George Lakoff

[Serapis Bey]

Never heard of this guy before, but someone on Facebook posted this video and I found it very insightful and thought provoking.

Not necessarily endorsing anything here, and I wasn't sure if this should be posted in Epistemology or Ethics or Politics, but I think it's right up MSK's alley:

[Xray]

George Lakoff is a famous linguist, who was once a student of Noam Chomsky's.

Especially Interesting is the recent controversy between Lakoff and Steven Pinker. Pinker wrote a scathing review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom, calling it "a train wreck": http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html

Lakoff's equally scathing rebuttal ("When Cognitive Science Enters Politics"): http://web.archive.org/web/20080517092902/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics

The battle about "the nature of language and the mind" (G. Lakoff) rages on.

[Xray]

... someone on Facebook posted this video and I found it very insightful and thought provoking.

There's a lot of food for thought in what Lakoff says here.

[BaalChatzaf]

George Lakoff is a famous linguist, who was once a student of Noam Chomsksy's.

Especially Interesting is the recent controversy between Lakoff and Steven Pinker. Pinker wrote a scathing review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom, calling it "a train wreck": http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html

Lakoff's equally scathing rebuttal ("When Cognitive Science Enters Politics"): http://web.archive.org/web/20080517092902/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics

The battle about "the nature of language and the mind" (G. Lakoff) rages on.

Lakeoff "defends" himslef by alleging Pinker is either dishonest or stupid or perhaps something else, but he does not know which.

I can solve Lakoff's "framing problem" simply. He regards government as a -benefit- and I regard government as a -necessary evil-. Without government we are all in deep kimchee. With government we are all in danger of being tyrannized. The rational solution is to keep government to a workable minimum, just sufficient to keep order in the society and just sufficient to repel foreign invaders. Apparently this has not occurred to Lakoff who sees government with its intrusions, constraints and regulation as being BOTH good and necessary.

Framing problem solved.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've written about Lakoff several times here on OL.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Great work on metaphors and framing. Disaster on politics and twisting science all out of shape to somehow prove the Progressive agenda.

A really funny dude. In the speeches I've seen, you get a seesaw. One minute, pure neuroscientific profundity and epistemological insight. The next, snarky sniggering petty cheap shots at conservatives. Then back-and-forth and back-and-forth.

It must be an acid trip being him.

No time to write now.

More later.

Michael

EDIT: Can't resist. I tried, but I just can't. It's bigger than me... He kinda reminds me of Kacy.

[Serapis Bey]

Mike: yes, I totally agree.

I posted while I was only halfway through the video, but the remaining lecture teetered into apologia for Progressives, with cheap shots at conservatives to boot.. Can you believe he thinks conservatives are better at psychology than progressives? Pure propaganda, IMO.

That Pinker review Xray posted really drove the point home.

But I agree that he is EXCELLENT when he discusses neuroscience and the nature of mind and language -- something I'm glad to see getting a larger hearing. And I think his research has troubling implications for Objectivists when it comes to their simple-minded conceptions of Man and his capacity for "reason."

At the risk of sounding like a druggie, I have to say that it was my experience with drugs that served to knock me off my Oist trajectory and led me to psychedelic philosophers like Robert A. Wilson and Hyatt. And that, in turn, led me to peeking into the thoughts of folks like Wittgenstein and Korzybski/General Semantics. There's a lot of good material there, and it would behoove Objectivists to acquaint themselves with it. Not to accept it wholesale, but to realize there are aspects of the human experience that fall outside Objectivism's strictures, and if approached judiciously, could prove useful in making their message more persuasive.

Of course, leftists/progressives drink deeply from the same well, so what we are left with is an arms race of sorts. Aye, that's the rub.

The Model Is The Message -- the image is devoid of fact.

The model(s) -- paradigms -- men use to tolerate their
existential presence tells you more about them than the content of
their message.
Trust more in a man's moods than in his thoughts.

Assertion: The better a man feels the less complex his models.
The worse he feels the more complex his models. The real question --
do complex models explain more of reality than simple ones? Or is
complexity a poor model for describing the issue of models? Or am I
misusing the concept?

