Who's Online
There are currently 4 users and 16 guests online.
Online usersWho's NewPollA year after Obamalini's election, who is shaping up as a credible next President?
Sarah Palin
22%
Mitt Romney
9%
Ron Paul
13%
Bobby Jindal
13%
Mike Huckabee
3%
Glenn Beck
9%
Leonard Peikoff
16%
Tim Pawlenty
6%
Other (please specify)
9%
Total votes: 32
|
Denunciasaurus RexSubmitted by wsscherk on Sat, 2006-05-06 21:56
Not evul immoral folk, and thus irredeemable, no -- the common Denunciasaurus-Rex is a simple, bumbling hypocrite, all too human, alas1 . . . all too human to be roasted on a spit, shredded, marinated in blog-spit, pounded to paste, spread on white toast, chewed, spat out, ground in the sidewalk, napalmed, hosed off with bleach, and finally cast off into the hideous punishing darkness of the inner 0-ring of Heck (Ottawa)2. No, we must pity them for their un-remarked and un-corrected mistakes. We must be tolerant. We must obey our stern internal moral injunctions (e.g., do NOT act like Miss Nasty while pretending to be Miss Nice: "But she started it, the poo-poo head!! She's a fucking immoral piece of shit."3).
The plangent whinging and whining and high dudgeon are unseemly of any pretender to the throne of scholarship or the throne of Micronesia (which the SOLO archipelago brings to mind for all its truck and trade with the world, being the crossroads of reason and passion and all). The revelation of La Perigo backstage activities4 put all of this posturing and fervour in perspective: hypocrisy comes in varied delicious flavours.
When an author writes "I . . . [he] . . . me . . . digusting lies,"5 we enter a new rhetorical universe. We leave the universe of 'my esteeemed colleague'6 and the planet of, 'my friend and former associate'7 and plunge into the dense atmosphere of 'immoral, contemptible, scum-sucking poo-poo head.'8 There we stagger about deprived of oxygen and cordiality, barking harsh communications at all others we can perceive. Mertz's routine invocations of her fairness and even-handed objectivity (on her blog here, and here, and here*) are revealed to be a sham. As if a raging Borderline patient9, she turns on her closest bosom buddies, she dares not give real love for fear of melting, she feels anguish at real and imagined betrayals, she denounces what once engendered comradely devotion . . . unbeknownst to her, her ability to navigate the social landscape is significantly impaired10.
What kind of friendship did she imagine she was performing in her mentor/mentee relationship with Sciabarra? How many confidences did she extract from him? How many has she betrayed in public? How much is she holding back in the mountain of archived communications? How much is she not telling? Who opened this Box of Nasty Emails? Her 400 email trove is then as neutral an object as is Sciabarra's opposing trove (in these two camps, a thumping historical record of their mutual communications; in the massive engorged Inboxes of both, a mountain of material for a future objective historian) -- Mertz's +/-400 vs Sciabarra's +/-400. What can we see of these troves? Not much more than what is squoze out by one of the interlocutors. I will reserve judgement on these matters until that future day when the material is open to view. Until then, I consider this a messy internal affair of Rand-followers which is really none of my business . . . This leaves me with the impression of the world as it is: imperfect, full of imperfect people performing imperfect behaviours. I no more indict Diana Mertz Hsieh for her denunciation of Chris Matthew Sciabarra than I do Sciabarra for his stately, scholarly silence in the aftermath11. The are both human, imperfect and yet valuable. With my sense of life (in which it is I, Me, Mine own universe, My precious self doing the living among a lot of imperfect Them) there is no option -- I cannot see round every corner, down every rathole or sewer, nor can I see into the hearts of all the men and women who stagger about the earth -- I can only be staggered myself by the rank hypocrisy which stinks up the public sphere from time to time. To subvert a Fahyism, when one farts in public, the only seemly behaviour for other riders on the train is to ignore it (British and French people will allow a moue of distaste to appear on their granite faces, London/Paris often stinking in other ways12; Americans will open a window with a great irrelavant clatter12A; Scots will be stinking drunk and think it their own crepitation -- and giggle13; Brazilians will hardly notice another sewer smell on their grossly-overcrowded Metro14; Russians will imagine that someone has a trove of home-raised mushrooms in a bag somewhere between their legs and will sniff deeply in an attempt to detect its origin15; Chinese will pull up their face-masks and sign inwardly as they watch the stock ticker on the train car -- installed by the Communist Party16; Swedes will not smell the fart, as the train unit has already detected and removed the methane to a collector-tank where it is fed back into the bio-fuel engine17; Norwegians, Icelanders, Faroe Islanders will all think that the party has started and fart themselves. Accordians will appear. Foot-stomping dances will be performed, babies will be conceived18; Canadians will entertain suspicions that it is a secret Yankee** riding the train whose rectal-blurt so befouled the public sphere, and will ask their government to install fart-detector buzzers on every transit seat at an expense of $850 million tax-funded dollars19). WSS _________________________ 