Not Getting It

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2009-08-15 10:35

I cannot remember a time on SOLO, in all its incarnations, when I have not been in trouble, even though SOLO is my creation. In trouble for being true to myself. This, in spite of the fact that Shakespeare's quotation is etched into the very heart of the SOLO Credo. And that I didn't mean any old range-of-the-moment "self." I paraphrased Polonius to say, "This above all, thine own self create, and to it for ever be true." Notwithstanding the prominence accorded this dictum on this site—my site—I still get berated for being true to myself on it. For being disgusted by someone who "suspends" (i.e. betrays) his principles to root for Obama, arguably the most evil man on the planet right now; for being disgusted by someone who brazenly proclaims that morality is a superstition or maybe a scam even as he also pretends to believe it to be objective; for being disgusted by those who pull their punches and mince their words and not doing so myself; for being enraptured by Romantic music and proclaiming its undeniable objective superiority; for holding out against the Objectivist orthodoxy's rationalist/intrinsicist anti-Republican, pro-Dem-scum fixation and the heterodoxy's cowardly failure to say anything about that; and for promoting old-fashioned "conservative" virtues such as honour and loyalty which are conspicuously lacking in Objectivist circles.

Well, tonight I just want to ask my attackers, active on about four different threads at the moment: "Which part of what I've said openly all along didn't you get? Why do you attack me for certain things when, if you'd been paying attention, you would have known from the get-go that I regarded them as virtues and strove to embody them?"

It's clear to me that the milksops who attack me neither appreciate the urgency of the situation facing both Objectivism and humanity at large nor have the testicular wherewithal to get motivated about it. They are conventional, respectable plods who want their Objectivism diluted to accommodate their conventionality and respectability, who mute their opposition to the unspeakable in order not to be "uncool" and whose sole purpose in posting, here or anywhere, is to be praised for their "level-headedness" and "maturity" (i.e. quivering cowardice).

We have philosophy professors and holders of doctorates in philosophy playing their pomo-parlour-games while Western Civilisation burns, one of them claiming that ethics and reason are twain which ne'er shall meet. We have psychology professors arguing that hero-worship is inappropriate for human beings. We have humanity-diminishers obsessively striving to find flaws in one of the most heroic human beings who ever lived. Worst of all, we have folk who should know better arguing that these types should be handled with kid gloves, and other folk who do know better remaining utterly silent.

SOLO, contrary to my aspirations for it, is a repository of shame. Doesn't mean the project itself is ill-conceived; au contraire. Just means there are precious few people on this earth, let alone this site, worthy of it—and we haven't yet managed to attract the attention of most of them.

We press on. This post is not about self-pity or negativity. But in a milieu indifferent to a Lanza and rapt in a Sinatra, we know the difficulties. Rational exuberance is a hard one to sell in a culture of irrational sullenness.

Wanted: more folk who get it to be true to themselves and step up!


If yer not part of da plan

AShortt's picture

If yer not part of da plan ya can die in a ditch ;n)

No, Shortt, it isn't.

Ptgymatic's picture

It is: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Why Thank You Richard. Ah

AShortt's picture

Why Thank You Richard.

Ah to be or not to be...

whether it is nobler to fart around debating about corrupt parts of a corrupt system or keep yer head down and live for yourself avoiding hurting others except in self defense.

If your not part of the solution your part of the problem is it?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"No, Leonid, I already said (for example, here, here and here) that I oppose the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid."

Yes, you did. But you also said:

" But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference...Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida...Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Failure to mandate the folic acid fortification of flour (i.e., freedom of bakers) results in more babies with spina bifida." (2 posts :Actuality; Facts of reality 6.08.2009)"

Can you please explain how do you reconcile these two positions of yours?

Richard

reed's picture

What do you think of the idea of a Christian libertarian party? - i.e., a party whose principles are explicitly underpinned by objective moral values?

I have mixed feelings about the idea of any Christian political party - perhaps because of past Christian parties. Other than that it sound like a good idea. I'm sure a party whose principles are explicitly underpinned by objective moral values could get more votes than the Libertarianz.

Valliantquoating

Robert Campbell's picture

Sure enough, the passage on pp. 60-62 of Copleston's volume 8 pertains to John Stuart Mill's view of mathematics.

Neil Parille did not put quotes around the paragraph in his essay that ended with the citation to Copleston.

Besides, how would one little paragraph, containing no ellipses, be a quotation from 2+ full pages of densely packed text?

Apparently Valliantquoating is communicable....

Robert Campbell

PS. I don't agree with Mr. Parille on the issue at hand. Rand was not an empiricist in the Millian manner, and Mill's treatment of logic and mathematics was specifically criticized in one of Leonard Peikoff's history of philosophy lectures.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

And pro-little coercion?

No, Leonid, I already said (for example, here, here and here) that I oppose the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid.

You came to the right thread.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"I'm pro-reason, pro-freedom and pro-Western Civilisation."

And pro-little coercion?

Attlascott, Linsday

Leonid's picture

"SOLO is a repository of shame"

You can view it like this if you wish. I see it as battlefield of ideas which is most important of all battles.

Jeff

Rosie's picture

The link is here.

