A newish SOLO member (I'll call him 'Norm') asked me backchannel why I had been banned from the precincts. Golly, I said. Norm also told me the lake of threads was too daunting, too extreme, too shot through with traitorous zombies and raging moral horrors for him to put a toe in.

I tried, lamely, to explain that this is the value of SOLO. Sheer, edge of seat Objectivist Wrestling. No holds barred. Fun.

Yet to hear from New Norm on list, dang! He must be perfecting his half-nelson on other, lesser, sister sites.

In light of the threads in which hate and death figure in the titles, I wonder if Linz's invitation is worth a re-sticky. In any case, backstage acquaintance, enter SOLO. It is free-wheeling, and the champion of each thread is generally he who (or she) sums up magnificently and makes everyone feel good (only problem being these are the same threads in which beginning and middle are rife with invective and people feeling bad).

Don't be afraid to get in the ring, Norm. The punches are only virtual, and since Reason is King, the best reasoners rise from the mat and slog on.

One comes away sometimes appalled, appalled and entertained and instructed.

Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome.

To your unspoken questions, do I, do we Canuckistanis view our America as an enemy, or the enemy?

A resounding no. Although we sat out Vietnam and Iraq (and Grenada and Cuba and El Salvador and so on), we go shoulder to shoulder with Great America almost always. Allies no matter who occupies whatever high state post, our nations work hand in glove in intelligence and military operations, in culture, commerce and more. We last took arms against each other in 1814.**

So, apropos of vanguished enemies and peace I salute our Chiefs:

WSS

++++++++++

** notwithstanding the Pig War.

Twelve months later, after a ban and un-ban, still haven't got around to answering Fred Weiss. I am sorry it is so long since he has appeared here, and in knowledge that he is a very elderly man, I hope that it is not age or decrepitude that keeps him away. *

    FW: Shirk, Shrek, or whatever your name is,
    since keeping context seems to be one of your
    biggest problems, maybe someone should point
    out to you that Lincoln's magnanimity to the
    South was that of a victor over an enemy that
    his forces had just *totally destroyed*.

This is the context, Fred, and acknowledged fully in my postings in this thread. A further context is "Enemies." I did hear, blithe forest child I am, that that war ended with a surrender. Whether this is "total destruction" I leave to historians. Total destruction of the idea of "Confederate States of America," sure. Total destruction of the Peculiar Institution, sure. And I take your implied point that one can only make peace when the other has sued for it.

But we are neither here in a thread of US war history, nor considering what to do with the remnants of a vanquished enemy who are not dead on the battlefield . . . if you understand what I mean.

Your own close reading of US Civil War history will remind you that Lincoln was severely chastised for his treatment of the Southern gentry and military classes.

But it does my heart good, and re-establishes my great admiration for him and for your people in the war's aftermath -- every time I read his epitaphs as below.++ Such was his reasoning in the face of people who wanted the war to continue after the war was over.

Once the war was over, what to do with the "Enemies"? -- Lincoln's challenge, and the challenge for America ever since. What to do with the 'totally destroyed' enemy, Fred?

    FW: The South was a complete wreck. You've heard of
    Sherman's March to the Sea?

Yes, it's on the Internet and you have mentioned it apropos of nothing, in every post in which you need to show your chatty warmonger side.

    FW: Do they teach that in Canada?

No, "They" don't teach that up here, in my experience. The American Civil War is of minor interest up here; it doesn't have much relevance to Canadians, except to answer the question, "What does America do to its former enemies?"

Canadians (except for the brief time when we burned your White House under British command, or expelled your forces from Ontario and Quebec) are staunch, permanent allies of the United States and its people, having fought alongside the US in all its modern wars save Vietnam and Iraq, Cuba and Grenada and so on.

Although we are shot through with 'enemy' qualities (French, socialist, smug, fat, stupid, poor, unenlightened, Scottish, Irish, Metis, aboriginal), since 1814 we have never been threatened with military force by your government . . .

    FW: And if you are so friggin' concerned about
    "the ick factor", do you have any idea how
    many men perished in The Civil War? Do you
    know what they were fighting for? Do you know
    that the principles involved were so deeply
    and passionately held that brothers fought
    brothers over them?

Yes, to all three questions. But you have not grasped what I mean by the 'ick factor': I mean always "the ick factor of Objectivism."

    Golly gee, how could people be willing to
    fight and die for their ideals like that?

It is called War and/or a Military Code of honour and obligation. It is often unstated, but if you don't carry out orders, you tend to be shot by your superiors for treason or desertion.

     Sigh. Why can't people just learn to be kind
    and play nice?

People do learn, Fred, people like Lincoln, people like George Wallace or Lindsay Perigo, people like the former enemy Vietnamese, even people whom you consider idiots and morons and enemies today.

Even the unutterable scum the French play daily and nicely with America, having bound it closely in mutual-defence pacts and innumerable points of history and common action.

Golly, in my ignorant backwoods, half-french socialist scumbag way . . . I consider America my country's greatest friend and ally, and would fight against any credible threat to its continued existence, or against its impoverishment and dismemberment.

If you ever get a chance, visit the Peach Arch in Blaine Washington, and see how America and Canada valourize their common heritage and deeply-shared values despite the 3000 miles of dotted lines between us.

Like many Canadians, Fred -- after 9/11, before finding out if any of my relatives had died in New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, I wept in horror and impotence. Not just for any dead of my extended family, nor just for the thousands of American innocent dead, but for my very own people, the rough hundred Canucks terminated that day in those towers and planes and in the field . . .

And I wept for what it could possibly mean to America, beyond the shock and horror. I feared that Americans would let their government abuse them in the name of a war against 9/11's instigators. Abuse America's good name, abuse America's high moral standing.

And when I saw and read reports of Abu Ghraib, I wept again: not for the prisoners at all, but for America.

How on earth would such photos and tales of government-directed humiliation of captives raise America high in the world? America, whose ideals of Liberty still ring strong and true in my mind and in that of so many of those in world who love, respect and fear her.

Imagine, Fred, a horrible terror attack on a border US city. My country would respond instantly with aid and troops and individual offers of whatever the suffering might need. We would seal our skies, open our borders to the injured, and do our utmost practical best to help our first ally and its wounded citizens.

This is a part of a vaunted Canadian 'niceness' and 'kindness' and 'getting along' that you have seen before and will see again. This is why Canada fights on with the Allies in Afghanistan today.

Of course, Fred -- being wise and old and tough-minded -- you realize that 'learning to be kind' is difficult for some people.

Some either have known and modeled only hysteria, violence, and reaction -- or may have never felt the internal glimmerings of empathy and compassion that define humanity at its best (like Temple Grandin, star Autist, some don't have and cannot ever easily aquire common empathy, but must be taught to recognize it and what it means to those who feel it).

Learning to be kind, moreover, is not at all related to "being nice" in this instance or in any single other issue you have raised in association in this thread.

To put a line under my intentions in responding to Joe Maurone with the Lincoln quotes . . . I like/liked Joe Maurone, and felt bad for him in this thread.