What we need to look at is elegance.
The weaker a person is the more binary his models. What do I
really mean by this? As a rule weaker people think primarily in
discrete one dimensional binary terms. They are stuck in a fascistic
state of mind. This must be expected since their defenses are
primitive.
Look at what has been done to the whole brain model. Weak
minded people say that there is a left brain and a right brain.
This type of "mind" does not even recognize that they are talking
about a model. A stronger person says, a model of the brain is...
A stronger and more knowledgeable person says, "a model of the
brain based on Herrmann's work consists of 4 factors and not 2. The
whole brain model has 4 primary components. They are left cortex,
right cortex, left limbic system, and right limbic system." Which
person is stronger? Which person is in a better mood? Do my
assertions concerning moods, weakness and model complexity apply? If
they do apply how do they apply? Or is my model simply based on poor
observations and definitions?
Which model of the brain will sell more books and to whom? This
might help us understand my model better. I will predict that the two
brain model will sell more books and the people who buy and believe it
will be more right brain and less left brain. A person high in
mathematical ability and analytical reasoning would find the book a
joke. A whole brain person might be interested in the book, buy it,
but not believe it.

What sells is the model -- not the product. The facts are that
most of us live in a one dimensional, model discrete (yes/no)
universe.
Some people can even tolerate maybe. How many people can
tolerate a multi-factor interacting model? Very few. It would
require that they specify conditions of when, who, where and how.
This is too much for most people. Their tolerance for existential
presence is low.
Politicians and advertisers rely on the fact that most people
only respond from a yes/no matrix. As people become more complex they
add maybe. As they become more complex they add more and more
factors. Sooner or later they become organic and they look simple
again. Complexity becomes a simple art form.

IS EVOLUTION NECESSARY?

More often than not what is "necessary" is nothing but hope.

Let us for a moment explore the necessary.
The philosopher Hegel was an expert in believing how evolution
and the "necessary" emerge.
Hegel posits spirit, then he posits nature as its opposite,
then he posits the concept of idea as their synthesis. According to
him it is a necessary synthesis. Did Hegel come up with this while
standing on his head? Or was Hegel a Zombie?

These neat little packages are sold as Universals, or Laws.
Other people oppose these Universals with exceptions which the
originator answers by further acts of convolution until a system is
built. Now there is something for the academic to "sink" his gums
into. Finally, enough people accept these "comings and goings" and
the entire "system" becomes ordained by God or becomes Natural Law.
The funny thing is, even after the system is shown to be non-sense,
academics still study it. They love systems no matter how foolish
they are.
What is necessary about Hegel's dance? The answer. A simple
mind to believe in a system that conveys power upon its user -- what
an act of juggling to answer every question with the same answer!

But does this "model of history or progress" really convery
anything but Hegel's need to have an "understanding" of change? What
good does it do for the mind to call it progress, evolution or...?
Might we instead say that Spirit pleases a dying man, Nature pleases a
physicist, and Ideas please Hegel?

There is no opposition or conflict or necessary evolution
except by the way Hegel or, for that matter, anyone has conceptualized
the multifaceted, every changing, intertwined living process. There
are simply intertwined differences and similarities. However, these
"appearances" are not enough for most men. They are too weak for
life's luxury. In the end it is always weakness that demands too much
understanding and not enough doing...

WHICH CAME FIRST:
THE TOILET OR THE...?

What Is Really Necessary And For Whom?

The conflicted and "necessary" qualities of thinkers such as
Hegel provide occupations for priests, politicians, problem solvers,
authors, psychologists, philosophers, educators, graduate students and
lawyers.
Philosophical problems are created by asking questions which
presuppose that an answer is possible in the same format the question
is poised. Any question is the result of division; thus any answer
must also be a result of division. Language can't convey reality. By
necessity any attempt to communicate requires that "things" be left
out and "things" be put in. Therefore the answer, like the question,
is always a lie.

Philosophical questions are the result of distilling experience
into language. By its very nature language doesn't represent the
essence of experience, since one effect of language is to structure
experience so "it" may be communicated to others. As soon as we
reflect upon experience, translate it into words and communicate it to
the "other" we have lied. Language always implies equality in
experience and understanding. Another great lie?
Once life has been distilled into language we begin to respond to
language and not to experience.

Our thinkers have stopped living. They forget that dissecting
life into pieces is only a technique, a primitive method for the
manipulation of attributes and not a condition of real life. Thus,
every teacher is a liar.

All categories are simply whimsical conveniences -- filled with
joy and horror.

