expect others to treat me. He wasn’t satisfied with that and made some argument about how he is not interested in talking with people who are not friendly. This is what prompted the statement you posted, that I am responsible for the way other people respond to me.

Now, I did read a few other posts by Paul Maudsley, he kept posting in my threads but talking with other people. He kept trying to impress people by talking about quantum mechanics and technical stuff, like he did in the statement you posted. He is referring to the theory that the researcher, the observer of quantum data, forms a relationship with that data and has an impact on the results of his or her observations. Then, he is applying this to the social field, that “We can change the effect of the social field on ourselves by changing how we act on the social field.” Gee, this sounds so intellectual and impressive and true, but anyone who really knows something about these theories can see how phony this guy is. He is not authentic. He is trying to impress.

As to the statement itself, I agree with it to an extent. It is consistent with Existentialism that we can create reality, make our situation what it is. We can be responsible for what happens to us. We can impact our experiences with our attitudes. People who expect good things to happen often bring about those good things, and those who expect bad things often find them. However, there is some problem with this trivial truth and Objectivism. A strict interpretation of Objectivism denies that we can create reality, impact it with our wishes and whims. Reality is independent of us and not in our control. We discover it, and it is what it is. A is A.

And, I agree that we cannot impact everything with just our attitudes. We cannot be responsible for everything that happens to us. Try to tell a tsunami victim that he or she is responsible for being swept out to sea. Try to tell a Holocaust victim that he or she could change the effect of what happened to him or her just by being less rigid toward the Nazies. Try to tell Martin Luther King Jr. that blacks who were persecuted in the old south could change the effect of the discrimination against them by changing the way they act on the social field. He would agree but not in the way the subjectivists mean.

There is a way of changing the way we act on a social field. It is to stop trying to be polite to it; stop trying to placate it. Denounce it for what it is and stand for what one believes in. You, WSS, stand for compromise, for not antagonizing the bigots. Just try to get along. Sorry, that’s not me. I don't subjugate myself to a social field. The social field can learn to get along with me or keep on as it is. I will keep on as I am.

Bis bald,

Nick

Mr NO: I have no respect for Paul Maudsley. I think he was a hysterical little girl.

I don't understand this. Maudsley spoke of social dynamics: "We can change the effect of the social field on ourselves by changing how we act on the social field."

Where do you get the impression of an 'hysterical little girl' from?

You should tell creeps like Paul Maudsley and MSK that [ . . . ] their hatred toward me is not warranted.

I won't do that, Nick. They don't hate you, and neither do I.

I do feel a bit thwarted and disappointed. I guess it is a flaw. Still, I'm not sure how to deal with it.

As I wrote already, I think you need to accept that some of the psychological criticism you have been subject to is apt and correct. You have social skills deficits. Lots of folks do. They can try to do something about it, and so can you.

WSS

Yet we do have to make judgments.

We also have to prove our points. Personallydisin.., you have accused me of fallacious reasoning. To prove that point, you need to repeat the argument to which you refer and point out the fallacy. Otherwise, it is an unsupported accusation.

bis bald,

Nick

Debate is only valuable when it is honest of intention and undertaken with open minds. 

You displayed humour there Nick! I mean it, that was amusing to me, I hope you were intending mirth. You've worn me down you bugger. For that I will dig out your Alice series and comment (probably privately and you can post if you like).

Yes, gregster, you and WSS and Linz all remind me of the blind man in part one of my Alice series who examines the tail of an elephant and declares it is a rope.

bis bald,

Nick

The fact remains that your refutations (for example of missing interpersonal skills, by hiring personnel) did not work on the people involved.

That’s because they never heard my refutations. My refutations were given to my site audience but not the people who rejected me giving typical reasons. I gave them a resumes and letters of recommendations which didn’t work, but I didn’t explain my long list of answers to their so-called reasons. They wouldn’t have been interested anyhow. They were merely going through motions prescribed by law for hiring and covering their asses after hiring someone, probably someone younger than I.

It is my opinion, on the evidence you provide, that your manner is one of your obstacles. Your manner, your psychological stance, your social behaviour. I believe you have needlessly isolated yourself. It strikes me as sad, since you have such an urge to master a topic and take part in a rich and rewarding intellectual life.

Well, I reject your opinion. I don’t accept that my life is unrewarding. I told you I was qualitatively happy, even if I am not exuding happiness, like someone who parties constantly but never thinks about serious things. Yes, I am disappointed at times, but it is because my goals are high and my standards are high. I need the stress to make me stronger.