I wanted him to understand that in my suite of values, family, friends and lovers will always be considered at least as important as a 'principle.

And so, I asked Joe to consider that the principles enumerated in the first Lincoln epigraphs were worth considering -- in the context of the thread, in the context of 'pounding the shit out of one's enemies,' and in relation to me, personally. Rather than continue in suspicion and hard-heartedness, I wanted Joe to consider that though he may hate, despise, revile, reproach and reject me as an enemy, it would be a good idea to consider, "I don't like Scherk. I must get to know him better."

Since Joe disdained and dislikes me, it was not possible at the time for him to consider good faith, perhaps. It seemed to me at the time that Joe had no use for reconciliation with me, nor that he would consider its value. That part was fine. I failed. No one died.

But I got banned for my trouble, and I still do not understand why.

Better question for you, Fred, staunch ally of reason, staunch ally of Canada: "Why can't you learn?"

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

Now, no one of your great age can be imagined 'flouncing,' and I don't believe you formally announced your departure from SOLO. Too bad. You leave me the last word . . .

: - )

The quotes attributed to Lincoln are among my quides to life. I have no use for invoking the connotations of 'enemies' and using it on people and in situations that do NOT deserve the epithet. I could never cheapen the word to consider any of you here, for example -- even the most personally-insulting like Casey Fahy or Robert Winefield -- as an enemy of mine.

Those, however, who feel themselves to be my enemy are subject of concern. And if ever I seem to hate somebody, it is best for me to recall these touchstones afresh:

++ 'Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?'

'He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help.'

'I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.'
-- attributed to Abraham Lincoln

Come back, Fred! Although you have made of me an 'enemy,' I think you have a very useful place here under the SOLO Three Ring extravaganza.

WSS

* I was sincere in offering Fred a picture to indemnify and glamourize his SOLO output, and put him under the same regime as the rest of us. He had said that he was too vain, old and likely to scare the horses. I doubt it. Nothing but nothing scares Objectivist horses . . .

... on the list of things recently viewed. I took a look & decided to resticky for a couple of reasons. One being that it illustrates how KASS Cathcart has gotten since this time :-); the other being that Penelope Beach turned out to be a fraud. There *is* a Penelope Beach. It's a beach, not the genuine name of a poster to SOLO. Randroids can be as cowardly as Brandroids, clearly.

Linz

Well, gee, I'm guess I'm left with the explanation that actually fits: He's approaching Rand from a up-till-then unique point of emphasis (well, not especially unique, given Peikoff's UO course). I'm not saying I agree with how the whole thing is dressed up, but I'm looking at the substance of his thesis. He's emphasizing Rand's ideas in a certain way to show his audience -- largely academics, yes -- that for studying Rand there's the need for a new way, an alternative to how the anal-ytical mainstream has been doing things. I feel like I keep repeating myself with this, but there it is.

Aren't you violating CS's own categorial imperative and failing to keep context? You can't take one element of a work--its alleged purpose--and ignore how CS goes about that purpose. Maybe maybe mabye its legitimate to tell analytical philosophers there is a different way to approach Rand, but that doesn't mean any approach is valid.

Gotta admit, I don't know too much about Chris Sciabarra and I really don't care to. Gotta admit, I'm not even that concerned with the details of the drama he caused for Diane Hsieh. But gotta admit, if you look at Sciabarra's work as a whole, and keep in mind what he said, and how he carried it out (and what kind of vicious nonsense he often publishes in his journal to boot), to evaluate him as anything other than an enemy of Objectivism is, in my ever so humble opinion, a function either of evasion or of severe but honest blindness and confusion.

Well, keep chewing it. You'll work it out for yourself eventually.

You may find this presumptuous, but I predict that you will eventually find that "dialectics" is an epistemological dead end in terms of understanding AR. Yes, by all means, she must be contrasted and compared with previous philosophers and her integrated and radical "world-view" approach does in fact compare with Hegel and Marx. There is that undeniable similarity - whereas her "this worldliness", empiricism, and commitment to reason connects her with Aristotle.

But in my view the integrating thread in that comparison and contrast has nothing whatever to do with dialectics. It is an attempt to unify a principle by inessentials and was entirely manufactured by Sciabarra
for reasons having nothing to do with promoting a better understanding of Objectivism. To whatever extent it touches on true identifications about Objectivism, it is gratuitous excess baggage which doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

Fred:

Look, answer this simple question. Can you fully and accurately describe what AR is doing without resorting to the inherently confusing concept of "dialectics", especially given its historical baggage? For another thing, I've yet to see a clear definition of it.

Yes, I think that it could be done, though I think CMS's thesis has helped facilitate a more focused discussion on historical and methodological roots. I think it gives us a better and more informed vantage point from which to assess thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx and all the other mainstream anal-yticals (Hume, Kant, etc.), and why Rand stands in such marked contrast to just about all but Aristotle. It establishes a better context for placing Rand within the history of ideas, which I think helps to better understand her radicalism.

By way of an addendum, dialectics in contrast is essential in understanding Socrates/Plato. It is central to their methodology. You understand why that wouldn't be the case as much with Aristotle? Aristotle didn't think that the answers to questions were "already there" - in a certain sense, already in our minds - and we thus just had to get to them by a process of skillful questioning. Apparently that approach was taught by Aristotle as part of his curriculum. But is it central to his unique approach to philosophy, to what he saw as the way that we acquired knowledge? I don't think so. That in fact was *the difference* between Aristotelianism and Platonism.

"You can't understand Aristotle or Rand properly through the methodological lens of the modern anal-ytical mainstream."

True, of course. But you still haven't explained how "dialectics" contributes to that better understanding. You keep bringing Aristotle into this. How do you see "dialectics" as even essential to an understanding of him?

Anyway, as I get down to you last comments, you've once again answered your own question. Fine to use me as sounding board, but obviously you can do most of this on your own.

Look, answer this simple question. Can you fully and accurately describe what AR is doing without resorting to the inherently confusing concept of "dialectics", especially given its historical baggage? For another thing, I've yet to see a clear definition of it.

You don't like "Friendly Freddy"? Sigh.

The other alternative, you know, is one you came up with (or was it Gordon, on HPO) a few years ago, "Weissel" as a play on weasel, when you used to think I was ducking your questions.

But Mr. Wolf - or whatever his name is - has suggested some other lovely possibilities in the spirit of his theme of "POLITENESS and DIPLOMACY". Herewith a list (all from one amazing post):

HEY, IDIOT!

Mr. Dumberer

dumbkof

Furious Freddy

Freddy Krueger

Fred Flint

And my 2 favorites:

'knife-fingers' Freddy

Freddy-5-fingers

Hey, not a bad nickname. Unlike "Wiseguy," it does have the virtue of retaining the double-S's.

I could see Fred embracing that nickname quite gladly.

Fred:

"I don't know exactly why CMS chose to go along with calling his project 'dialectics'."

So, if it wasn't to impress Ollman, et al, what's the point?