EDIT: Can't resist. I tried, but I just can't. It's bigger than me... He kinda reminds me of Kacy.

Trust me, I know the feeling.

[Going off topic for a moment: where the hell is William Scherk? I spend a couple years lurking here, enjoying his posts (even if I disagree with him), and now that my posse is here, he vanishes...?]

[Serapis Bey]

George Lakoff is a famous linguist, who was once a student of Noam Chomsksy's.

Especially Interesting is the recent controversy between Lakoff and Steven Pinker. Pinker wrote a scathing review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom, calling it "a train wreck": http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html

Lakoff's equally scathing rebuttal ("When Cognitive Science Enters Politics"): http://web.archive.org/web/20080517092902/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics

The battle about "the nature of language and the mind" (G. Lakoff) rages on.

Lakeoff "defends" himslef by alleging Pinker is either dishonest or stupid or perhaps something else, but he does not know which.

I can solve Lakoff's "framing problem" simply. He regards government as a -benefit- and I regard government as a -necessary evil-. Without government we are all in deep kimchee. With government we are all in danger of being tyrannized. The rational solution is to keep government to a workable minimum, just sufficient to keep order in the society and just sufficient to repel foreign invaders. Apparently this has not occurred to Lakoff who sees government with its intrusions, constraints and regulation as being BOTH good and necessary.

Framing problem solved.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Come now, Ba'al. Try and be a little more charitable. His speculation about Pinker's stupidity or dishonesty was the close of his essay, and came after he provided good evidence to back up his assertions.

I agree that he's a mess on politics, but he did a good job of defending his science against Pinker.

[BaalChatzaf]

Come now, Ba'al. Try and be a little more charitable. His speculation about Pinker's stupidity or dishonesty was the close of his essay, and came after he provided good evidence to back up his assertions.

I agree that he's a mess on politics, but he did a good job of defending his science against Pinker.

Pinker was bang on correct. He is one smart fellow.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

But I agree that he is EXCELLENT when he discusses neuroscience and the nature of mind and language -- something I'm glad to see getting a larger hearing.  And I think his research has troubling implications for Objectivists when it comes to their simple-minded conceptions of Man and his capacity for "reason."

 

My prejudices seem to cause me to favour Steven Pinker over George Lakoff on the subject of language. What I treasure in Pinker's books is the clarity and detail of his vision (and so not necessarily the absolute truth value or sum of correctness). His works on language as 'instinct' suggest the How a mind acquires language -- and may well be incorrect at base and in details.

Reading his "The Stuff of Thought: Language As a Window Into Human Nature" helped me more fully understand what he saw as the 'universal contours' of language, as a proto-language of necessity that has to give birth to similar underlying utterances in any language system, a prototype as lying behind or under the actual functions of language, again the how this might unfold in humankind's evolutionary journey, and again the how: under what circumstances new languages are birthed. He attempted to sketch or limn the How -- in detail, drawn from converging streams of evidence. This satisfies my naive belief that I can follow Pinker's further arguments and evidence as a whole ...

Lakoff, on the other hand, leaves me on the beach as he sails from absolute to absolute. His popular excursions into politics leave me, like Pinker, bemused and unconvinced of the truth-weight of some of his claims.

I don't know if prejudice keeps me from absorbing the lessons contra Pinker boomed out by Lakoff. I have yet to see Lakoff treading the same ground, overturning the same rocks, sifting the same fine grains of perception and suggestion, doing the same experiments with language.

In almost all cases Pinker's popular science books and articles provide the means to follow his thoughts back to source. Lakoff's works often contain no references at all. As Pinker himself writes [added: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html ]:

 

There is much to admire in Lakoff's work in linguistics, but Whose Freedom?, and more generally his thinking about politics, is a train wreck. Though it contains messianic claims about everything from epistemology to political tactics, the book has no footnotes or references (just a generic reading list), and cites no studies from political science or economics, and barely mentions linguistics. Its use of cognitive neuroscience goes way beyond any consensus within that field, and its analysis of political ideologies is skewed by the author's own politics and limited by his disregard of centuries of prior thinking on the subject. And Lakoff's cartoonish depiction of progressives as saintly sophisticates and conservatives as evil morons fails on both intellectual and tactical grounds.