Nick, what I am trying to get across to you is that your problems in communication and achieving your goals are not insoluble. I think you need to accept that some of the psychological criticism you have been subject to is apt and correct, and that you have been avoiding the import of the best attempts to correct you. I post below some excellent commentary from Paul Maudsley from OL -- and your response. I hope you can see the wisdom in Paul's view.

Of course it is my fault that I get kicked off these meassageboards. I could get along much better with everybody if I lowered my standards and perhaps got a lobotomy, removing most of my knowledge. If I could be satisfied partying around with willfully ignorant people, like Paul Maudsley, I’d be much more quantitatively happy. I wouldn’t, though, be qualitatively happy, as I am now. I have no respect for Paul Maudsley. I think he was a hysterical little girl. I was very polite to him fearing I would be banned sooner than I was. Had I shouted back at him as he shouted at me, I would have been immediately banned. No way! I do not see wisdom in Paul Maudsley’s view. I see a lack of it.

Below that, I give links to posts that give context to Paul's remarks, and that give an example of the unfortunate pattern you repeat in most of your attempts to 'find a home' on the internet.

I don’t have to find a home on the internet. I can make several for myself. I am constantly in the process of doing that. I will not be satisfied, however, with roommates and guests like Paul Maudsley.

I’ve read all the posts by PM, MSK, and you. Instead of trying to change me, if you were a person who likes the same things I do and wants to see high levels of discussion and debate on these boards, you should stand up for me. You should tell creeps like Paul Maudsley and MSK that I am not such a bad person, that I have lots to offer and their hatred toward me is not warranted. However, you join them, like joining the architects who criticized Howard Roark. It’s a path of less resistance.

Okay, William Scott Scherk. We all have our projects in life. I hope you have as much success with yours as I will have with mine.

Bis bald,

Nick

I appreciate the comment, Gregster(!) and agree about the enigmatic spectacle. Nick has been of psychological interest to me for a while. I wish I could wave an O-wand to help him confront things to his profit.

It saddens me whenever people of great potential are thwarted, especially when their own behaviour contributes largely. In my work, I aim to help people identify their conscious goals and bring to light their unconscious strategies of achievement -- in hopes they will identify for themselves any failed strategies, and devise less rigid behaviour.

It is very difficult for anyone to break stereotyped behaviour. Habits are sometimes conforting in their regulariity, although they may themselves be obstacles to the ostensible goal.

I am impressed with Lindsay and the leadership here who let Nick be. It shows benevolence (or at least the kind of disinterest or indifference that amounts to the same thing).

WSS

I strongly concur. Also the lack of humour in Otani is saddening. Nick obviously puts in many hours musing philosophically and that tends to indicate a dearth of social interation. Some threads his argument resembles a dog chasing it's tail. But I admit he's becoming an enigmatic spectacle. I even checked his website today. Neo-objectivism! Alongside Rand does he stand? I'm trying to go easy on the man. But it's tiring to get his endless quotes of others. I mean Nick we could all rattle off quotes from any imaginable perspective but this does not lend credence to a position.

WSS: I have also read your personal site, wherein you let readers know a bit more about your personal struggles.

NO: Yes, you've spoken to me before about my material on other sites, but I noticed you focused on the critical parts I put there to refute while ignoring my refutations.

I bring another perspective to bear on your struggles (see below**). The fact remains that your refutations (for example of missing interpersonal skills, by hiring personnel) did not work on the people involved. You didn't achieve your goal. You may indeed have made an effort to refute the claims of others, but you cannot honestly say that your refutation 'took' where it counted. You didn't get the job, because the hiring process spit you out as not 'likable.'

I have empathy for your situation. My main interest in Objectivism is psychological, and my subsidiary interests are in the Objectivist theories of emotion (and by extension, human nature).

I have never met you in real-life, so the only means to understand your psychology is by means of your output on the internet. If I "focus on the critical parts" of your recent life history, it is not to cut you down or cause you more distress, it is to try to understand what has thwarted you, and how you may achieve your goals.

It is my opinion, on the evidence you provide, that your manner is one of your obstacles. Your manner, your psychological stance, your social behaviour. I believe you have needlessly isolated yourself. It strikes me as sad, since you have such an urge to master a topic and take part in a rich and rewarding intellectual life.