Well, gee, I'm guess I'm left with the explanation that actually fits: He's approaching Rand from a up-till-then unique point of emphasis (well, not especially unique, given Peikoff's UO course). I'm not saying I agree with how the whole thing is dressed up, but I'm looking at the substance of his thesis. He's emphasizing Rand's ideas in a certain way to show his audience -- largely academics, yes -- that for studying Rand there's the need for a new way, an alternative to how the anal-ytical mainstream has been doing things. I feel like I keep repeating myself with this, but there it is.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Your original assertion is that there was distortion of Rand going on, but you seem to be aiming your criticism at things other than that -- that he wasn't being original, or that he's using unnecessary jargon, or that he's doing it with impressing certain people in mind.

I mentioned Peikoff's UO course. Maybe his DIM work, if/when it's published, is a systematized presentation of the ideas he explored in UO. But without having such a book published, there was something of a void in the published world, on viewing Objectivism from the perspective that Peikoff approaches it in UO. (Perhaps you hadn't heard, but CMS considers UO to be Peikoff's most important course.) RR was important as a way of trying to fill that void, of approaching Objectivism from a certain perspective and emphasis as a way of understanding how she practices philosophy. And he's doing it by pointing to a historical context -- the history of philosophy and ideas. IOW, he's exploring in an area that hadn't up till then received the kind of exploration it deserved. For me, it provided a missing piece of the puzzle that I just hadn't yet pieced together with other great sources (UO, L&N) at my disposal. I don't even have to approve of a whole lot about RR to know that it was instrumental in spurring my thoughts in a certain way.

For UO, it was Objectivism without the Aristotle discussion; for L&N it was Aristotelianism without as much methodological emphasis that would tie Aristotelianism specifically to Rand; and for RR, it was a link tying Rand to her historical roots in Aristotle and how it provides for a radical departure from modern mainstream method and approach to inquiry. Up until Rand, the explicit methodological emphasis was only implicit and imperfect in Aristotle, and had been hijacked by Marx/Hegel with no rational voice to counter it. Sciabarra was providing an explicit discussion of methodology and historical roots that with Rand and UO was only implicit or brief at best. I don't think the available published Objectivist work relating to Aristotle (save for the discussion of universals in ITOE; the only at-length treatment besides that is "published" in Peikoff's history of philosophy lectures) quite helped to get to the root of the issue; he was upheld as a good example but ultimately too weak. The question was as to why. And the answer is, he wasn't fully and radically consistent with a right methodology. But that methodology hadn't been explicitly identified and worked on until Marx/Hegel, in still yet another disastrous way. But you can't understand Aristotle or Rand properly through the methodological lens of the modern anal-ytical mainstream. The proper way is one that, in point of fact, resembles the methodological approach of Marx/Hegel -- but differs in fundamental respects that require explicit spelling-out.

Actually, I don't know if RR does a satisfactory job of that, or whether his his emphasis is too much on the similarities with Marx/Hegel contra the modern mainstream. The emphasis really needs to be on the similarities to Aristotle and why Aristotle was tremendous but didn't quite live up to the methdological rigor, but for reasons that Aristotle just didn't see in his time but a limited number of modern thinkers have, Rand being one of them. The RR thesis is a major step in explicitly tying the two together. However, I think there is more work to be done and with a more properly central point of emphasis -- which is what my "Integration adn Unity" paper is pointing toward. And per GS's discussion, there is more work to be done still, and more proper emphasis to be had still, by tying the emphasis on context and integration with hierarchy and reduction. That looks like a valid criticism of RR -- that it was too limited in its scope of emphasis. I don't see that as constituting a distortion, though. It just means that there's more work to be done. I see RR as a force in spurring on that needed work. Indeed, I thank you for pointing me to GS's remarks as they brought up a point (re: hierarchy and reduction) that I hadn't seen up to this point. Come to think of it, that does play an integral role, just as much as context and integration do, in Peikoff's UO course. I need somehow to re-acquire the UO lecture course (damn, wish the thing were print-published!) for another go-through . . .

Plus, Linz, he provides us with an excellent example of what he advocates, "POLITENESS and DIPLOMACY" - with a little extra emphasis added for effect "you self-blinded asshole!".

Just a couple of small points.

He asks, in response to my query "what has Kelley done of any note since 'Evidence of the Senses'?" Well, one can ask, book-wise, the same about Peikoff since 'Ominous Parallels' (spare me his 'editings'), no?"

I think OPAR might qualify as sparing you.

On more substantive matters, he notes that "Freddy has a prob with the term-use of "benevolence, civiliy [sic], generosity" re the the 'context' he complains about (but does NOT explicate)"

Why, yes, the the (sic) context being when they are elevated into primary virtues and not properly grounded in their root virtue, namely, justice.

My favorite though is this, "Dear Freddy Krueger ends that post with *my* type of post-ending question (which started his post re which I'm responding to), to wit: "Do you seriously regard either of these works [Truth and Toleration & Unrugged Individualism] as consistent with Objectivism?" AND, he then adds a 2nd question, as well: "Do you think Ayn Rand would have agreed with and endorsed them?"

~~ That 2nd question of his is a v-e-r-y 'loaded' question, if you think about it. Rand just may not have."

Ya think? So we agree that those two works are not in accord with Objectivism?

He adds, "SO WHAT? Well, Randroids would say "So...THERE!" --- Correct me if I'm wrong. If they wouldn't, what rhetorical-point the question? Anyhoo, clearly THIS is the mentality/mind-set 'independent' minds have to deal with in arguing? Wonder what Roark would think?"

Roark would think that one should be honest and not call what one is doing Objectivism if in fact it is not Objectivism.

Friendly Freddy

You don't have to do it on my behalf, dear Linz.

I *like* this sort of thing.

It's good to see some KASS from our opponents. It's certainly better than watching their head-patting, walking on egg shells hug fests. "Oh, golly gee, did I hurt your feelings? I'm soooo sorry. Will you ever forgive me?"

Plus it was very funny. Really.

And you know how I love name-calling.

Friendly Freddy

... as per your own sensible recommendation.

LINDSAY PERIGNO:

~~ Am really sorry you decided to make this publicly auspicious 'welcome' to me, Mr. Perigno. This IS the 1st response you've given me ('twixt SOLOHQ and here.)

~~ Ok: you (as others; understandable, believe it or not) find my parentheticals and compound sentencing 'style' (not to mention quote-marks, use-of-B-I-U), as 'squiggles and ...epilepsy inducing hieroglyphics' to be annoying...to you.

 ~~ Take a hint, Linz: DON'T READ them! (or, any other posts you find 'annoying'.)

~~ I know little about about the 'ins-and-outs' re all this web-log/forum stuff, especially the 'decision-making' territory, but, I'm quite sure you read nothing other than what you have 'flags' for, or are specifically/personally interested in. After all, you can't have the time to read ALL that's posted. You have 'priority'-methodologies in place. Why you found *my* posts worth 'publicly' commenting on, I'm not sure (but, I'm acquiring ideas; methinks others also are.)

~~ You regard me as a 'dysfunctional Brandroid' (regardless my posted comments re both Brandens.)

~~ You regard me as 'obviously unhinged.'  At this point, I'll not say how I regard you.