Oy!

Jeff Perren's picture

I read that passage of Parille's article and, as near as I can tell, it isn't even a quote from Copleston, but simply Parille's interpretation Copleston's interpretation of Mill. Doubly bogus. Well, at least that solves the mystery. I would've expected Copleston to know about all the names/positions I listed.

At least Parille quotes Joseph: "We cannot think contradictory propositions, because we see that a thing cannot have at once and not have the same character; and a necessity of thought is really the apprehension of a necessity in the being of things. . . . The Law of Contradiction then is metaphysical or ontological." (quoted in Blanshard, Vol 2, The Nature of Thought. A highly recommended work, along with his Reason and Analysis.)

P.S. Rosie, can you say where you found an Internet site that contains downloadable versions of all of Copleston's History?

You mean ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... you treated Parille as reliable? Hahahaha!

I didn't spend much time on it. I was pretty certain Copleston never mentioned Rand, and the index didn't, so ...

Linz

Rosie's picture

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

This is where I took the quote from: here

I have downloaded all the volumes of Copleston's history from the internet and looked up pages 60-62 of volume 8. Hence the delay. It would appear that Pirelle's reference to Copleston related to JS Mill only. He then applied JS Mill to Rand's statements.
I am sorry to have wasted your time looking her up. Sad

Do you mean...

Jeff Perren's picture

If you mean, have I actually seen Copleston discussing Rand, no. But I only have one volume of Copleston (on Kant, vol 6). I'm just assuming Rosie's reference is correct. And I probably should've added Blanshard to my list, but as a sort-of Hegelian, rather than a more or less pure Aristotelian, I left him off.

Mr. P. ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Have you actually sighted this?

Copleston on Rand's Meta-Logic

Jeff Perren's picture

"Rand’s view of logic is particularly striking in that that she holds two positions that are often seen in tension. First, she wants to demonstrate that the principles of logic can be justified exclusively on empirical grounds. Second, she wants to show that they are absolute and unchanging. It is probably fair to say that most philosophers would consider this impossible. Consistent empiricists such as J. S. Mill were only able to demonstrate that principles of logic were most likely unchanging. " [Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 8, pp. 60-62.]"

Odd that he should single her out on this. It's not exclusive to - and probably not original with - her. There are hints of the view already in Aristotle. Abelard, if I recall correctly, asserted something similar. It appears in one form in H.W.B. Joseph, from whom (I believe) Veatch adopted and adapted it.

Rosie darling ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

My Copleston is in three installments published by Doubleday. The page numbers will be different. Rand is not in the index. Can you give me the Chapter title please?

Linz, dearest

Rosie's picture

Ayn Rand was a man.
When you are head first at the bottom of the long drop with your feet kicking about in the air, growing your nose won't help to tip you the right way up. Smiling

And you must have a different edition of Copleston from mine, or anybody's, including his. If he ever mentioned Rand I doubt that even I would have forgotten it.
Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 8, pp. 60-62. I don't believe that this edition was printed especially for me. Smiling

I note you gave up on Shiraz/Gewurtztraminer. You're not going to try to argue that that piece of shit your piece of shit posted today is objectively on a par with Rachmaninoff?
No I didn't give up on it. The point was made. I am not going to argue that Richard's post (which had the words of AShortt's previous post on it and which was why he posted it I guess) is on a par with Rachmaninoff on an objective or subjective basis. I happen to love romantic and other classical music, opera (my favourite is Puccini) and jazz. Listen to this:

This is music by Fats Waller. There is an excellent recording by Dick Hyman. Although classically trained on the piano I now much prefer to play this sort of music. It is fun.

My previous post re thrash metal music is simply that your argument is not valid. Richard's preference for heavy metal is nothing to do with anti reason and anti freedom. And your disagreement is simply a matter of taste.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

What do you think of the idea of a Christian libertarian party? - i.e., a party whose principles are explicitly underpinned by objective moral values?

Would it muster more votes than the Libertarianz Party?

Claytons ethics

Richard Goode's picture

SOLO, contrary to my aspirations for it, is a repository of sham

Objectivist "ethics" is a sham. It's a Claytons ethics - the "ethics" you have when you're not having ethics.

Hilton ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I assumed your convoluted American Airhead model was a joke? You were serious? Why on earth would we want to get into convoluted scenarios with voting panels and the like? All I'm asking is that folk get off their asses and WRITE pr's, which then go out to the world in a flash with minimal hoops. And I try to lead by example.

You may say I'm not doing much in an organised way to check the onslaught of the enemy. As best I can tell I'm doing as much as I can. I ask you what I in effect asked every SOLOist at the top of the thread: "What are YOU doing?"

Now, I don't understand the term "handling the back-end operations" but if you are guaranteeing that "SOLO will become a pr machine of note" I'll gladly come up to speed and take your $100! Why don't you talk to me and Ross via e-mail?

After you've written your next press release. Eye

... it's more than a war

reed's picture

... it's more than a war against the enemies of Objectivism. It's a war against the enemies of reason and freedom, meaning a war against the enemies of Western Civilisation itself. Including you, Goode.