I don't think it does you any good to thrust away analyses and critiques as you do. I think you don't spend enough time thinking about yourself . . . in thinking about why your 'mastery' of some topics hasn't led to 'mastery' in life. If Objectivism and Existentialism can be tools to leading a happy, fullfilled and productive existence, has your tool use been optimal?

It is sad that you haven't approached your goals on any of the dozens of sites/forums you have joined. In my opinion, you make the same psychological mistakes, show a stereotyped behaviour each time, leading to frustration and emotional isolation.

I wonder if your behavioural repertoire can be expanded, and if you can understand that it is only your own behaviour that can be altered -- not those of other people.

Look at it this way:

-- I, Nick Otani, in good faith, join a forum. I introduce myself and begin discussions.

-- I am subject to criticism, that later evolves into insults and dismissal.

-- I post "Bigot at the Bar" and make this a litmus test for my interlocutor's good faith.

-- I encounter resistance to my style of argumentation.

-- I am ignored, 'controlled.' relegated to Dissent, moderated or banned, or I leave, feeling 'forced out' -- or I remain, dissatisfied with the tone, direction, depth or seriousness of discussion.

-- I seek a new forum, and find myself subject to the same.

-- [Repeat]

Nick, what I am trying to get across to you is that your problems in communication and achieving your goals are not insoluble. I think you need to accept that some of the psychological criticism you have been subject to is apt and correct, and that you have been avoiding the import of the best attempts to correct you. I post below some excellent commentary from Paul Maudsley from OL -- and your response. I hope you can see the wisdom in Paul's view.

Below that, I give links to posts that give context to Paul's remarks, and that give an example of the unfortunate pattern you repeat in most of your attempts to 'find a home' on the internet.

With regard to one 'refutation,' you misremember your earlier statements (emphases added):

I've been told I was rejected because "other candidates
demonstrated characteristics more suitable to the goals of
the program in areas of team building, effective
communication and interpersonal skills."

In the area of interpersonal
relations, I worked as a teaching assistant and as a
teacher with assistants, and I worked with office
personnel, managers, and administrators in several
locations and bureaus of the college, the military
educational complex, and the German prison system. I don't
think many people in the selection committee were as
qualified as I in the areas of team building, effective
communication, and interpersonal skills.

WSS

Further quotes from the pen of Mr NO (emphases added):

"You know that I am not a team player either."

"Someone who alienates people routinely will generally have more problems getting what he or she wants from those people."

"And, most of us chronically unhappy intellectuals are
actually happy. We wallow in our misery."

___________

'She said that I had impressive credentials but that they
found someone who was well liked for the job.

I said, “Oh, you don’t hire on the basis of credentials
but on how well someone is liked?”

She said, “No, we hire on the basis of credentials, but
there are lots of people with awesome credentials.”

I said, “Well, since you have so many people with such
awesome credentials, you probably don’t need me on your
substitute list. Please remove my name from it.”

She started to say, “I’m sorry you feel that way,”
but I hung up on her.'

[from OL]

NO: "I'd still need to have my internet connection to
communicate with other people once in awhile, even if it
is to be criticised and abused by jerks and faced again
and again with disappointment."

PM: "I don't think you will ever see the role you play in
determining how people treat you and in determining how
you interpret their intentions. The locus of control
for our social dynamics is very much inside ourselves
whether we see it, and choose to use it, or not. I
don't know what you know about quantum field dynamics but
the causation is the same for social dynamics. The nature
and actions of the particle affects the field as a whole
and, in reciprocation, the field as a whole affects the
nature and actions of the particle. You tend to have a
negative effect on the social field. The social field
tends to reciprocate by having a negative effect on you.
Just an observation and a hypothesis. We can change
the effect of the social field on ourselves by changing
how we act on the social field. We do not have to
resign ourselves to social inefficacy as in your above
statement."

NO, in response: "Whatever."

MSK: "Part of [Nick's] game is to challenge authority
wherever he goes, try to set the policies of the site
owners and indirectly—or sometimes directly—accuse them
(and other members) of being bigots or worse. He formally
objected to the posting policies of OL and became upset
when I told him, by email, to stop violating them (I even
deleted a post or two). He insisted on making more
infringing posts and I started deleting them and parts of
them that were in violation as he made them, sending the
texts back to him with explanation.

Then he went on a search and destroy mission to delete
all of his OL posts going backwards in chronological
order in an attempt to make hash out of the discussions
he participated in.