~~ "Dissent & debate are encouraged here..." --- Yes; you certainly make that clear...in your post to me.

~~ "...but deranged, bestial drooling is O-Lying's specialty. Why not give it a whirl?" --- And to think that *I* was one of the 1st to question the worth of Clairbourne's post, as well as Barbaras's support, re that noted "Drooling Beast" article you allowed to be posted! Silly me, I guess.

~~ I take it that by 'O-Lying' you're condescendingly referring to 'Objectivist Living', and, ergo, 'why don't I go there?' --- Posted there already; hadn't you noticed? If you had, you ought to be aware of what I've argued there...on whose behalf.

~~ Ntl, rather than 'hinting', why don't you just ask me to stop posting here? Say the word, and I shall.

J-D

P.S: I'll take being put on 'Moderated' as 'the word.'

P.P.S: Oh, the 'word' is "stop" or "bye" or any equivalent to "Get Lost, M-F."

Another dysfunctional Brandroid. "Rowlf"—your squiggles and other epilepsy-inducing hieroglyphics are seriously annoying. Your being so obviously unhinged is seriously disconcerting. Might I suggest you try O-Lying, where they're all either in therapy or in need of it (and all big fans of it)? Dissent & debate are encouraged here, but deranged, bestial drooling is O-Lying's specialty. Why not give it a whirl?

Linz

Lance:

~~ Interesting.

~~ All I did was 'comment' on HIS 'quotes.'

~~ You got your perspective.

~~ I've now acquired mine.

~~ (May I suggest you re-read what *he* commented about *moi*'s post?)

LLAP
J:D

Oh, I dunno Rowlf. Fred seems like a solid guy to me. He keeps on point. He's clear and focused. Seems to know and live by Objectivist principles. Judging by his posts at SOLO Fred doesn't match the guy in your rant.

~~ Fred Weiss (definitely not to be confused with 'Wise') commented...about moi's closing challenging question: "I ask you: would Roark, or Dagny, or even Rand be bothered doing this?" with:

  "Rand certainly did. In fact her moral judging of people is one of the very things that pseudo-Objectivists find her [to be opposed to, I presume] and consider a dispensable aspect of Objectivism, "  insinuating that I argued  "this", and that I'm therefore anti-judging...not to mention my being a 'pseudo-O'ist'. Clearly he only skimmed my post rather than actually (can one say 'rationally'?) read it. Such are the sources of unnecessary conflicts: a responder's not paying attention to the actual content of what the other has ACTUALLY said. --- Fred has shown a bit of a penchant for such responses.

~~ Fred innuends that I'm a 'pseudo-Objectivist' and that I 'find most distasteful [Rand's moral judging of people]' and that re such that I 'consider a dispensable aspect of Objectivism.'

~~ Further, I supposedly 'claim that this is one of the reasons that Objectivism has difficulty being accepted in the culture'. --- Damn! I don't remember (or...FIND ON PAST POSTS!) arguing this idiotic straw-man crap. Would anyone please send me a quote? I must've been in a 'Sybil' mode or something...or...Fred's reading someone else's posts and mixing ROWLF up with ROXY.

~~ Then, as has seemed lately apropos for ARI-'defenders', Fred gets downright 'personal' (apparently he tried on my generic shoe, found it too tight, and...off we go!): He says (to me, if I'm not misinterpreting his diplomatic missive) "...it is almost unimaginable that you even read The Fountainhead" and rambles on insinuating that I argue (or EVER DID) for 'compromise' or even hinted that Roark ought to have.

~~ HEY, IDIOT! If *I* was the type to ever argue for that, I not only wouldn't have ever finished reading The Fountainhead, I wouldn't even be reading your ignorant shit which does NO justice to Roark...or Rand! ---Pardon my non-diplomacy there...self-styled egghead.

~~ Finishing re Roark, my 'question' which you belabourdley expounded upon its ASS-U-MEd innuended pointlessness, was implying "how much TIME did he spend 'arguing' against the likes of Toohey?" - Does "But I don't think [or write/talk/etc] about you" ring a bell? --- In *your* case, probably not.

~~ Fred goes on (as is his wont), "As for Dagny and Rearden 'bothering to do this', do you know what the sanction of the victim is? Or that it is a major them of Atlas?" --- I'm tempted to say "Atlas who?" to this dumbkof; but, as Socrates would say...I won't. (Aside: I don't remember mentioning Rearden...or Aesop...or Paglia...or...well...[Orwell?] that's Fred, I guess.) --- "Sanction of the Victim" has NOTHING to do with my post...you self-blinded asshole! It's about POLITENESS and DIPLOMACY, (I believe that Rand used the term 'Respect') Mr. Dumberer; not about avoiding-line-drawing. It's about Thinking-Twice about withdrawing whatever degree (and yes, there ARE 'degrees') of, to repeat,  RESPECT.  Cripes! --- Catch those italics Mr. Know-It-All? See? I have read something Rand wrote.

~~ THEN, Friendly Freddy generically classifies moi as follows: "It's really outrageous how fucking sanctimonous [?! Uh, really? Pot? Kettle?] these pseudo-Objectivists [I don't recall ever calling myself an Objectivist; will someone clue me in?] get about this as if they are upholding some principle of Objectivism when in fact they are thoroughly undermining it!" --- I don't recall ''upholding'' whichever 'it', in the post Fred Friendly refers to. Indeed, I think it's absolutely fucking ridiculous how much Righteousness is expended on complaints by some (ahem) posters about other posters!

~~ Interestingly, Furious Freddy never actually, in all his rantings, actually IDENTIFIES (an important term in O'ism vocab, as we all know) just what the 'this' is that he refers to re my previous post; no quote (other than the opening one of his post, which is a quoting of the LAST line of mine) of my ACTUAL 'arguments' even exists in his as-of-late rottweiler-rabid anti-questioners tour-de-force. --- Unfortunate.

~~ I must admit that I resent this irrational 'smear' of me. I here put it 'on record.'

~~ Since I'm talking specifically about Furious Freddy, let me add some more...'notes'...to this medley. Freddy stresses across 2 posts: "...what has Kelley done of any note since 'Evidence of the Senses'?" Well, one can ask, book-wise, the same about Peikoff since 'Ominous Parallels' (spare me his 'editings'), no?  But, I'm not that...myopically picayune. I'm no more privy to the difficulties re organizational-management problems...and their time consumption...re one or the other (ARI/TOC, get my drift?), hence not ready to challenge either with "SO? Where's your next book, lardass?" --- The implied attitude advertises itself as quite moronic...well...except for morons, I guess.

~~ Re "Unrugged Individualism", poor Freddy "...literally couldn't read it." (May I suggest, akin to the innuended one about moi's re-reading The Fountainhead, 1st start out with Dick-and-Jane-and-Spot; then work up.) Yes, I have probs with it too, but, they're argumentative (which Fred hints that nothing thereupon exists), not unreadableness. Freddy has a prob with the term-use of "benevolence, civiliy [sic], generosity" re the the 'context' he complains about (but does NOT explicate) they're being "clearly intended as 'anti-concepts' [what a handy term for Randroids! Kinda like 'rationality', or...'logic'] to undermine the concept of justice..." --- R-i-g-h-t ---- Ironically, Dear Freddy Krueger ends that post with *my* type of post-ending question (which started his post re which I'm responding to), to wit: "Do you seriously regard either of these works [Truth and Toleration & Unrugged Individualism] as consistent with Objectivism?" AND, he then adds a 2nd question, as well: "Do you think Ayn Rand would have agreed with and endorsed them?"