1. [Diana Mertz Hsieh:] "Generally speaking, although I do not take a casual approach to my writings, my basic attitude is that I am perfectly willing to err, even in a spectacular and public fashion. Of course, I would prefer not to do so. Of course, I strive to avoid it. But when it happens, I take it as an opportunity to learn and grow, rather than a blow to my self-image. In contrast, when I joined Toastmasters back in 2001, I rather disliked being told pretty much anything other than that my speech was wonderful. Although I understood its theoretical function, I was generally averse to criticism. But in that friendly and supportive environment, I quickly realized that improvement required strong and direct criticism. Of course, some forms of criticism are genuinely destructive. Good criticism aims at correcting errors by noting and encouraging some change for next time. My attitude towards the possibility of error and the value of criticism changed for the better, I think." Chris Sciabarra has been an excellent friend to me over the years. He has consistently encouraged me in my philosophical work. He was both supportive and challenging in our many discussions about my dissatisfaction with TOC. As my friend, he is worth his weight in gold. Notably, my friendship with Chris does not imply agreement with his dialectical approach to Objectivism, nor with his approach to academia. I have substantial questions about the former and substantial doubts about the latter. Both will surely be hashed out over time, using the same critical eye I employ in all intellectual endeavors. Yet our friendship, which is grounded in far more than a mutual interest in Objectivism, will not thereby be brought into question." Giving your opinion about a person who has wronged you to a Now if you want to understand what real offline If you ever wonder how his discussions seem to generate so I have just returned to New Zealand from The Objectivist Center's Summer Seminar in Vancouver. I am feeling the blues that must inevitably accompany a return to the world of nihilism from one of exuberant rationality. Yes, "exuberant"! Yes, TOC! Just as you, dear reader, thought you'd never see me saying that, so too did I never think I'd be writing it. Fact is, the Seminar was a blast. First, the speakers. I met and heard the world's best-kept secret: a philosopher who is also a stand-up comic (or perhaps that should be the other way round). His name is Fred Seddon. He has a vastly different take from Rand on Kant and Hume, but argues his case brilliantly and entertains uproariously. His presentations are not lectures, they are performances. Though his staple leitmotif, "Did I tell you I like sex?" is arguably overdone, there is no question that this man's comedic talents make him unique in Objectivism. There was Molly Hays, who delivered solo a presentation on "The Necessity of Romance" that was intended to be delivered in tandem. Her unavoidably absent co-presenter, Larry Sechrest, would have been proud of her. The only question mark over Molly is her musical taste—she kept insisting that Linz sing, even after he obliged her. There was Tibor Machan, in booming good form as always; David Kelley, delivering a tour de force about Islam; Nathaniel Branden, unmistakably aging but infinitely endearing as he ad-libbed in an unfamiliar interview format; Madeleine Cosman, magnificent and majestic as she swept aside the horrors of socialised medicine and conjured up free market alternatives; Stephen Hicks, suave and sophisticated, aglow from the publication of his new book; Francisco Villalobos, outrageously beautiful but annoyingly reluctant to proffer the empirical validation of the title of his lectures, "Look Better Naked." There were many more, whom it is unjust to omit but whom I cannot include simply because I didn't get to hear them. I walked out of one lecture only, because the speaker was less audible than the one in the next theatre who resonated passionately through the wall and thus staked his claim for my attention. As for my own presentation, I shall leave it to others who were there to post about if if they wish; suffice it for me to say that I couldn't have hoped for a better reception."" Adam B - how can we know you're what Ashley says you are - a blone cutie - without a colour photo?! Get with it, man! Sir Edward Hudgins - thanks for your good wishes. The fact that you have signed on will no doubt be reported on Diana's blog. Do you know what you have done?! Smiling Diabolical - that was a quick emergence from invisibility! " Other primitive defenses cited include magical thinking (beliefs that thoughts can cause events), omnipotence, projection of unpleasant characteristics in the self onto others and projective identification, a process where the borderline tries to elicit in others the feelings s/he is having. Kernberg also includes as signs of BPO chaotic, extreme relationships with others; an inability to retain the soothing memory of a loved one; transient psychotic episodes; denial; and emotional amnesia. About the last, Linehan says, "Borderline individuals are so comp
( categories: )
|
User loginNavigation |
Disinterested parties
Thanks, Mark Dow, for the thoughtful comment. I agree with you. The version posted here is too longe (even if truncated -- which I sloppily did not fix yet) . . . and thus less coherent.
(the full text, correctly formated, here)
Denunsiasaurus -- probably best served by a snippet, and all the footnoted sprawl either deleted or more rigourously edited.