[I]n order to stop Otani, I simply interrupted his
posting privileges in mid mission.

He immediately went to RoR and went on a crusade against
the unfairness of it all on OL, and me in particular [ .
. . ] for a couple of instances among several others), so
I kinda let the suspension stay in place rather than
restore posting capacity after the technical solution was
found. I never formally banned him."

___________________________

[NO on RoR]: "There is a post I posted on this forum as
well as on several others around the internet. It is
called "The Bigot at the Bar." It has received some
reaction in some places. It really didn't get much
attention here. However, it was deleted on the
Objectivist Living forum.

[ . . . ]

I delete material on my board also. There is no other way
to control obnoxious posters who can post any kind of
garbage and be abusive and childish. However, I don't
think my deleted post was that bad. What do you all
think? Will you sympathize with me here as others
are sypathizing with Dragonfly on the OL?"

**[WSS, in response:] "Yes, I sympathize with you, Nick. I
empathize with what I take to be your lack of understanding:
why is my post gone? But I don't sympathize with Dragonfly
in the same way. In the view of the owner and leaders of
this site, he is a dissenter (or has shown a pattern of
behaviour that the owner and leader consider antithetical to
their community) and can not be allowed to infest the better
threads . . . you, of course, are not yet viewed as an Anti
here.

Two further comments, each of which is only tangentially
related to the notion of 'Troublesome posters.'

>First, in an attempt to understand you, I have been reading
your output on a variety of forums. My empathy for you
increased by so doing: I feel bad for you, Nick. You don't
seem to have a lot of supporters out there -- you seem to
have spent an awful lot of time arguing pointlessly with
people you have scant respect for (and in turn, you seem to
have engendered little respect or affection for yourself).

In your present circumstances I imagine you feel
marginalized. You can't yet find a position as an instructor
that reflects your level of education, experience and
expertise. You are short of money. You are unhappily
divorced. You don't have a lot of communication with your
son, and you don't seem to have a circle of friends with
which to take joy in the pleasures of life. Perhaps this
colours the rest of your engagements with people, be they
stupid human resources bureaucrats or nasty pseudointellects
on the internet.

Second, your postings don't show much grace or empathy
towards other people -- people with whom you seem to
disagree, or with whom you feel unable to dialogue with.
Case in point the unpleasant aside to Jenna Wong.

Have you ever given some time to think over the various
reactions you have and you seem to engender? Have you ever
reasoned out why people don't find you -- as the French put
it -- sympathique?"

Leonid

Personallydisin:"However, I wouldn't be angry if you told me that I have no volition because there is a cause for everything that happens in this universe"
I disagree.First not everything has a cause. Existence for example has no cause.Something which can cause to existence exist should exist prior to existence-and this is contradiction in terms.(Sorry for awkward jargon)
Second not every cause is antecedent cause.In living beings all processes are self-initiated.Even in unanimated matter some processes are self-initiated like radioactive decay. Self-initiated processes cannot be predicted in 100%.Human volition is one of them.

Leonid
Now I think everybody can understand what does exactly Nick mean when he's talking about value of honest debate. He means that he can parrot few senseless phrases like " I make baseless decisions, which are really the free choices." without even to have a clue of understanding of their contradictory nature, and then insult any person who dares to disagree with him. I became used to Nick's tantrums,though I'm no longer amused by them.I understand that he has pathological need for public masturbation,but I'd prefer he could do it somewhere else. The guy obviously needs help.

In real world it always would be some difference. I'm certainly not a representative of existentialism but even so I clearly understand that baseless choice is contradiction in terms and not an expression of real volition.

Some people lean on a god. Others subjugate themselves to society or other people. Some people follow a doctrine or dogma, and some people use logic, not as a tool but as a guide rail. This is not really being independent.

Leonid keeps looking for something to lean on. He doesn't want to take responsibility for his own choices. If something bad happens to him, he'll blame it on whatever crutch he leaned on. He'll be a victim. He won't say he chose it himself and can blame nobody or anything else but him for what happens to him.

It's easy to avoid situations where logic doesn't reach. One can stay in bed all day. People can play it really safe and not do anything until they know everything about it and calculate the most logical action to take. Of course, one may die of old age before the most logical action can be calculated. A house may burn down before one knows the best way to fight the fire. No, sometimes, we have to take risks. Life is more exciting that way. And, we are in charge, not some impersonal logic that isn't even human.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick, I have read your output on RoR, on the Atlas Society forum, on OL, and on two other sites where you no longer post, by choice or by removal.