 

That a book has no footnotes or references might seem a trifle, a very minor fault if fault at all, yet my mind bristles when a text says "So-and-so/So-and-so's mother said ex why zee" -- and gives no direct information on where and in what form So-and-so said whatever they are described as having said. It is uncheckable by simple means; it requires labour to track down and analyze. I hate that kind of slop. I hate it in the maunderings of Peikoff and I hate it in the booming cadences of Lakoff. The arguments seem to leave out a basis for a challenge. If Wittgenstein said/wrote something, why the hell give a reference? If 'people' do this or that thing or are prone to this or that error, why provide a warrant for the claim -- should I not just accept it?

 

I see this kind of surfing above the details in the snatches of Lakoff going off his leash [added: these phrases  are the words of  Christopher S. Hyatt: To Lie is Human, Not Getting Caught Is Divine. Thanks to MSK for spotting my error in attribution]:

-- Weak minded people say that there is a left brain and a right brain.

-- What sells is the model -- not the product. The facts are that most of us live in a one dimensional, model discrete (yes/no) universe.

-- Sooner or later they become organic and they look simple again. Complexity becomes a simple art form.

-- However, these "appearances" are not enough for most men. They are too weak for life's luxury. In the end it is always weakness that demands too much understanding and not enough doing...

 

These bricks of argument seem designed to curry favour, to be 'just-so,' and to be elevated far above the plane of Joe, Mindy, Doug and Fabindra.  They are tolled, 'always'/never dikta -- possible true, but cloaked by what I call intellectual confection. "People," most people, They/Them" -- these take on an aspect of pure fudge.

 

In any case, the dispute between the two hairy gentlemen seems predicated on personality and politics, terrifically unfruitful: Lakoff is weak-minded and insufficiently educated/Pinker is woolly and stupefied by his own bullshit.

 

How to choose which team to follow and celebrate and include  on your sagging Great Thinkers shelf?

 

[Going off topic for a moment: where the hell is William Scherk?  I spend a couple years lurking here, enjoying his posts (even if I disagree with him), and now that my posse is here, he vanishes...?]

 

Oh him. He posts fitfully and (lately) tries not to get in pointless arguments. Sometimes discussion on OL is bristling with teeth and fact and passion and relevance to humankind's struggles. Sometimes it is a shore of flabby posturing and intellectual naptime.

 

Once in a great while a question is posed or a claim is made that starts a grassfire of intelligent reaction. I like those kinds of threads but have lately by several months made a point to not get involved in posturing. I know where and what I am and what life still has to offer. Getting down and dirty on Objectivish grounds seems less ladylike/productive now that I am over 55. Perhaps this too shall pass, and I will get back to ferociously posting at length on topics large and small. To the entertainment of long-time lurkers.

 

I tend to think of your posse as larger folks, much accustomed to sitting down and expostulating madly via the keyboard and internets. Without raising a sweat, and  not at all expressing the same pout-rage in the non-internets world. I think of the late Greybird (another opinionated Steve). He was very much the spitting image of McFakeyname (guy with the tin crown and a major feast behind him) to my mind. In a snit over some long-dead opinion or grievance, and deeply offended at the drop of a hat. With your own lustrous nom de plume, with that kind of competition, how, how could I fare well here?

 

Anyhow, to the eyes of my heart, in the Lakoff/Pinker exchange, I see clear advantage Pinker. His criticisms are substantially  true, warranted, and not invested with undue emotion. Lakoff seems simple-minded and ruled by petty variants of emotions such as envy and frustration by comparison. Whereas several of Pinker's criticisms thunk home like javelins, much of Lakoff's rejoinder is testy and flustered. An angry teacher is not appealling, especially when said teacher has already crossed the line into guru behaviour.

 

My two cents, rounded up to a nickel. May the Bey of Kowloon find in it what he seeks.

Edited May 6, 2013 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

For the sake of accuracy, whenever you see a quote without a reference, it's always a good thing to check who the author is, The quotes given by SB and blasted by you as if they are written by Lakoff are actually by Christopher S. Hyatt‎ from To Lie is Human. Here is a Scribd link

I Googled phrases within quote marks from the quotes and all three SB posted go to the same book.

Sometimes I crack open one of Lakoff's earlier works, Metaphors We Live By, and I don't find it reflects your criticisms (or Pinker's for that matter). I also have More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor and just from a skim, I have the same comment.