I think the attitude expressed here is at the heart of the Libertarianz party. That's why I couldn't vote Libertarianz even though I agree with most of their policies.

Why would a person choose to give power to Libertarianz when Libertarianz consider them their enemy.

Linz

HWH's picture

IMHO, Unless and until you systemise SOLO to generate press releases it aint gonna happen.

There's no feedback, no agenda, no plan and no follow through.

I'm sure the motivation is there, but unless you get the system to handle the backend operations it becomes too taxing and the wheels come off midway.

I'd put up $100.00 for WMGreens or Ross's time should you have them try and russle up a variant of my suggestion, and I absolutely guarantee you SOLO would become a PR machine of note.

There's nothing to lose as you can just keep the current format as is on the front page so the dogs can bark, but without slowing down the caravan

Even if the PR generated in this way is less than perfect its good to note how successful Fox has been in countering the leftists BS even though their base is corrupt.

To see how organised the left is in pushing their agenda you should read Di lorenzo's "Destroying Democracy: How Government Funds Partisan Politics"

What happens here on SOLO is certainly entertaining, but isn't doing much in an organised way to check the onslaught of the enemy.

C'mon Linz...nothing to lose and everythng to gain.

Hilton

Much Ado

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I think the vulgate is vulgar. The massman is mediocre in mind and soul -- even the Objectivist massman. Horace once said "I loathe the ignorant masses, and I keep them away from me."

Ooooo!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

(The girls all seem to love me here, they think that I am handsome, smart and smell nice and for a small fee would like to see much more of me...)

Well you are handsome and smart. Alas, I can't vouch for the smell. As for the small fee, who's paying whom? Evil

Cambodia??

Hilton ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your observations are spot-on Linz, but should you and could you expect anything other than what has become the norm for this blog?

I could and I should, but I've learned not to.

It seems that the default experience of posting here at SOLO is similar to sitting down for a session of bickering at a big old dinner table, with you and the choir at the head vs those others who occasionally muster sufficient nerve to venture an opinion, and of course those resident Remoras who simply hate yours, Ayns's and other non-compromisers guts.

Well, I take their Linz Derangement Syndrome as a compliment.

I didn't know what a Remora was so checked on Wiki:

They grow to 30–90 centimetres long (1–3 ft), and their distinctive first dorsal fin takes the form of a modified oval sucker-like organ with slat-like structures that open and close to create suction and take a look firm hold against the skin of larger marine animals. ... The relationship between remoras and their perfect hosts is most often taken to be one of commensalism, specifically phoresy. The host they attach to for transport gains nothing from the relationship, but also loses little. The remora benefits by using the host as transport and protection and also feeds on materials dropped by the host. There is controversy whether a remora's diet is primarily leftover fragments, or the feces of the host. In some species (Echeneis naucrates and E. neucratoides) consumption of host feces is strongly indicated in gut dissections.[3] For other species, such as those found in a host's mouth, scavenging of leftovers is more likely.

Hahahahaha!

I still don't get why on my own site, where my take-no-prisoners KASS agenda is clearly laid out, I am in constant trouble "for being disgusted by those who pull their punches and mince their words and not doing so myself."

I don't run folk out of town; they flounce. Or sulk and lurk.

But my main point is, as applied to you, Hilton: in the time it took you to devise that American Airhead scenario, you could have written a press release!!!!! Smiling

The Duck has thrown in his

PhilipD's picture

The Duck has thrown in his job in Thailand and winged his way to Manila for a bit of a gander. (The girls all seem to love me here, they think that I am handsome, smart and smell nice and for a small fee would like to see much more of me...)

Winging my way to Cambodia, on a long-term basis shortly.

Smashed Duck ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

'With all the garbage going down in the world the press releases and op-eds etc. should be flying out.'
What, some craft, thought and effort? Seems unlikely, tis better to spar and be 'clever' about the small stuff.

Well spotted.

And fuck, Campbell, you're ugly - in all sorts of ways.

That one's a no-brainer.

A Duck: Smashed in Manila

Manila's not in Thailand. Has this duck migrated?

'With all the garbage going

PhilipD's picture

'With all the garbage going down in the world the press releases and op-eds etc. should be flying out.'

What, some craft, thought and effort? Seems unlikely, tis better to spar and be 'clever' about the small stuff.

And fuck, Campbell, you're ugly - in all sorts of ways.

A Duck: Smashed in Manila

Rosie dear

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ayn Rand was a man.

And you must have a different edition of Copleston from mine, or anybody's, including his. If he ever mentioned Rand I doubt that even I would have forgotten it.

Do read up on the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, so beloved of caterwauler-worshipping "philosophy" graduates, and why it's nonsense, dear.

I note you gave up on Shiraz/Gewurtztraminer. You're not going to try to argue that that piece of shit your piece of shit posted today is objectively on a par with Rachmaninoff?

Olivia

Rosie's picture

Bludgeon other people for whom I have no regard?
I am not bludgeoning anyone. Puzzled and for whom do I have no regard? Puzzled
My sudden empathy toward you?
I don't know what you are talking about. Puzzled
Certainly not obvious to me and yet I am the subject. Huh?