~~ That 2nd question of his is a v-e-r-y 'loaded' question, if you think about it. Rand just may not have. SO WHAT? Well, Randroids would say "So...THERE!" --- Correct me if I'm wrong. If they wouldn't, what rhetorical-point the question? Anyhoo, clearly THIS is the mentality/mind-set 'independent' minds have to deal with in arguing? Wonder what Roark would think?

~~ Chris Cathart writes a lengthy post explicating his view of Sciabarra's view re 'dialectics' as relevent to Aristotle and Rand. What does 'knife-fingers' Freddy have to 'substantively' say? -> "...wtf does the concept of 'dialectics' contribute to any of this? [re, quote Chris S: "Rand, of course, in the tradition of Aristotle, says that there are no contradictions to be synthesized"]" --- I suspect that Freddy-5-fingers never read The Russian Radical...and is advertising that he knows not whereof he speaks.

~~ It's become obvious that too many who have either not read or only skimmed CS's TRR have latched onto the term 'dialectics' as an anathema term of O'ism. 'What self-made myopia!' is all I can say. Consider: NO ONE has really 'argued' the pros/cons about his thesis! NO ONE! Yet all take a position...with no arguments backing them up! Cripes! MAYBE it is all 'Polish' smoke-and-mirrors, regardless CS sees it that way or not; ntl, no-one-has-made-that-case. Hello? So, why are the 'anti's taking the position that 'it's "obvious" that CS's thesis is ignorable? I mean, if it is, why keep repeating that? In short, where's the actual 'discussion' about IT rather than HIM? --- Clearly, not in the 'intellectual' circles of Fred Wiseass.

~~ Fred Flint, in a next post, then quotes Sciabarra's attempted explanation of what CS means by 'dialectics' in a broader vein than was used by Hegel/Marx; a, granted, long-explication (not to be confused with 'definition'...especially in the Aristotelian/O'ist sense) it was. And Fred cynically ends with the question: "Err...Chris...you mean 'think'...using logic"? --- Ostensibly, this IS what all such boils down to; I have no doubt that Chris would agree. However, cynically questioning using the terms 'think' and 'logic' as if they were constant across all contexts (ie: 'absolute')...is...acting mentally-retarded, if trying to make some polemical point (even politicians know better!); check the dictionary re the different 'contextual' meanings of both terms. Cripes! ---  So...why the 'apparent' verbiage in explaining what he meant? Hello? Ever try to 'explain' what 'logic' is all about...to those who yet need to CONSCIOUSLY learn about it's basics? --- Re-phrase, rather, re-'think': ever try to 'explain' how to tie shoelaces...to someone who never did it? Ever try to 'teach' something to someone totally unfamiliar with the subject? Ever find that you need a 'new' perspective to get something across to another (this is for those concerned with actual rational 'explaining', not to be confused with re-quoting)? --- I think that Freddy is missing something re how to understand another's POV; unfortunately, he's advertising that 'missing'ness...quite-a-lot. ---Sure, some call it 'Polish'. I DO understand that...perspective...about 'academic jargonese'. I just don't see it as all that much a subjec, per se; few amongst us are not familiar with military/scientific jargonese. It's only a worthy complaint-'subject' to the extent that it's superfluous. Sorry; I see CS's useage as non-superfluous. *I* don't have a prob with CS's writing-style. Why the fuck do all you other complainers have it? THAT really perplexes me. How many of these 'complainers' have really read Shakespeare's plays (and I shan't mention others')? I mean, check the jargon. Ya got complaints about the 'Polish'? Well, guess it's time to read no more, huh? (Jeez! Don't pick up a book by Stephen Hawking!)

~~ Anyhoo, all I can end up with here is: I hope ARI has better 'unofficial' SUPPORTERS than seems to be showing up now. 'Cause if the likes of Freddy Krueger (and friends?) who has no prob getting 'personal' with...not necessarily 'disagreers'...but even 'Questioners' about "Would Rand/Dagny/etc rant on, and on, and on....and (ad infinatum) about 'X'?" (Like, as Fred implies, "Sure they would: they DID!" - yeah, r-i-g-h-t; they sure did; idiot), then ARI has more to worry about within its 'ranks' than outsiders like TOC/SOLO/OL/WE(aka WhatEver).

LLAP
J:D  -- a 'Randite'

P.S: To paraphrase Gump: "Respect is given, as respect is gotten."

"I don't know exactly why CMS chose to go along with calling his project 'dialectics'."

Well, that's the question, isn't it? You say, well, ol' Chris doesn't mean Hegelian or Marxist dialectics. He wants to return it to its Aristotelian roots. So what exactly is that - and what is the great importance of "dialectics" in Aristotle such that one would latch onto that one particular thing and import it into Objectivism?

It's "a project of fundamental questioning and challenging", you say. Is that the essence of Objectivism? AR is a good arguer?

Then once again you acknowledge everything Chris says can be "reconstructed to avoid the jargon". So, why have the jargon in the first place? And if you strip away the jargon, what is left? AR is radical. Well, gee. Great insight. AR is a system builder, integrating wide abstractions into a single whole. We knew that. Tell us something we didn't know. It's important to keep context in Objectivism. We didn't need Sciabarra to tell us that.

So, if it wasn't to impress Ollman, et al, what's the point?

Few points:

1. Keep in mind that I was actually pointing out the difference between a Hegelian/Marxian style "dialectic" and the one that CMS advocates as a return to Aristotelian roots.

2. It's no secret that Rand herself abhorred "dialectics" which, in her day, was so closely associated with Marxist ideas. I don't know exactly why CMS chose to go along with calling his project "dialectics" in light of this, knowing the kind of opposition he'd get, but I thought it was clear that he was making a claim contra the mainstream of modern philosophy, that Marx and Hegel were onto something correct in terms of what they were against (dualism in mainstream anal-ytical philosophy), just that they perverted and misapplied what would otherwise be a sound (Aristotelian) alternative. But it's safe to say that this alternative is radical no matter how you look at it.

3. I don't share Fred's assessment as to CMS's motives. Rather than trying to appeal to some consensus of opinion, it's actually attacking it -- actually two different consensi, the mainstream anal-ytical and the totalitarian dialectics of the Marxian community. It's a project of fundamental questioning and challenging, even though I'm not fond of the hifalutin' jargon. I think that Chris's basic thesis can at least be reconstructed to avoid the jargon as well as reaffirm in no uncertain terms the Aristotelian roots and oppose in no uncertain terms the Marxian/Hegelian perversion. The closest approximation to that sort of reconstruction that I can think of is Liberty and Nature, which doesn't even use the hifalutin' terminology of "dialectics".