Granted, he does provide a bibliography instead of footnotes.

Now, when you get to his latest works, I have The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic and I had to stop reading it. I'm going to force myself to finish because it's important. After all, this dude helped elect Obama and his word is taken as Holy Scripture by the Progressive propaganda machine. They slant their messages according to what Lakoff says. Even Obama's phrase "You didn't build that" comes from Lakoff (from another book). Thankfully, that one backfired big time.

But his breakdown of the different family structures between liberals and conservatives is only clever because some things look that way on the surface. It's not really grounded in any kind of reality other than that.

From what I see so far in my examination of his work, as a neuroscientist, Lakoff's linguistics are only top quality in his early work. As a propagandist, Lakoff's linguistics are often effective. But he might owe more to Newt Gingrich than science for that (see Language: A Key Mechanism of Control). Lakoff just says it's science. I can't say for sure, but I think he got the direction for his propaganda work from Newt. On the conservative side, Frank Luntz's work on words and phrases grew from the Newt soil.

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

Thanks for the beacon signal, William.

Once in a great while a question is posed or a claim is made that starts a grassfire of intelligent reaction. I like those kinds of threads but have lately by several months made a point to not get involved in posturing. I know where and what I am and what life still has to offer. Getting down and dirty on Objectivish grounds seems less ladylike/productive now that I am over 55. Perhaps this too shall pass, and I will get back to ferociously posting at length on topics large and small.

I understand. I feel the same. "I grow weary of the battle and the storm I walk toward."

You've done good work here. Given value.

I have a premonition that my online presence here will be relatively short. After having spilled the last remaining drops of my lifeblood over the pages of OL, I think it might be time to hang it up for good, this current online incarnation being my last in a long history of internet trolling.

p.s. what have you got against my nom de plume?

[studiodekadent]

Lakoff does make a point re framing and metaphors and as such has some advice for people that are trying to make an argument. However, honestly, his thesis re. "the right" (which is treated monolithically) believing in a "strict father model" of government only makes sense if you exclude libertarians from the right.

Of course he doesn't. He argues libertarians implicitly subscribe to a "strict father model" by framing "the market" as a singular omniscient infallible executive authority figure.

Which shows either 1) he doesn't understand libertarian theory at all, or 2) he thinks most libertarians don't understand libertarian theory at all (i.e. that most people who accept libertarianism do so not by understanding the theory but because of accepting the "strict father model" and thinking of the market in this way).

In my experience this is false. Libertarians in general are far more levelheaded and generally better educated than the population average - they're unlikely to be swayed by "strict father" framing effects, and given many libertarians have counterculture sympathies/attitudes they're probably more likely to be PUT OFF libertarianism by the "strict father" framing.

At best, Lakoff might be explaining why some conservatives end up gravitating towards libertarian policies. But this kind of fusionism is not libertarianism.

Or he might simply be tossing red meat to his progressive base by rationalizing their prejudices in high-minded language.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At best, Lakoff might be explaining why some conservatives end up gravitating towards libertarian policies. But this kind of fusionism is not libertarianism.

Or he might simply be tossing red meat to his progressive base by rationalizing their prejudices in high-minded language.

Andrew,

I think it's worse. I think he believes it.

One can be a genius and a bonehead at the same time.

It's rare to find this level of both in the same person, but obviously it exists.

Lakoff himself--the man with no middle, only extremes--would make a good metaphor, but I need to think about what. Hmmmm... great insights and intellect in some issues, soul of a snotnose pouty brat...

I got an idea!

Do you think he was sexually abused as a child?

That's a quip, but there's teeth to it if you think about it.

Now back to the metaphor...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

What does sexual abuse have to do with being wrong-headed?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I'm being a smart-ass.

But notice that when someone hates strong dominating authority figures and this hatred is visceral, they often say they were abused by one as a child.

Michael

[william.scherk]

My thanks to Michael for catching, identifying, and correcting my error of attribution. That my point form points were not from Lakoff renders much of my argument into cottage cheese ...

Re the question about 'The Bey,' my tortured metaphor was meant to illustrate a prejudice against monikers. I take the compliment on value given to heart: thank you.

At this moment I will pause and google 'serapis bey' . . .