P.S. Aaaaah! I have reread my earlier post and think I may see where you may be coming from. I wasn't bludgeoning Linz. I was merely saying that I thought that he "got into trouble" for his insults and not because he was being true to himself. Your post confirmed this. It wasn't written with the intention of sudden empathy. Sorry if this offended you. And apologies to all the others who found it so obviously disingenuous and low.

Disclaimer: Any resemblance of empathy in my posts is not intended to offend and coincidental only.

P.P.S. You are forgiven for calling me a scavenger, dog, all references to me and the "f" word, disingenuous, low and all else of that ilk from earlier posts by you. I hope you will forgive that beastly resemblance of empathy on my part. Eye

Rosie...

Olivia's picture

I'm well aware that I can't make you do or not do anything, so I will simply just make a request:
Please don't use my words here to bludgeon other people whom you have no regard for. That is unspeakably low. You and I have never ever ever seen eye to eye on anything. Your sudden empathy toward the "lovely Olivia" is disingenuous and shallow, and that is obvious to all.

The Duke of Plaza Toro

Rosie's picture

And on your own thread about always being in trouble. Tssssk.

Your much criticised parlour games thrown to me yet again in an attempt to avoid the hard ball. Highly amusing but such a Plaza Toro escape. Don't say I didn't try with you, dear. Parlour games it is then. So long as you are being true to yourself. Eye

But Rand diminishing - was that wise?

No woman should ever speak of logic. Whereof one knows nothing, thereof one should remain silent.

A woman's logic
"Rand’s view of logic is particularly striking in that that she holds two positions that are often seen in tension. First, she wants to demonstrate that the principles of logic can be justified exclusively on empirical grounds. Second, she wants to show that they are absolute and unchanging. It is probably fair to say that most philosophers would consider this impossible. Consistent empiricists such as J. S. Mill were only able to demonstrate that principles of logic were most likely unchanging. " [Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 8, pp. 60-62.]

Life is your alleged rational basis for ethics? Ahem. (Polite cough.) It is often useful to try to make sense, dear. I see you presenting your Ph.D. That one word dissertation would really have the eminent professors sitting up.

I'd have to lower them [my standards] to the bottom of a long-drop.

But, darling, that is where I am asking you to raise them from. I thought you were at the bottom of the logical long drop already. But you proved that you could get lower. That last post managed to trip you over head first. I can see your pretty little size 9 feet kicking about in desperation.

Dr No Goode

gregster's picture

How many tatts have you now? The music is supposed to be accessorised, especially if one means it, and a social metaphysician such as yourself.. And if not why not? Are they ugly?

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your argument is not logical.

No woman should ever speak of logic. Whereof one knows nothing, thereof one should remain silent.

You have not proven that Slayer is not music. You cannot just proclaim that Richard's claim that Slayer are music is anti reason and thus anti freedom.

I can, but I don't. I leave it to them and their egregious noise coupled with lyrics about pedophile serial killers and the like to sheet home the anti-reason thing.

Your argument is on a par with a shiraz enthusiast claiming that a gewurztraminer is not a wine simply because he doesn't like it and therefore declares it can not be a wine.

No dear. It's on a par with claiming that Getwurztraminer and Shiraz are wines and sewage is not.

Your second statement is not correct either. Richard does not use reason to discount reason.

You're quite right. He repairs to faith to discount reason.

What is your alleged rational basis for ethics?

Life, darling. Do keep up.

You really will need to raise your standards, Linz, to meet my mark.

No dear, I'd have to lower them to the bottom of a long-drop. And though this may be a terrible shock to you, I really am not here to meet your mark.

Unlikely ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to make KASS Music Gem of the Day status. Eye Wotta frightful bloody racket! And he says he's not a nihilist?

Beyond Grotesque

Jeff Perren's picture

Words fail me.

The Day I Tried To Live

Richard Goode's picture

Fight the Good Fight -

AShortt's picture

Fight the Good Fight - Freedom and Reason!?

Know your enemy and keep them close. Understand how to best 'deal' with them while fully recognizing what and who they are. Freedom is knowing the reasons you will never actually be free. Life forces many choices many of which there is no escaping, understand the nature of your constraints and restraints. Strive far more for knowledge than imparting such. Live - it will be over soon enough. Communication is the bitch.

The words we say, never seem to add up to
the ones inside our head
The lives we lead, never seem to get us
anywhere but dead

- C.C.

They All Protest Too Much

Robert Campbell's picture

I am not a crook.—Richard M. Nixon (1974)

I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts.—Leonard Peikoff (1987)

This post is not about self-pity or negativity.—Lindsay Perigo (2009)

Robert Campbell

Soporific my butt

HWH's picture

I find it hard to fall asleep while cringing. I seriously find myself walking out of the room on occasion.

Don't those deluded contestants have any friends? (it makes one realise just how many nutters are in our midst, doesn't it?)

I'm sure you know what I meant though. The formula keeps millions of people engaged throughout each series, and with social media tools it's now possible to copy the attributed pshychological mechanism into this blog.

It will redirect all that negative energy (eg. Rosies empassioned defence of Slayer) into a stream of ripostes that will hopefully cut the confidence of the galloping collective to the same degree as has been achieved by the stalwarts at Fox News.