Fred, that's it!

That's it, and the reason I ask is the same as quoting the dialectic passages. I'm sure Chris is aware of this passage...wondering how his theory of triads, tied into his theory of dialectics, squares against Rand's use of the idea. It's not as if she was totally ignorant of these ideas, and was obviously opposed to them.
Didn't help that it was Toohey that said that, either.

Joe, is this the reference in Fountainhead about the trinity you were looking for?

"Actually, Ellsworth, it was Dominique who invited you. I didn't ask her to. You're our first formal guest. I think that's wonderful. My wife and my best friend. I've always had the silly idea that you two didn't like each other. God knows where I get those notions. But this is what makes me so damn happy—the three of us, together."

"Then you don't believe in mathematics, do you, Peter?" said Toohey. "Why the surprise? Certain figures in combination have to give certain results. Granting three entities such as Dominique, you and I—this had to be the inevitable sum."

"They say three's a crowd," laughed Keating. "But that's bosh. Two are better than one, and sometimes three are better than two, it all depends."

"The only thing wrong with that old cliché," said Toohey, "is the erroneous implication that 'a crowd' is a term of opprobrium. It is quite the opposite. As you are so merrily discovering. Three, I might add, is a mystic key number. As for instance, the Holy Trinity. Or the triangle, without which we would have no movie industry. There are so many variations upon the triangle, not necessarily unhappy. Like the three of us—with me serving as understudy for the hypotenuse, quite an appropriate substitution, since I'm replacing my antipode, don't you think so, Dominique?"

Mike: "That paragraph looks like the BS I write on tests when I don't know the answer."

Shhh, Mike, don't give away the secret. As long as students don't know that teachers know this, I can at least tell which ones have a clue and which ones don't. If they all wrote like Linz, how would I ever be able to tell?

"What is dialectics? Dialectics is a species of the genus, methodological (or research) orientation. A methodological orientation is an intellectual disposition that applies a specific set of broad ontological and epistemological propositions about objects of study and their typical relationships to a particular field of investigation. Dialectics is a formal structure of analytical tools that enables us to undertake a systematic course of action so as to achieve a particular goal, namely, the correct understanding and transformation of reality. Dialectics is an orientation toward contextual analysis of the systemic and dynamic relations of components of a structured totality."

Translation: Dialectics is a method that yields a correct understanding of reality. Dialectics is a method that emphasizes context. Context means how ideas relate to each other.

This is the "gibberish" part of my "arbitrary gibberish" label. That entire paragraph, which is supposed to answer a question that is crucial to understanding the book, amounts to a big fat nothing. All he says in that paragraph is "Dialectics means keeping context. Context means relating ideas to other ideas." If dialectics is what he outlines in that paragraph, every philosopher I've had to study over the past three years of college is a dialectician. That paragraph looks like the BS I write on tests when I don't know the answer.

... all that Polish is. Wank, wank!

Thanks for the reminders, Fred.

Fred, do you have the reference in Fountainhead about the trinity, mystical number three, and father, son and holy ghost?

I also love this one - from the same Sciabarra article (see below)

"What is dialectics? Dialectics is a species of the genus, methodological (or research) orientation. A methodological orientation is an intellectual disposition that applies a specific set of broad ontological and epistemological propositions about objects of study and their typical relationships to a particular field of investigation. Dialectics is a formal structure of analytical tools that enables us to undertake a systematic course of action so as to achieve a particular goal, namely, the correct understanding and transformation of reality. Dialectics is an orientation toward contextual analysis of the systemic and dynamic relations of components of a structured totality."

Err...Chris...you mean "think...using logic"?

I think Chris C. has hit the target (ie., Chris S) with his Aristotelian discussion of dialectics, specifically this comment:
"Transcending dualisms" really isn't the right way to state the matter in any event. Rand's whole approach is such that there aren't any dualisms that arise to be "transcended" to begin with."

That seems to be it, doesn't it? Case closed. Too much of the 'context-keeping' of ex-Objectivist dialectitics seems to be no more than wool-gathering designed to avoid coming to a conclusion. And too much of the theory seems as unnecessary and misguided as Chris C's observation makes plain that it is.

And Gordon Prescott -- sorry, Gordon L. Prescott: His architectural commentary is as pellucid as that of too many post-modern practitioners in today's architecture schools -- indeed, sadly indistinguishable from them. My own favourite lecturer, who was always appalled by all the 'Polish,' used to remind both students and lecturers that "if it doesn't have meaning, then you're just wanking."

Perhaps a useful warning to those tempted towards the Polish?

In case anyone doubts me that comparing Sciabarra to Gordon Prescott is just caricature:

"It can be argued that Ollman's conception of dialectics amounts to a "trivialization" only if one considers the formalization of principles to be a trivial activity. Ollman (1993) identifies the many interconnected aspects of dialectical thinking--from abstraction to integration. On the basis of core ontological and epistemological insights into real-world relations, a dialectician examines the objects of study in their intricate systemic and dynamic complexity. Such inquiry is followed by self-clarification, in which the theorist intellectually reconstructs the whole before proceeding to exposition, in which the presentation of findings must take into account the context and interests of the audience one addresses. Ultimately, this dialectical enterprise requires praxis--conscious action in the world that brings about change, even as it deepens our understanding of that world." Chris Sciabarra "Are We All Dialecticians Now"

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/PubRadReviews/crr.htm

Oh, btw, Bertell Ollman, the Marxist theorist, was Sciabarra's thesis advisor - presumably the academic he most wanted to impress.

Oh, there's much more Joe:

"And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality—is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish." - Galt's Speech

"After two centuries of gigantic philosophical struggle—of noumenal Kantian earthquakes to annihilate man's reason—of dialectic Hegelian convulsions to obliterate his freedom...." - The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. 1, No. 24 August 28, 1972

"Would you be able to play if the rules of chess were updated to conform to a dialectic reality, in which opposites merge—so that, at a crucial moment, your queen turned suddenly from White to Black, becoming the queen of your opponent, and then turned Gray, belonging to both of you? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the view of reality your countrymen are taught to accept, to absorb, and to live by."- The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. 1, No. 25 September 11, 1972 An Open Letter To Boris Spassky

"There you can see collectivism in the raw. There you have it stripped of all the humanitarian trimmings and dialectic contradictions. This is the concrete illustration of the collectivist doctrine which holds that man exists to serve others." -The Journals of Ayn Rand 10 - Communism And HUAC

Or my favorite - just replace Gordon Prescott with Chris Sciabarra discussing philosophy instead of architecture:

"Gordon L. Prescott wore a turtle-neck sweater under a plaid coat, tweed trousers and heavy golf shoes.

"The correlation of the transcendental to the purely spatial in the building under discussion is entirely screwy," he said. "If we take the horizontal as the one-dimensional, the vertical as the two-dimensional, the diagonal as the three-dimensional, and the inter-penetration of spaces as the fourth-dimensional—architecture being a fourth-dimensional art—we can see quite simply that this building is homaloidal, or—in the language of the layman—flat. The flowing life which comes from the sense of order in chaos, or, if you prefer, from unity in diversity, as well as vice versa, which is the realization of the contradiction inherent in architecture, is here absolutely absent. I am really trying to express myself as clearly as I can, but it is impossible to present a dialectic state by covering it up with an old fig leaf of logic just for the sake of the mentally lazy layman."