Oy vey, oh my, an Ascended Master from the annals of Blavatsky's system of New Thought/Theosophy. Well, it has none of the sweetness and all of the abandon of the Vietnamese syncretic religion known as "Cao Dai."

If in Theosophy the pantheon is crowded with spiritual beings from classic ages of humankind, in Caodaiism the pantheon or roster of saintly beings extends from Jesus ("Jesus is regarded as a Buddha and true Son of God, shed directly from God," sez Wikipedia) to Confucius through Joan of Arc, picking up Victor Hugo and Sun Yat-Sen along the way) to lesser lights of the historical past**.

So many gauds and such a litter of gaud-spawn and gaud-infested joes and marys. It could make a head spin.

All in all, for me the nom de fustiger Serapis Bey strikes discordant bells of religious mania, bong bong bongity bong bong. I blame my prejudices and all those bongs for my confusion. I have no clue to the man as he is, know not which principles brought him to speak, or caused him to devolve, drop out of the pantheon as a bat drops from the cave roof, to scuttle about the litter and loam of Objectivist Living.

Perhaps the interesting story of Why I Visitroll Objectivish Sites could be told before the Bey is hoist back to the roof.

The posse seems just a little bit more pathetic upon researching their adopted names. Ascended Masters, perhaps. Be they bats, masters, shrews or ascended nitwits, I bit them Welcome to the largest online repository of open dialogue on Rand, Objectivism and the struggle of reason against madness.

Serapis Bey, master of the cave heights, can you tell briefly how Rand lit up your life -- again -- please?

Until that tale is wrought, I leave myself with this visual depiction of the bey, in his sexiest tie-die outfit.

Serapis Bey

... and for those who might enthuse or bark over the excesses of Cao Dai, a couple of pictures of their holy see, with its pantheon of Greats.

Colour-coded monks and nuns!

If that ain't Jesus and Mohammed and Dame Edna!

The see hisself again, from the outside.

____________________

** from an explanatory site

Cao Dai draws upon ethical precepts from Confucianism, occult practices from Taoism, theories of karma and rebirth from Buddhism, and a hierarchical organization (including a pope) from Roman Catholicism. Its pantheon of saints includes such diverse figures as the Buddha, Confucius, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Pericles, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Victor Hugo, and Sun Yat-sen.

Edited May 6, 2013 by william.scherk

[Jerry Biggers]

My thanks to Michael for catching, identifying, and correcting my error of attribution. That my point form points were not from Lakoff renders much of my argument into cottage cheese ...

Re the question about 'The Bey,' my tortured metaphor was meant to illustrate a prejudice against monikers. I take the compliment on value given to heart: thank you.

At this moment I will pause and google 'serapis bey' . . .

Oy vey, oh my, an Ascended Master from the annals of Blavatsky's system of New Thought/Theosophy. Well, it has none of the sweetness and all of the abandon of the Vietnamese syncretic religion known as "Cao Dai."

If in Theosophy the pantheon is crowded with spiritual beings from classic ages of humankind, in Caodaiism the pantheon or roster of saintly beings extends from Jesus ("Jesus is regarded as a Buddha and true Son of God, shed directly from God," sez Wikipedia) to Confucius through Joan of Arc, picking up Victor Hugo and Sun Yat-Sen along the way) to lesser lights of the historical past**.

So many gauds and such a litter of gaud-spawn and gaud-infested joes and marys. It could make a head spin.

All in all, for me the nom de fustiger Serapis Bey strikes discordant bells of religious mania, bong bong bongity bong bong. I blame my prejudices and all those bongs for my confusion. I have no clue to the man as he is, know not which principles brought him to speak, or caused him to devolve, drop out of the pantheon as a bat drops from the cave roof, to scuttle about the litter and loam of Objectivist Living.

Perhaps the interesting story of Why I Visitroll Objectivish Sites could be told before the Bey is hoist back to the roof.

The posse seems just a little bit more pathetic upon researching their adopted names. Ascended Masters, perhaps. Be they bats, masters, shrews or ascended nitwits, I bit them Welcome to the largest online repository of open dialogue on Rand, Objectivism and the struggle of reason against madness.

Serapis Bey, master of the cave heights, can you tell briefly how Rand lit up your life -- again -- please?

Until that tale is wrought, I leave myself with this visual depiction of the bey, in his sexiest tie-die outfit.