The one hidden point that seems to have stayed hidden was that I used a combination of length and references to ape the style of a pseudo-scholarly document. I got a bit carried away with that. Perhaps I will retract this and repost a précis and link.
WSS
By now...
...I think most here know WSS's brand of humor, so I find myself incredulous at the number of you who supposedly claim to be the victim of having to "subject" yourselves to his PERSONAL BLOG entries. That's right, PERSONAL BLOG entries. His humor, much like Dennis Miller's, is very referential, yet it's poignant. I get most of it, and when I have to look something up, I usually find myself the wiser for doing so, and I still smile. Maybe that's because I like humor that challenges, rather than school-yard insults. Humor that is metaphor, especially when accurate, I love. Which is why I read WSS's PERSONAL BLOG entries and gladly "subject" myself to his wit.
of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.(this statement was a reference to Dennis Miller, sorry for the referential humor, but at least I spelled it out for all of those forced to "subject" themselves to it.)
Stopping Short
FWIW, as a newbie to this site, and a disinterested party to the Chris Sciabarra, Diana Hsieh discord, the first half of your post was actually quite creative, but I think you should have stopped while still in the abstract.
Wsscherk WAFFLE
Very entertaining but I think I have to aggree with the comment that it lacks substance,I try and put as much as possible into as few words as possible,you seem to adhere to the opposite philosophy.Lots of words but what does it all mean,to sum up what were you trying to say,apart from having a dig at the odd spelling mistake,and yes I,m too lazy to proof read my writing so make some spelling mistakes but I don,t lack content,if anything I say too much,too much reality for the people to handle,most prefer a nice little fantasy and don,t want to be asked to get real.Life doesn,t seem so rosey if you are to face reality,lets face it the worlds gone mad.
"So you want us to speak to content?"
Yes, Marnee, I do.
You assert that my post contains "no value/content that [you] could see."
So be it. Your non-specific notes are duly registered.
WSS
Content?
So you want us to speak to content? After subjecting ourselves to the Guignol Labyrinth?
WSS you relegated yourself with your style and approach. There was no value/content that I could see let alone satire "aimed at the evil or the inconsequential."
Rand put it better than I ever could. So allow me to repeat:
"...does not project what the author is for. He satirizes all kinds of social weaknesses, but upholds nothing."
Content
I'm glad you're concerned about content, Will. That's progress.
Seems to me I already pointed out, in chat, the various ways you could (and have yet to) sort your tangles out. What details have escaped you?
"Assuming this was supposed to be funny . . . "
. . . Marnee finds it not. Fair enough. Now assume that it was not supposed to be funny. Schisms are not really funny. And hypocrisy is not funny at all.
Marnee, the comments I have received so far at Blog 46 are non-specific and without reference to any statement or observation I have made. "Nonsense," "silly," "not worthwhile" . . . "humorist of a dubious kind," "inane and ugly." This gives me nothing to work with.
The Rand quote is interesting, if inapposite. If you are relegating me to the dungheap of failed humourists along with Swift -- by way of an ex-cathedra quote, from someone who has never read a word of my output -- what can I say?
Howzabout a quote from Rand?
"If the humor of a literary work is aimed at the evil
or the inconsequential -- and if the positive is
included -- then the humour is benevolent and the work
completely proper."
From The Art of Fiction, p. 168
WSS
Satire or Irrelevant Chatter?
Assuming this was supposed to be funny I would like to quote Ayn Rand on the types of humor in literature:
The Art of Fiction: Special Forms of Literature
"In the benevolent type of humor, something good is always involved, as in Ninotchka, where the hero and heroine are quite glamorous. They are not funny—some of their adventures are; or they are acting humorously toward certain things, but not in a way that undercuts their own dignity, value, or self-esteem.
"On the other hand, Swift is a humorist of a dubious kind. I read Gulliver's Travels so long ago that I remember little of it, but I do remember that it is a satire against something—which does not project what the author is for. He satirizes all kinds of social weaknesses, but upholds nothing."
WSS it seems to me that you have relegated yourself to the second type.
"It's inane and ugly," sez Rick Giles
That's a fine assertion, Rick, but I'd have more interest in your comment if it had some content. I've had the contentless "silly" and the contentless "nonsense," now I have the contentless "inane and ugly . . . geeky crap."
I appreciate the note.
WSS
As I tried to tell you
As I tried to tell you before, William, you're talking geeky crap!
It's William-speak that only you can understand, you're not communicating. It's inane and ugly, this trip you're on.
Also, again, why can't you write something about knowledge or wisdom instead of the Objectivist politics that this joint is already overflowing with? Eh?
Removed
I don't know what any of this means, but I have removed it from the front page
- Jason