Hilton

Good post Hilton.. until

gregster's picture

I think you will be well on your way to harness the energy of those aspiring Oists who visit here by attempting to somehow copy and systemise the motivational and entertainment aspects one finds in successful social media style TV shows such as "American Idol" etc. I laughed out loud here. Crikey. American Idol? The show is soporific. A karaoke with a good light system.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Your argument is not logical. You have not proven that Slayer is not music. You cannot just proclaim that Richard's claim that Slayer are music is anti reason and thus anti freedom.

Slayer consists of three guitars, a drummer and a vocalist. They hold concerts and sell CDs. They have a gold album which means they have sold over a million of at least one CD. They are regularly nominated for, and have won, grammy awards. Wikipedia et al talks about their musical style. It is described under the genre of music known as thrash metal. The issue is that you don't like it and cannot see how anyone can prefer it to romantic music. But to another person, orchestral music and opera just sounds like a gahstly screech. Your argument is on a par with a shiraz enthusiast claiming that a gewurztraminer is not a wine simply because he doesn't like it and therefore declares it can not be a wine. The generic ingredients are the same (musical instruments/vocals ; grapes/yeast) but the recipes are distinct. It is, as I said before, a difference of taste. And your war is that you disagree with him. So what does that make you?

Your second statement is not correct either. Richard does not use reason to discount reason. You are playing with words (a parlour game of your own?) but without accuracy. He reasons that ethics has no rational basis. This is quite different. And there is no contradiction. Turn it around. What is your alleged rational basis for ethics?

Finally, of course he can speak for himself. This sort of comment is a further example of second rate debate. You raised these specific details from a generic comment I made in response to Glenn about war. Now you insinuate that Richard cannot speak for himself when (a) he did not raise the subject and (b)your comments were addressed to me. This is an excellent illustration of the sort of comment one expects from politicians. It is not the stuff of fine minds or truth seekers. You really will need to raise your standards, Linz, to meet my mark. Eye

Is form following function on SOLO?

HWH's picture

Your observations are spot-on Linz, but should you and could you expect anything other than what has become the norm for this blog?

It seems that the default experience of posting here at SOLO is similar to sitting down for a session of bickering at a big old dinner table, with you and the choir at the head vs those others who occasionally muster sufficient nerve to venture an opinion, and of course those resident Remoras who simply hate yours, Ayns's and other non-compromisers guts.

I think most aspiring O'ists enjoy the ideas being promoted here, but a bit of casual lurking by a newbie would quickly expose how those who disagreed with you on more personally subjective issues (like music for example) have been run out of town.

As far as that particular issue, I for one have come around to what you're on about, but it took me a while, but then I've never been as married to my views on this subject as you are.

I suspect that the passionate uncompromising manner in which you paint dissenters into a corner without offering clemency or quarter leaves them without the means of saving face, and turns them into bitter enemies rather than the allies we so desperately need.

IMHO, should SOLO ever become the powerful influence I gather you've had hopes for, it's going to require a redesign to motivate those who come to SOLO,...and who inevitably flounce due to the infernal bitching.

I think you will be well on your way to harness the energy of those aspiring Oists who visit here by attempting to somehow copy and systemise the motivational and entertainment aspects one finds in successful social media style TV shows such as "American Idol" etc.

Let the end goal be the daily infusion into the culture of O'ist moral/intellectual counter-punches to "horror files" garnered from the popular media. I suggest you allow anyone to post appropriate "horror files" that need serious address to a dedicated section on SOLO, and that you allow social voting (Digg style) on these to determine the most pressing issues.

Now appoint a panel of judges from among our current members to evaluate and vote for (as in "Digg") all O'ist counter-punches submitted on these issues.

As soon as a contributor has reached a certain amount of votes he qualifies as an accredited "Ass Kicker" or KASS member.

Now run a comp among these KASS members by getting them to post press releases on the most important issues at hand, and then open these press releases to be voted for by other KASS members and resident judges only.

When a press release attains a certain amount of votes it automatically gets submitted to a web based "PR" site. There's a good comparison here "http://www.urlwire.com/email-releases.html"

Obviously you can maintain a section with SOLO as is for those who have become addicted to the cut and thrust of the current format, but I'm sure that a redesign as per the above example could turn SOLO into more than what it has become.

Got to admit that even though it's far from perfect, it's still my favorite Oist spot for lurking and posting.

It's gotta be the gay music..thanks Jeff/Linz

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's not his freedom to like Slayer that is the issue; his claim that they are music, and on a par with Romantic music is an issue. Such a claim is grossly anti-reason, and thus anti-freedom. Doesn't mean he's not free to spout such bilge.

If he claims to have have used reason to discount reason, then aside from the obvious contradiction, he has yielded ethics to the likes of Jihadists, Christians, communists, fascists et al, since he, by his own admission, has no argument against them. It's just their faith against his.

And, um, why can't he speak for himself?

Linz

Rosie's picture

But you say that you are pro reason and freedom. And your war is against those who do not advocate those principles, surely.

Where someone has freely made a choice to (a) like Slayer (for his own reasons) and (b) to have reasoned that ethics has no rational basis then that is not war on the grounds of freedom and reason.
That is war on the grounds that you don't agree.