I have also read your personal site, wherein you let readers know a bit more about your personal struggles.

Yes, you've spoken to me before about my material on other sites, but I noticed you focused on the critical parts I put there to refute while ignoring my refutations. For example, you pointed out that some personnel people claimed I did not have experience in team building, yet you ignored my descriptions of all the teambuilding in which I had been involved. You seem only to be looking for certain things which will support your ideas and ignoring those things you don't want to know.

Earlier in this thread I asked if there had been any positive, creditable outside criticisms you accepted. I don't think I found out if there had been any you took to heart. I sense, however, a frustration. Your 'sense of life' appears to be emotionally dark, thwarted, and without much joy.

I spoke about Mill's quote below in this thread, that he'd rather be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Yes, some people seem much happier than I. However, I'd rather not trade places with them. I'd rather be my disturbed and contemplative self than someone who is happier but not as serious, perhaps not as deep and introspective. (Yes, I know some people will feel insulted by this, that I'm saying they are not deep or something. It's a risk I have to take.)

I would not be surprised if you lived alone, had little social life away from the internet, work at jobs far below your qualifications, have difficulties in forming alliances, in understanding other peoples' motives and reactions.

I do live alone and have no social life away from the internet. I have had jobs far below my qualifications, but I work now as a substitute teacher. I am not paid as well as regular teachers, and the duties are sometimes beneath my qualification. However, I do get to use my knowledge sometimes. It is not completely lost. I did work for twenty years as an adult educator, and I think I was working to my capacity then and doing something meaningful. You would know that if you read my site.

In sum, you show signs of distress and alienation.

Is that all you get out of all you've read? If so, you've been reading selectively. I do feel like an outsider in society, but so was Holden Caufield, Einstein, Ayn Rand, Edgar Allen Poe, Nietzsche and many others. I am a loner. I've had some bad experiences in my life. However, I am getting by. I'm not as bad off as some people who have never been anywhere all their lives and don't have the knowledge and wisdom I have. I would not trade places with these college students on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader who don't know that "to" is not an article.

I think my last questions to you here will be: which have been your best venues for discussion? Is there a place for you where you will not be thwarted, misunderstood and rejected?

The internet is the best hope for indebth discussion, unless I am trapped in a car with someone on a long road trip. With gas prices these days, this is a thing of the past. I have been in the Army and lived close to roommates and bunker partners with whom I've smoked marajuana and had great philosophical conversations. I think I've been trying to replicate these and been disappointed. I do have my own board which is very slow, but it does have a few regulars who have stayed with me over many years. And, it does get about 100 hits each day, even when nobody posts. Someone is reading my words.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
Personallydisin
"You can't say that you would never, ever come across a decision that seems equal to another. Or am I assuming"
Genuine equal situations don't require choice( like in the case of Buridan's donkey),but they occur mostly in the realm of mathematical abstractions. In real world it always would be some difference. I'm certainly not a representative of existentialism but even so I clearly understand that baseless choice is contradiction in terms and not an expression of real volition.

Yes, I think it is amazing when someone accuses me of insulting them when I say my material may not be meaningful to them if they don't have certain prerequisites in Objectivism and philosophy. When college courses require prerequisites, students usually don't feel insulted. They understand.

Of course, claiming to be insulted is a way of manipulating someone. Nietzsche wrote about it. It's one of the reasons he hated religions and the slave mentality which makes victims superior to their betters, the supermen.

People actually try to insult me. And, I do get tired of it sometimes. I'm not a superman.

I do think some of the criticism of me is defensiveness from people who lack self-esteem. Someone who is very self-confident and secure will not need to insult or put others down, but others may feel put down by him or her, because of their insecurity.

I do feel this kind of hatred from some highschool students I teach. Their egos are threatened by me because I know more than they. I probably felt this way too toward some teachers when I was a student. It is a prejudice I have to deal with.

I do look for people who are my equals in philosophy and Objectivism, and I do feel a bit thwarted and disappointed. I guess it is a flaw. Still, I'm not sure how to deal with it.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick, I have read your output on RoR, on the Atlas Society forum, on OL, and on two other sites where you no longer post, by choice or by removal.

I have also read your personal site, wherein you let readers know a bit more about your personal struggles.

