Philophzilla!!! [was More of Leonid's Lies]

William Scott Scherk's picture
Submitted by William Scott Scherk on Thu, 2007-12-27 20:14

We see an incipient alignment of forces between NickOtani'sNeobObjectivisticism (NON0) and Kevin Owen's murky take on Chirch of Kookology.

Seems NONO appreciates that "You [Kevin] are fairly reasonable. You [Kevin] don't deserve pot shots and to be called names."

In a perfect world, of course, Kevin Owen would not be stupid and unable to reason. In a perfect world Nick Otani would appreciate that Kevin Owen posts nothing that is not Scientologist propaganda.

In an imperfect world such as we share, Nick may find Kevin an ally. Gadzooks!

In my book, Kevin Owen does deserve to be called names (stupid, evasive) as long as he posts here dishonestly; if he might drop a hint that he does find a few odd things about his Chirch, then fruitful would be the ensuing discussion.

That Nick and Kevin's ethos and depth of analysis might mate . . . there we would witness Philophzilla, bestriding the world blowing the hot breath of Reason and destroying all the lesser mortals who do not understand.

First to die under Philophzilla's death-breath: SOLOists who call names. Like, um, stupid, evasive, Asperger's Spectrum Disorder, socially-retarded, and irrelevant.

In a perfect world of reason wedged with reasonable emotion, Nick Otani would write something like this: If we think about it, though, not debating on the internet is really dumb. We need to test ideas and find their weaknesses, not accept them unchallenged. This kind of reasonableness, however, is not funny.

And it would be applicable to his own and Kevin's productions on list.

And that is funny, in context.


( categories: )

Don't believe all those lies

NickOtani's picture

In my book, Kevin Owen does deserve to be called names (stupid, evasive) as long as he posts here dishonestly; if he might drop a hint that he does find a few odd things about his Chirch, then fruitful would be the ensuing discussion.

I’m not objecting to Objectivists calling someone evasive or irrational if indeed they can be shown to be evasive or irrational. Kevin was showing me, however, where someone called him a lunatic. I don’t think there is any justification for this. Even if he were a lunatic, it would be insensitive to call him that. It is an insult.

When Kevin first contacted me, in my thread about Buddhism, I told him I did not agree with the theory of reincarnation or past lives in Scientology. He said, fair enough. He did not hang on and try to convert me. He was only making a point that Scientology and the counseling in which he is involved had something in common with Buddhism and Eastern thought. I didn’t think that was unreasonable.

I looked over his thread on rehabilitating prisoners. I do have an interest in this since I was once a prison teacher and have views on helping prisoners. I didn’t post in that thread, but I was impressed with Kevin’s statistics about how various plans for rehabilitation did not work. I also noticed attitudes from other posters deriding Kevin for his Scientology views, but I didn’t notice those views encroaching that much on his points.

It is possible to compartmentalize certain views. I agree with some of Benjamin Lee Whorf’s views on linguistics even though I disagree with his Christianity. I think he keeps his mysticism out of his scientific views. I also think Chomsky keeps his political views out of his linguistic views. This is okay. He may be wrong in one area but right in the other. Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were racists, but they had other views which contributed to society.

Kevin did try to impress me with Hubbard’s biography, but I told him I was not impressed with this. I offered to debate with him on the issue an immortal spirit, and I linked to one of my old writings on life after death. I also linked him to a site which is highly critical of Scientology. There can be no doubt that I disagree with Kevin’s views on Scientology, even if I do empathize with him for being derided by Objectivists on this board.

…he’s inventing ‘life-boat’ quandaries for himself.

I don’t think I am inventing “life-boat” quandaries, gregster. These situations, where logic doesn’t reach or is inadequate, are more common than perfect positive-negative situations. We have to make baseless decisions all the time, even in how we choose our words in communications like this one. I could be paralyzed by inaction if I don’t take risks and go ahead with what I choose to say. If I think about it a little longer, I may be able to come up with something even more logical. In order to get anything down here at all, I have to suspend logic and just go with it. Everybody does this if they are in the least bit reflective.

As Leonid recently illuminated: (Nick) “He exhibits extreme case of relativism.”

Do you know the difference, gregster, between illuminating something and just making a false and unsupported accusation? Leonid is completely wrong. I've already responded to this. He can't illuninate something that is not true at all.

Bis bald,

Nick

Well trawled WSS

gregster's picture

Nick to Kev: "I thank you for empathizing with me. I empathize with you also. Hang in there."

How touching to see the foundations of a fond friendship but those observing vicariously must not disarm and instead maintain caution on this watch.

WSS, your analysis of the situation appears authoratitive. We may feel privileged to witness the awakenings of a persistent, picayune, intellectual insurrection in our midst.

Nick, much like those who find solace in mysticism, having had their belief system shaken and their integrations found in ruins, has offered a relativist outreach, Jesus-like, to one of this world’s regularly-belittled.

Previously, assistance has been equanimously volunteered in both cases yet the patients refuse to swallow.

All is not lost however, and enlightenment could await one of these good fellows. With the process of self-examination underway Nick is forthright in his admission of instances of logic denying him guidance, though forgetting that he’s inventing ‘life-boat’ quandaries for himself. “Drat, that damn dog chasing it’s tail again” mutters he.

Nick: “you are in the middle of an open field with no paths and no landmarks” and “if you were lost in the everglades or in a desert where there are no landmarks”

As Leonid recently illuminated: (Nick) “He exhibits extreme case of relativism.” Nick, like the teachers who still have athletic competitions but award all participants a prize, says “you don't deserve pot shots and to be called names”. As if to say we should not identify that which is poison.

In summary; there looks to be a flicker of light at the end of Nick’s tunnel and it’s thanks to the almost-altruistic perseverance of some and the noble tolerance of others. One should give poor Kev little hope of happiness at this juncture.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.