Oh yes there is!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There is no war in a philosophical discussion about the foundation of ethics or a discussion about music.

There absolutely is war between someone who says ethics can have no basis in reason and someone who says it can and must; there is absolute war between someone who says Slayer are music (not just coincidence it's the same someone who says ethics can have no basis in reason) and someone who says they're just nihilist noise. This is the life-and-death war you'll hear me talk about.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

There is no war in a philosophical discussion about the foundation of ethics or a discussion about music.

Before I go on, who exactly is your "enemy"? Who are the "gooks overrunning the HQ"? (Seek first to understand - employment of the first principle to effective communication!)

You're not

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm pro-reason, pro-freedom and pro-Western Civilisation.

You're just a snide pomowanking player of smart-ass word games, the currency of Western Civilisation's enemies.

So come on, where's the answer on the other thread?

And what say you to my post, "Checkmate!" on that thread?

Marcus

Rosie's picture

This is what Aristotle had to say about people who insult:

"The person who gives insults also belittles; for insult is doing and speaking in which there is shame to the sufferer... The cause of pleasure to those who give insults is that they think they themselves become more superior by ill-treating others... Dishonor is a feature of insult, and one who dishonors belittles;" (Rhet. 2.2.5-6)

Aristotle did condone anger - righteous anger. An example he provides of righteous anger is that of a friend whose friend has been unjustifiably or wrongly insulted. That anger is considered virtue.

Linz or anyone else may or may not care that his behaviour is not virtuous. That is his (and your/their) choice. I believe that Linz (or anyone else who is not just plain evil) does care for virtue. He promotes honour and loyalty. Two esteemed virtues. Linz's virtue also created Libertarianz, SOLO, and made a call for people to join him against each step the government takes to erode individual liberty.

Dishonour is a feature of insult. And it is dishonourable to wrongly presume the worst in good people's intentions/motives and dishonourable to insult those same people. It is this that I address.

Don't be silly

Richard Goode's picture

But it's more than a war against the enemies of Objectivism. It's a war against the enemies of reason and freedom, meaning a war against the enemies of Western Civilisation itself. Including you, Goode.

Don't be silly.

I'm pro-reason, pro-freedom and pro-Western Civilisation.

He said it ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... in one of those two links. But it's more than a war against the enemies of Objectivism. It's a war against the enemies of reason and freedom, meaning a war against the enemies of Western Civilisation itself. Including you, Goode. Now, please answer my question on the Talk to the Rand thread.

Glenn said that

Richard Goode's picture

Who said that?

Glenn said that here... and here.

It's your war against the enemies of Objectivism. And Glenn is proud to fight alongside you in the aforesaid life and death struggle.

Who said that?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This is war... war against the enemies of Objectivism...

Who said that?

Fighting talk

Richard Goode's picture

This is war... war against the enemies of Objectivism...

Who, specifically, is the enemy?

Nope.

Olivia's picture

Liv, you've just fed the dogs.

The dogs will make a meal of any little morsel they can find, that is their nature. Fuck them.
This has always been an open board, robust enough for honesty and forthrightness.
I’m not feeding them… they’re scavenging.

Dear Galt, here we go...

Jameson's picture

Liv, you've just fed the dogs. Like this one...

"You would never hear any of the Great Men of those times or even now speak to another person as you speak to people."

This is war, Rosie, there's no time for polite repartee when the gooks are overrunning the HQ.

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

General George S. Patton - (addressing his troops before Operation Overlord, 5th June 1944)

He went on to say...

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

That's untrue...

Marcus's picture

"You would never hear any of the Great Men of those times or even now speak to another person as you speak to people."

That's untrue, just think how many people were insulted by Socrates or Aristotle. Of course they were insults measured by the times and customs they lived by.

However even if you were correct, why should Linz or anyone else here care what qualifies for your list of great men of antiquity?

We are individuals after all living life as we see fit, not trying to fit into some pre-conceived mould you have for us to fill.

This above all else, be true unto yourself.

Remember?

Hallmarks of Great Men

Rosie's picture

A tizzwazz is a state of heightened excitement. Perhaps it is a family expression hence your not having heard of it.

I wasn't referring to the repetition of lies from Babs or any of that sort of gossip. I was only interested to read how you thought you could objectively measure music. I did not see any criteria for objectively measuring the superiority of romantic music in your Music of the Gods thread. Nor did Jonathan apparently. His question was mine. And it received no answer. I will read the essay again though if you say the criteria are there.

Richard has qualified his use of the word superstition below.