Serapis Bey

... and for those who might enthuse or bark over the excesses of Cao Dai, a couple of pictures of their holy see, with its pantheon of Greats.

Colour-coded monks and nuns!

If that ain't Jesus and Mohammed and Dame Edna!

The see hisself again, from the outside.

____________________

** from an explanatory site

Cao Dai draws upon ethical precepts from Confucianism, occult practices from Taoism, theories of karma and rebirth from Buddhism, and a hierarchical organization (including a pope) from Roman Catholicism. Its pantheon of saints includes such diverse figures as the Buddha, Confucius, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Pericles, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Victor Hugo, and Sun Yat-sen.

Bill,

Great story! But I'm pretty sure that you have made yet another series of mis-attributions regarding your accompanying four pictures:

The first could be Leonard Peikoff at OCON2012, at the unveiling of The DIM Hypothesis.

The second, probably an OCON convocation of attendees, at one of the typically ornate hotels in which they meet, that one being the FantasyLand Hotel at DisneyWorld.

The Third is a relief prepared for the new alter at ARI in Irvine ?(you can make your own guess as to which Objectivish luminaries are being represented. Each depiction may be changed in order, or removed);

ant the fourth is, a likely proposal for their new headquarters in Irvine (having lost the bid for Robert Schuller's bankrupt The Crystal Cathedral, to the Catholics)?

Of course, these are just guesses, but it sounds right to me!

Things sure have changed since NBI held meetings in a basement office suite in The Empire State Building!

- Jerry

[Brant Gaede]

Because of the physical structure of The Empire State Building, NBI had to be in the basement--or at another address--to accommodate an auditorium. I don't remember if the rent was 15 or 25 thou/yr. on a 15 yr lease starting in 1967, not adjusted for inflation. I didn't dig taking the elevator down to the LL, though, not after Dominique's ride up on the side of Roark's biggest, uh, you know what: erection. When I visited NBI in the spring of 1966, pre-ESB, the elevator at 320 E. 34th St. did go up. It was an apartment, maybe on the 20th floor(?). I was wearing my kakki army summer dress uniform and jump boots. I think it was Elayne Kalberman I met there. That's when I subscribed to The Objectivist. Barbara Branden was likely on an around-the-world cruise.

--Brant

just for the record

[Peter]

It is interesting that social conservatives talk so much about family values. That is another way of saying Fatherly morality extended to government. Lakoff brings up the point that interfering with self interest is wrong, but he is really only discussing Social Conservatives, not libertarian conservatives.

The point about the growth in conservative think tanks that is now around fifty is interesting.

But not only does Mr. Lakoff miss the point that reason is primary to Objectivists but he also misses the point that libertarians generally think in a similar fashion. To libertarians the government that best promotes personal liberty is best. People discover their own self interests. Freedom gives everyone a better chance at prosperity. Freedom allows citizens to pursue happiness. Freedom works.

I listened to some of George Lakoffs opinion about how different world views are the *cause* for a person being progressive or socially conservative. Reason plays no real part in his diagnoses about progressives and social conservatives. Therefore I can fairly conclude that reason plays no part in his diagnoses.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

It is interesting that social conservatives talk so much about family values. That is another way of saying Fatherly morality extended to government. Lakoff brings up the point that interfering with self interest is wrong, but he is really only discussing Social Conservatives, not libertarian conservatives.

The point about the growth in conservative think tanks that is now around fifty is interesting.

But not only does Mr. Lakoff miss the point that reason is primary to Objectivists but he also misses the point that libertarians generally think in a similar fashion. To libertarians the government that best promotes personal liberty is best. People discover their own self interests. Freedom gives everyone a better chance at prosperity. Freedom allows citizens to pursue happiness. Freedom works.

I listened to some of George Lakoffs opinion about how different world views are the *cause* for a person being progressive or socially conservative. Reason plays no real part in his diagnoses about progressives and social conservatives. Therefore I can fairly conclude that reason plays no part in his diagnoses.

Peter

On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason. See what David Hume has to say on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Serapis Bey]

Requesting Book Review by Scherk:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Inquisition-Robert-Wilson/dp/1561840025

The "New Inquisition", indeed. Confer with Randi and his minions and get back to us.

(The physics are probably out of date by this point since the book was written in the early 90's, but I'm confident the fundamentals are there)

My thanks to Michael for catching, identifying, and correcting my error of attribution. That my point form points were not from Lakoff renders much of my argument into cottage cheese ...