Earlier in this thread I asked if there had been any positive, creditable outside criticisms you accepted. I don't think I found out if there had been any you took to heart. I sense, however, a frustration. Your 'sense of life' appears to be emotionally dark, thwarted, and without much joy.

I would not be surprised if you lived alone, had little social life away from the internet, work at jobs far below your qualifications, have difficulties in forming alliances, in understanding other peoples' motives and reactions.

In sum, you show signs of distress and alienation.

I think my last questions to you here will be: which have been your best venues for discussion? Is there a place for you where you will not be thwarted, misunderstood and rejected?

WSS

"I have not tried to insult you."

Yet, Scott, miraculously, he has been able to, without even trying! Amazing!

"...yet you seem to think I should not antagonize Objectivists for dismissing me because of perceived reasons which are actually false and unsupported."

All anyone has to do is read NickOtani on any thread carefully, and it becomes crystal clear why he is dismissed, unless it is to ridicule him. (Hint: rhymes with "crass mole.")

"Do you think their treatment of me is inappropriate?"

Perfectly fitting, I'd say. Not that anyone was asking me.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Would you flip a coin? That what existentialist most probably will do. For him the choice,free will is random process,its origin in everlasting flux of becoming of nothing in particular

Leonid is not a credible spokesman for Existentialism, nor for NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism. He doesn't get it. He ascribes ridiculous positions to it which it doesn't hold and refutes it with even more ridiculous reasoning.

I've tried to straighten him out on this, but he thinks he knows better. This is why I don't like talking to people who don't have much knowledge about philosophy and are not really interested in being enlightened.

bis bald,

Nick

I have not tried to insult you. I've been perfectly honest with you.

You have not pointed out any flaws or fallacies with my arguments. I doubt you even read many of them. Cite one and show me the flaw.

You claim it is inappropriate to dismiss you because of my perception of your age or education, yet you seem to think I should not antagonize Objectivists for dismissing me because of perceived reasons which are actually false and unsupported. Do you think their treatment of me is inappropriate?

bis bald,

Nick

Excellent.

1.  I don't want to argue with you because I certainly live my life as if I have volition.  I believe it with every cell of my body.  In fact, every choice I make is with this understanding.  Nothing in this discussion will change the way I live my life because you can't live believing you have no volition.  However, I wouldn't be angry if you told me that I have no volition because there is a cause for everything that happens in this universe and if you were to study everything you would predict the future without error.  I'm sure I would file the idea away in the back of my head as useless ideas category.  I would certainly be angry if someone wanted me to live as though I didn't have volition.  

2.  You are right.  I walked right into it.  But, Nick's point was that he is constantly in that situation and mine was that I would make every attempt to avoid that type of situation.  Additionally, that he does also.  Split second situations might lead to perceived equal outcome, these are learning opportunities.  You can't say that you would never, ever come across a decision that seems equal to another.  Or am I assuming?

You've attempted to insult me a couple of times.  It wont work.  Perhaps before you attempt to iron out the flaws (or point them out) of Objectivism, you should attempt to remove the fallacies from your arguments.  I don't mind flawed reasoning, but dismissing someone's arguments due to your perception of their age, education, or philosophy is simply inappropriate. 

Leonid
Personallydisin
1.You said " Perhaps freewill is an illusion, but it is a permanent illusion."
Perhaps,you right. But then how did you arrive to this conclusion? Have you been born with this knowledge? Is it result of some complicated biochemical reaction inside of your brain? Is it written in your DNA code? Have you been brainwashed to believe it? Hardly so. Must probably you'd angry reject such an assumption.You'd insist that you are intelligent being,you thoroughly examined the topic,compared different views and concluded by your own choice and by volitional use of your own mind that free will is a permanent illusion.Since concept of volition is axiomatic by its nature you will need it even to refute it.To say "there is no volition" is like to say "I don't think that is such a thing as consciousness exists."
2."Flip a coin, but I rarely find myself in such situations"
Imagine you lost your way in the thick forest.You have no means to orientate yourself.The road you walk on forks in two-left and right.You have no idea to which direction to go.What you'd do? Your survival depends on your decision. Would you flip a coin? That what existentialist most probably will do. For him the choice,free will is random process,its origin in everlasting flux of becoming of nothing in particular.Determinist with integrity should do nothing.Since everything is predetermined he can just sit down and wait to face his fate.Both of them clearly doomed to perish.Objectivist by volitional use of mind and logic would understand that his choice to go right or left is the false one.He doesn't have enough data to make the choice.However he wouldn't rely on chance,intuition or whim.He wouldn't trust his fate.Instead he'll make attemts to orientate himself-for example he may climb on the top of the tree to see where he is or start fire to draw attention and so on. He has fairly "chance" to survive.