You are expected to call Richard on his objective basis of morality and what you see as an apparent contradiction. But this is quite a different thing from calling him names e.g., the axis of evil etc. because you don't understand where he is coming from. It is not true that he is evil (quite the contrary in fact) but I do appreciate that hyperbole is your trademark. To call him (and others) "dissembling" "dishonest" and "dumb" because they post something that is alien to your way of thinking or have said something that has not been "calibrated" as well as it might have been is just not constructive to truth seeking. It reminds me of the emotionally undisciplined and increasingly senile Bob Jones. Smiling

Effective communication requires of its participants the principle "seek first to understand" then to be understood. (I can hear you crying out "PC! PC!" but it is not that. It is part of the conservative values you say you promote. Cicero, in his Essay on Friendship, said it 1000s of years ago. You would never hear any of the Great Men of those times or even now speak to another person as you speak to people. Great minds are disciplined and refined. They do not harbour such ugly thoughts and words. They are not arrogant. They always know there is so much more to learn and that they cannot know it all. They question cleverly before they dismiss. Plato in his dialogues with his students did not speak rudely but slowly and logically had them recognise the flaws in their thinking. Subtlety, tact and never allowing another to lose his dignity - and never through lowly self aggrandising point scoring or publicly quoting someone's private nasty comments made in confidence and without their permission - are some of the hallmarks of the Great Men. They do not stoop to conquer.)

Richard understands Objectivist ethics. But do you seek to understand him on a subject for which he has earned a Ph.D.? It is in fact not an easy thing to achieve and must be approved by a board of eminent professors. It also has to be original. Calling him and his Ph.D. "worthless" can not be conducive to someone going on to explain a very complicated subject to people who do not have the same background of understanding and learning. He is steadfast, however, and completely overlooks your insults with patient affection and perseveres with his teaching. Lesser minds and characters would probably just give up and leave you to interpret everything to fit your "grandiose Randian fantasy template".

It would appear that even the lovely Olivia has had her enthusiasm and devotion to you jolted a little by your not seeking first to understand and hurling into criticism of her. She is a mother and works. These two occupations are very time consuming and a kind friend would or should understand that other things may take priority over SOLO. At least this shows you are consistent and no one is spared your insults where you feel they have not stepped up to your mark.

The point darling ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is that you get it. And I wish you'd step up more. If I say this to you privately you call it "pressuring" and I have to try reverse psychology.

It's the opposite of what Riggenbach says. I don't want sycophants, I want stars. There's a good core of them here, and you're one of them. But you all need a boot up the bum. With all the garbage going down in the world the press releases and op-eds etc. should be flying out. SOLO should be a mighty roar of several stellar voices, not me going hoarse from solitary shouting while my "friends" go AWOL.

And yes, I do think those who could, but don't, are betraying their values. This is war, and no time for being apathetic or precious.

Well...

Olivia's picture

Linz. Being true to myself means a great deal to me too, and since you've emailed me to bring this thread to my attention, I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. In other words, I don't get it.

There have been times when I have been getting on with my life to the very best of my ability and had to suddenly face your wrath out of the blue, along with accusations of "betraying my values" because of my silence on Solo, which was in reality, me just holding all the facets of my life together and trying to cope with as much optimism as I could muster. If you want the depth of my loyalty and solidarity, you will not get it that way. To be perfectly honest, I feel a little wary, though my affection and respect for the best in your character has always been worn on my sleeve.

Yes, Western Civilisation burns, and I intend to survive it well and do right by those who depend on me. The last thing I expect is a lashing for any omission that that may bring to those who call me their friend.

The ever-charming Billy Beck writes:

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The ever-charming Billy Beck writes:

___________________________

{cackle} I have never seen anyone bearing the mantle of Objectivism
who was so eminently and deliberately dim as you, Perigo. You're the
not getting it.

It's because you're a *poseur*.

"Bring on 2010!"

You fucking idiot. You and your cheap-seat cheers hollered from your
third-rate shit-hole of a country.

There isn't going to be anything to save by then. And you don't
count.
___________________________________________________

Eye

I didn't follow that thread,

Ptgymatic's picture

...but I am familiar with these points.

That a sense of life does not qualify a person to analyze aesthetics is a different proposition than that one doesn't evaluate an artist by his sense of life, or "view of life," as Rand puts it, above.

So it was an apparent problem only.

Mindy

Hey, Riggenfuck

Jameson's picture

Lindsay has generously provided you an open forum to say whatever the fuck you like, and you come on here and mock him for his war against the enemies of Objectivism?! I'm proud to fight alongside him in this life and death struggle, and if that makes me a sycophant in your eyes then you can go to hell!! You grossly underestimate and insult everyone of us here who follow him unto the breach with our own battle cries!!

By all means disagree with him, but put up your fists instead of taking limp-wristed swipes at him with your pink vinyl handbag.

That old chestnut

Marcus's picture

Did you miss that whole thread where I was lectured by Jonathan with quotes such as the following?

Rand, RM, page 42:

"Now a word of warning about the criteria of esthetic judgment. A sense of life is the source of art, but it is ~not~ the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is ~not~ a criterion of esthetic judgment. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Esthetics is a branch of philosophy—and just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his feelings or emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do it in the field of esthetics. A sense of life is not sufficient professional equipment. An esthetician—as well as any man who attempts to evaluate art works—must be guided by more than an emotion.

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an ~esthetic~ appraisal of his work ~qua~ art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking ~his~ theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) ~his~ view of life."