"Rand, of course, in the tradition of Aristotle, says that there are no contradictions to be synthesized."

As is often the case, you "chew" these problems out yourself in one of your rambles.

The only thing I was waiting for at the end, which you never said, was the clincher: wtf does the concept of "dialectics" contribute to any of this?

Except of course, as I maintain, to impress and pander to academics who otherwise - he thinks - won't take Objectivism seriously.

------

So, is that really you, with the twinkle in your eye and the bright, engaging smile? Not at all how I had pictured you. But it never is.

I'm not an expert in regards to dialectics by a long shot, so I'd like to throw something into the mix here, and see if anyone can explain how Rand's explicitly held view of dialectics works with the Sciabarrian analysis.

I can't remember the passage in Atlas that references dialectics, but here's one from the Fountainhead, in the words of Gordon Prescott:
"If this sounds like a contradiction, it is not a proof of bad logic, but of a higher logic, the dialectics of all life and art."

Fred wrote:

As for RR being a distortion of Objectivism, have you read GS's comments on Diana's blog?

http://tinyurl.com/o23yo

Going with this particular one for now, I did just read it through and I don't think that GS was giving an accurate description of Sciabarra's project. Yes, Sciabarra does use the term "dialectics" in a specific way, different than how Aristotle might have used it, but still saying that dialectics as CMS conceives it -- dialectics as properly done -- is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition. As to CMS's area of scholarly emphasis, it is, yes, on what he regards as the art of integration and context-keeping. This isn't done to the exclusion of the need for hierarchy and reduction; indeed, "dialectics" done right as CMS would want to see it done, must integrate those as well. It isn't floating dualism-transcending built in the sky apart from grounding one's ideas in the evidence of the senses -- that would, in fact, be contrary to the whole idea.

Sciabarra certainly has an area of scholarly emphasis that may lead someone like GS to conclude that he's distorting Rand's message in the process, but I just don't see it. There isn't this bunch of dichotomy-transcending going on for its own sake; rather, it's his way of saying that modern philosophy is too much off on the wrong track, and that one of the signs of this is all these untenable dichotomies taken for granted. Following a proper methodology, no such pseudo-problems crop up to get in the way of correct understanding.

I'm coming at this from a firmly neo-Aristotelian angle, mind you, so I don't see the value per se of drawing parallels to Marx and Hegel beyond the fact that they and Rand promote similar-looking methodological points. Rand's intellectual context is her Aristotelian roots; theirs probably is indeed Platonic, whatever Hegel's professed admiration for Aristotle. I think Chris has been quite clear, though, that Rand's roots lie properly with Aristotle and not these two; somewhere along the way these other two pervert and misapply legitimate concepts that Chris is defending.

Also, it just occurred to me: "transcending dualisms" really isn't the right way to state the matter in any event. Rand's whole approach is such that there aren't any dualisms that arise to be "transcended" to begin with. In fact, that may actually be at the root of the Marx/Hegel perversion -- of positing a dualism and then employing their brand of "dialectics" to resolve it. Contradictions leading to synthesis, that kind of talk. Rand, of course, in the tradition of Aristotle, says that there are no contradictions to be synthesized. The "solution" to resolving any apparent contradiction is to check one's premises and identify the wider context, not to look for a synthesis that carries with it the contradictory propositions. IOW, if there's an apparent contradiction, it's resolved by throwing out whatever premises that gave rise to that appearance, not running them together under the pretention that the contradiction really isn't there after all. Hegel's infamous Idealist "resolution" to Kant's knower/ding-an-sich dichotomy is one such disastrous example of the latter approach. Marx's doctrines of history, class and conflict is another. Those would be perfect examples of the "Extreme Irrationalist Misintegration" that GS refers to.

CMS sounds like he's terribly busy, but I think I'll bring this point up to him and see if he has something interesting to say in response.

As I said, Phil, what has Kelley done of any note since "Evidence of the Senses"?

Of course, in an historical sense one should note "Truth and Toleration". It is a very important document - perhaps the most important - in the attempts since Ayn Rand's death to hijack her philosophy.

As for "Unrugged Individualism", I literally couldn't read it. I think I read the first chapter, or as much of it as I could stand, and then tossed it. As for "benevolence, civiliy, generosity", in this context they are clearly intended as "anti-concepts" to undermine the concept of justice, from which to the extent deserved "benevolence, civiliy, generosity" will naturally flow.

Do you seriously regard either of these works as consistent with Objectivism? Do you think Ayn Rand would have agreed with and endorsed them?

Someone on OL attributed remarks by Fred Weiss to me, referring to this post. The italicized remarks are Fred's; my response is non-italicized.

Automated quoting in Usenet format would be so much easier....

I was under the impression that Sherk was somewhere in his 20s by his photo.

"...corrects the mistake that many Oists have of not considering benevolence, civiliy, generosity etc. virtues in *any* sense..."

That there's a mistake is debatable, partly due to Branden smears.

Chris Cathcart, we hardly knew ye. Now we can see what you look like, I'm surprised how young you are!! Given all the maturity and wisdom in many of your posts, I thought you would have to be 95.

(Of course, by that standard I'd have to be a hundred and five.)

> "Evidence of the Senses"...What has Kelley done of any note since then?

1. "Truth and Toleration" - complements Peikoff where he is right on moral judgment; corrects him where he is wrong; some mistakes--such as the fuzzy or ambiguous concept of 'open system'
2. "Unrugged Individualism" - corrects the mistake that many Oists have of not considering benevolence, civiliy, generosity etc. virtues in *any* sense
3. insisghtful summer lectures on the state of the culture
4. "Logical Structure of Objectivism" - have to wait till it's completed to make final assessment, but some good work in rough draft version which is up on TOC website

Fred, it was Mr."PMB" of Noodlefood fame who made the observation that many (mostly online?) TOCians seem to dwell on the split (and other "Peikovian" horrors) more than they actually care about Objectivism, and I've noticed the same tendency. But I've also seen many who don't think or function that way.

Chris, "Evidence of the Senses" was written while Kelley was still an Objectivist. You might as well mention Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" by that standard. What has Kelley done of any note since then?

As for RR being a distortion of Objectivism, have you read GS's comments on Diana's blog?

http://tinyurl.com/o23yo

Or James Lennox's review?

http://www.reason.com/9602/BkLENNOX.feb96.shtml

The whole point of TOC is to be anti-ARI, just as the whole point of the pseudo-Objectivist sites is to nit-pick AR, ARI, and Objectivism, to unearth every possible supposed flaw and endlessly chortle about it.

Name one.

I don't know who "these people" refer to. The TOC people? David Kelley's a TOC person, and he's contributed a book titled Evidence of the Senses.