1. I've taken two courses in logic. Now I understand the problem. You think that logic is a matter of sitting down with a chalkboard and analysing the validity of different arguments while avoiding fallacies. You use logic, whether you intend to or not, when you are agonizing over your decisions. But hey, semantics.

Nope, I use logic when I consider the consequences of my actions and weigh options, making utilitarian type decisions. I can’t use logic when I don’t know enough about those consequences and have no options to measure or when consequences are the same. I make baseless decisions, which are really the free choices. There is nothing there to guide them.

2. A. Actually, man is superior because of the degree to which he can reason. He is not god. If another creature develops the same abilities he is no longer superior. Morality is needed for the exact reason that it is reasonable.

No, man is not merely different from a tree in degree. He is different in type. Trees do not have free-will. Thus, they don’t need morality. Trees do what they do automatically. Their actions are descriptive, not prescriptive. We don’t say they “ought” to do things. They have no choice.

B. People have wants and needs, they rationally wish to fulfill these wants and needs. Perhaps you and I can sit back and judge what would be best for someone 20 years from now, but that doesn't mean they are irrational for enjoying the present. What is not credible is the idea that reason is one of many choices by which to live your life. Do you believe people should be forced to behave rationally?

No, people should not be forced to do anything but respect the rights of others to do what they want. They need to honor natural rights. That’s all. This may mean, however, that they should be forced to carpool and recycle and not smoke in public buildings or around me. Some of these things ultimately impact my rights to flourish.

C. That certainly wasnt' my point. So the better you are financially the more reasonable you are? No. I agree that morality is reasonable and will help lead to life long success. Do you measure success solely through monetary means?

I was just asking. You are the one who said being reasonable helps one survive. Well, sometimes criminals survive better, it seems, than moral people who suffer and die, without flourishing. No, money doesn’t solve all problems, and I would argue that being moral is ultimately in one’s rational self-interest. It is more authentic than criminal activity, which is faking reality. However, it is the case that sometimes people argue that being moral is not always reasonable. And it often appears, in real life, that immoral people survive better than moral people.

D. A mystic still eats breakfast and pays the bills even-though they might believe the world doesn't exist. Who knows why they attempt to escape reality in their free time, but I'm sure there is a why/reason. The only way we learn is through reason. If babies aren't born with the ability to reason, how can they learn anything?

You seem to be rambling now. Yes, babies are born with the ability to develop reasoning, and they do so with experience. However, they don’t stop and consider every action before they move. They act on emotion and learn to pursue pleasure while avoiding pain. It’s trial and error.

Do you have children? A baby comes into the world shocked and grasping to understand what has just happened which is beyond their grasp. This new world is bright and cold yet they feel the warmth of a parent's embrace and they are comforted. They understand, they reason that the embrace is protective. I assume if one were to cause a child pain from the moment he is born he would reasonably believe that he is in danger and cry out in fear.

Yes, I have one child. And, I have studied child development. I like Piaget’s approach, that we develop cognitively in stages and levels. Emotion is the first motivating agent, not reason. Reason is developed as the child experiences pleasure and pain.

3. Objectivists do not have a monopoly on objectivity. You came to discuss a series of issues of which Objectivists refuse to debate. Why, to antagonize them? Are you frustrated that you brought the wrong playbook? Perhaps you see me as stunted and convoluted. Please, continue to enlighten me.

I’m really not interested in your views. Everybody has opinions. Some people believe in freedom, and some think of it as an illusion. Objectivists try to maintain that freedom can co-exist with fixed natures and unbroken cause and effect. I’m trying to get them to explain that. I and most other philosophers see that as incoherent. The Existentialists do a better job of explaining freedom, but they do so by talking about unfixed natures of man and processes of becoming and lots of things I’ve already invested lots of time and effort on this board talking about. If you really want to be enlightened, you’ll read those other posts. However, I don’t think they’ll mean much to you if you don’t have some prerequisites in Objectivism and philosophy. It’s easier just to have your opinions.

Bis bald,

Nick