And then this:

"This leads many people to regard a sense of life as the province of some sort of special intuition, as a matter perceivable only by some special, non-rational insight. The exact opposite is true: a sense of life is not an irreducible primary, but a very complex sum; it can be felt, but it cannot be understood, by an automatic reaction; to be understood, it has to be analyzed, identified and verified conceptually. That automatic impression—of oneself or of others—is only a lead; left untranslated, it can be a very deceptive lead. But if and when that intangible impression is supported by and unites with the conscious judgment of one’s mind, the result is the most exultant form of certainty one can ever experience: it is the integration of mind and values."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi...

Timely post Linz.As I've

Mark Hubbard's picture

Timely post Linz.

As I've said on the health-care thread, I've been too busy to post here much over the last five or six months, but I still consider SOLO as my 'homepage'.

Though I've learned to be pretty selective of the threads I read, leaving alone the ones that turn toxic and ultimately anal. There's a lot of great material on here, with the new threads being created week on week, including the music ones.

Hopefully, ultimately, the inspirational content will obliterate the white noise.

[And as frustrating as you find it here at times, try following some of NZ's mainstream economics blogs: that's frustrating!]

[Edit: I phrased that wrong. The inspirational content does, for me, outweigh the noise.]

Marcus,

Ptgymatic's picture

Rand said you cannot judge an artist's sense of life from his work??? Reference?

She said fans should not assume they understand the meaning of her works (and, by extension, any art) to her. But that is a different thing.

Mindy

Being true to oneself...

Marcus's picture

...is only a virtue in as far as the quality of those values one is true to.

One person may be true to their own values and be a real asshole, another may not be true to their own values and act virtuously.

It is very difficult to know if a person is being true to themselves unless you know them intimately.

For that reason, it is almost impossible to know on a forum such as this who is being true to themselves or not.

It is better just to take the person at face value and judge the values which they purport to hold or defend.

At least, I think that was part of what Rand was getting at when she wrote that you cannot evaluate an artists sense of life from their work, as it is personal to them.

Of course, you can and should judge the quality and values in their work and words though.

Isn't It Sad?

jriggenbach's picture

I mean, doesn't it break your heart? Isn't it all you can do to avoid weeping publicly? I mean, this is Linz's site! Isn't he entitled to have what he really wants on his own site? His own gems of wisdom and heroism belong here, of course. But isn't he also entitled to the deferential, even worshipful, adulation of an army of sycophants and yes men?

Gentlemen and ladies! I ask of you!

JR

SOLO, contrary to my aspirations for it, is a repository of sham

atlascott's picture

"SOLO, contrary to my aspirations for it, is a repository of shame"

No truer words have ever been written on this site.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't know what a tizzwazz is, but I made clear my criteria for judging Romantic music to be objectively superior in Music of the Gods. Jonathan merely repeated lies about me that he got from Babs.

Your boyfriend says morality is a superstition. He also says morality has an objective basis, while failing to identify it. Am I expected *not* to call him on that?

Your boyfriend is an apologist for the ugliest, screamingest caterwaulers on this earth—lowlifes who record hymns to child-molesters. Am I expected *not* to call him on that? On my own site?

What the hell would your boyfriend know about the foundations of ethics when he avows that ethics has no basis in reason? I don't doubt he got his PhD in it. Just shows that PhD's are as worthless as he is.

"Berated and In trouble for being true to myself. "

Rosie's picture

I do not think that you get into trouble or berated for being true to yourself. I think that you get into trouble for your lack of respect for others being true to themselves. For others having a different point of view from your own. For others questioning your beliefs, e.g., Jonathan who, by simply asking you questions about your criteria for judging romantic music to be objectively superior, sent you into a tizzwazz. Yet you never answered his questions.

Whether it be a question to you to justify something you have written, a different preferred choice of music or a different understanding of the foundations of ethics - the very subject on which Richard's Ph.D is written, incidentally - rather than explain your view or engage in sensible discussion/rational enquiry, you seem to perceive it as a criticism/attack and hurl yourself into personal abuse and silly libels and never get anywhere. You say you promote old-fashioned "conservative" virtues such as honour and loyalty but there is no honour in your reactions to those who question you or disagree.

It's not a question of not getting it.

Clarification

Richard Goode's picture

someone who brazenly proclaims that morality is a superstition even as he also pretends to believe it to be objective

I said that morality is a superstition here.

At the time, I thought about whether or not 'superstition' was quite the right word. At the time, I looked up the dictionary definition of 'superstition' here, and decided that it would do.

I meant 'superstition' in the sense of "a belief or notion, not based on reason," not in the sense of an "irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious," and not in the sense of a "blindly accepted belief or notion."

I could (and, perhaps, should) have used a different word, but I didn't want to forgo the opportunity to use the words 'stupid', 'stinking' and 'superstition' together in the same sentence. Smiling

Linz

Kasper's picture

I have read this...... I've duly noted it.... I too dispair at the arogant indifference of people that pretend to uphold heroic values such as reason, end up sitting on the fence, in compromise and in neutrality, self abnegating and suspending their judgement, for fear of frightening the horses.

This bromidial idea, that one ought to be 'reasonable' by having an 'open mind' giving the 'nonsensical' equal weight to 'rationality', is a stifling compromise that is treasonous to one's intellect. It ishighly dishonorable and indeed cowardly.

Comment viewing options

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