I guess I'm not sure how exactly I can integrate your remarks being that they seem so broad and unspecific. You seem also to be making an error that I've referred to, in terms of collective judgment. I've made such errors before as it applied to ARI, in good part out of revulsion towards the doings of certain leader-figures there. But the basic point I've come to see is that there are some good people as well as bad ones in whichever "faction" you see. I just don't see the usefulness of such a sweeping remark targetted toward "them" (TOC?). There are some people, perhaps mistaken or misguided, who are with TOC that have the best intentions in mind -- the best way to advance Objectivism. Some of them don't even buy into the supposed TOC line about "not judging and not being extreme (except towards those who judge and are extreme)." It's not that simple.

Note that their "bibles" are either smears of Ayn Rand (PAR), direct attacks on the foundations of Objectivism ("Truth and Toleration"), or total distortions of Objectivism ("The Russian Radical").

I'll need to read PARC to better integrate in full context the meaning of PAR. Perhaps PAR has the fault of trying to provide a "balanced" portrayal -- one that hasn't really affected my own perception of Rand at all, as basically a heroic individual. T&T, it's been a very long time since I've read it; Kelley if anything is subtle in how I think he misapplies Objectivism. I never really liked his discussion about trade-offs or cost-benefit weighing or balancing acts. That just sounds like an unintegrated approach, and it's integration that fundamentally characterizes Rand. Which leads to the third example -- hows is RR fundamentally (or even non-fundamentally) a distortion of Rand? I could take issue with a number of things about RR, but being a distortion of Objectivism wasn't something I had in mind; I'm not even sure it's something that many of its critics had in mind.

JARS is *an exercise* in such smears, attacks, and distortions.

Fred, please.

Compare that to The Objective Standard which in just two issues has already published more interesting and important material than in the entire history of JARS.

I don't get the impression that you've done enough reading of JARS to adequately determine something like this. Keep in mind, for one thing, that the two journals have different stated aims -- one is a more general-studies journal, while the other is a journal of politics and culture. I think a more close comparison would be to the Objectivist Forum, though I gather the formats differ there as well (not to mention TOF stopped publishing some 20 years ago and doesn't quite have a current replacement).

As it turns out, there are some examples of JARS articles that are now available online. I have heard Diana say that she has respect for the work that John and Marsha Enright have done, among the very few JARS'ers that she's mentioned as worthy. (I think she may have also mentioned Hick's book on postmodernism.) And having seen past contributions from Mack and Rasmussen, I thought those were worthy. I'd expect the contributions of someone like Lester Hunt to be pretty good as well. It really depends a lot on the individual author and/or article. The undercover guy on HPO has a couple contributions there as well. Perhaps it's worth noting that all these individuals I mentioned don't proclaim to be Objectivists or pass their ideas off as Objectivism, so it's not like they're perpetrating any fraud. Anyway, I just don't see the basis for the sweeping characterization.

I have seen stuff in JARS that I know to be pretty bad, based on online interactions. In an early issue, Messrs. Gregory Johnson and David Rasmussen promulgated some ideas on abortion that, in online discussions with them, I found to be quite vicious and just downright sloppy, bad philosophy. (I have found so often "pro-lifers" to be such bad arguers and thinkers on their often-pet-issue, enough so that I've come to the conclusion that anything to the "right" of "undecided" on the issue is almost bound to be unreasonable, massively context-dropping, etc. These two I remember being rather worse than the average even for this group.) I don't see how if I were editor or peer reviewer I'd let it through except perhaps as a devil's-advocacy exercise. So, yeah, there's some pretty bad stuff that appears in the pages of JARS from time to time. Again, it comes down to the individuals making the contribution.

I'll mention that I've never actually seen a copy of JARS in the flesh; my complementary issues of the Spring '06 issue are on their way. I've seen a number of articles made available in electronic format in some fashion or other, and I couldn't say that I've found any to be bad even if they may vary in terms of quality. I won't comment per se on the article by Bass that I responded to, other than to say that it is a challenge that had to be met at some point so as to clear up the issues involved; having learned that it did manage to get accepted to JARS, I could hardly resist letting it go without refutation.

But anyway, I'll really get a full chance now to see a full issue and evaluate its overall quality. I expect that a dialogue on ethics that includes contributions from Mack and Rasmussen will be all that much stonger.

Mike M.,

Thanks for the info on the alternative sites.

L W

Mike Mazza suggests, "If you don't like discussion of movement politics, there are two other forums that don't talk about this stuff. www.ObjectivismOnline.net and forums.4aynrandfans.com."

Yeah, but you wanna bet that within 5 minutes of any pseudo-Objectivist arriving on one of these forums that's *the first thing they bring up*. Someone has insightfully noted here already that the pseudo-Objectivists need us. We don't need them. The whole point of TOC is to be anti-ARI, just as the whole point of the pseudo-Objectivist sites is to nit-pick AR, ARI, and Objectivism, to unearth every possible supposed flaw and endlessly chortle about it.

Ask yourself this simple question, why have these people contributed nothing - I mean *nothing* - of any significance to Objectivism? Can someone mention a single *important* book, or even article, on any *major* issue in Objectivism which any of them has published?

Name one.

Note that their "bibles" are either smears of Ayn Rand (PAR), direct attacks on the foundations of Objectivism ("Truth and Toleration"), or total distortions of Objectivism ("The Russian Radical").

JARS is *an exercise* in such smears, attacks, and distortions. Compare that to The Objective Standard which in just two issues has already published more interesting and important material than in the entire history of JARS.

"I ask you: would Roark, or Dagny, or even Rand be bothered doing this?"

Huh?

They did.

Rand certainly did. In fact her moral judging of people is one of the very things that pseudo-Objectivists find most distasteful about her and consider a dispensable aspect of Objectivism - in the process of course sundering "fact and value" and totally undermining a key principle of the Objectivist ethics. They also claim that this is one of the reasons that Objectivism has difficulty being accepted in the culture. Gee, ya think? You can read RoR or O-L almost any day and find this complaint. Well, yes, it is in fact one of the difficulties. Almost as difficult as Objectivism's commitment to rationality.

As for Roark, it is almost unimaginable that you even read The Fountainhead. What do you think the point was of his being expelled from Stanton or his refusal to except architectural commissions which involved *even the smallest* compromising of his principles? Gee, doesn't life require compromise? Why did he have to be so intransigent? What happened to "get along and play nice"?

As for Dagny and Rearden "bothering to do this", do you know what the sanction of the victim is? Or that it is a major theme of Atlas?

It's really outrageous how fucking sanctimonious these pseudo-Objectivists get about this as if they are upholding some principle of Objectivism when in fact they are thoroughly undermining it!

Rowlf sez: "I request that the rational ones amongst us knock-it-off, stick (more or less) to issues, and let the football-cheerleading "WE are GREAT, since we show how THEY are Dumberer" ones show themselves as the empty-head mere fans they are...and ignore them...instead of joining them."

Hee hee ... sez you!

Oh, wait ... was this not intended as irony?

(I can't resist any forum posting that says, "hey you guys, stop posting in this kind of forum!"  Yeah, right up there with, "I refuse to belong to any club that would have me as a member..." by Marx ... Groucho, that is.)