Re the question about 'The Bey,' my tortured metaphor was meant to illustrate a prejudice against monikers. I take the compliment on value given to heart: thank you.

At this moment I will pause and google 'serapis bey' . . .

Oy vey, oh my, an Ascended Master from the annals of Blavatsky's system of New Thought/Theosophy. Well, it has none of the sweetness and all of the abandon of the Vietnamese syncretic religion known as "Cao Dai."

If in Theosophy the pantheon is crowded with spiritual beings from classic ages of humankind, in Caodaiism the pantheon or roster of saintly beings extends from Jesus ("Jesus is regarded as a Buddha and true Son of God, shed directly from God," sez Wikipedia) to Confucius through Joan of Arc, picking up Victor Hugo and Sun Yat-Sen along the way) to lesser lights of the historical past**.

So many gauds and such a litter of gaud-spawn and gaud-infested joes and marys. It could make a head spin.

All in all, for me the nom de fustiger Serapis Bey strikes discordant bells of religious mania, bong bong bongity bong bong. I blame my prejudices and all those bongs for my confusion. I have no clue to the man as he is, know not which principles brought him to speak, or caused him to devolve, drop out of the pantheon as a bat drops from the cave roof, to scuttle about the litter and loam of Objectivist Living.

Perhaps the interesting story of Why I Visitroll Objectivish Sites could be told before the Bey is hoist back to the roof.

The posse seems just a little bit more pathetic upon researching their adopted names. Ascended Masters, perhaps. Be they bats, masters, shrews or ascended nitwits, I bit them Welcome to the largest online repository of open dialogue on Rand, Objectivism and the struggle of reason against madness.

Serapis Bey, master of the cave heights, can you tell briefly how Rand lit up your life -- again -- please?

Until that tale is wrought, I leave myself with this visual depiction of the bey, in his sexiest tie-die outfit.

Serapis Bey

... and for those who might enthuse or bark over the excesses of Cao Dai, a couple of pictures of their holy see, with its pantheon of Greats.

Colour-coded monks and nuns!

If that ain't Jesus and Mohammed and Dame Edna!

The see hisself again, from the outside.

____________________

** from an explanatory site

Cao Dai draws upon ethical precepts from Confucianism, occult practices from Taoism, theories of karma and rebirth from Buddhism, and a hierarchical organization (including a pope) from Roman Catholicism. Its pantheon of saints includes such diverse figures as the Buddha, Confucius, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Pericles, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Victor Hugo, and Sun Yat-sen.

[Serapis Bey]

It is interesting that social conservatives talk so much about family values. That is another way of saying Fatherly morality extended to government. Lakoff brings up the point that interfering with self interest is wrong, but he is really only discussing Social Conservatives, not libertarian conservatives.

The point about the growth in conservative think tanks that is now around fifty is interesting.

But not only does Mr. Lakoff miss the point that reason is primary to Objectivists but he also misses the point that libertarians generally think in a similar fashion. To libertarians the government that best promotes personal liberty is best. People discover their own self interests. Freedom gives everyone a better chance at prosperity. Freedom allows citizens to pursue happiness. Freedom works.

I listened to some of George Lakoffs opinion about how different world views are the *cause* for a person being progressive or socially conservative. Reason plays no real part in his diagnoses about progressives and social conservatives. Therefore I can fairly conclude that reason plays no part in his diagnoses.

Peter

On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason. See what David Hume has to say on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"The truth is simple: we are inherently irrational beings capable of rational thought" -- C. S. Hyatt

[Brant Gaede]

It is interesting that social conservatives talk so much about family values. That is another way of saying Fatherly morality extended to government. Lakoff brings up the point that interfering with self interest is wrong, but he is really only discussing Social Conservatives, not libertarian conservatives.

The point about the growth in conservative think tanks that is now around fifty is interesting.

But not only does Mr. Lakoff miss the point that reason is primary to Objectivists but he also misses the point that libertarians generally think in a similar fashion. To libertarians the government that best promotes personal liberty is best. People discover their own self interests. Freedom gives everyone a better chance at prosperity. Freedom allows citizens to pursue happiness. Freedom works.

I listened to some of George Lakoffs opinion about how different world views are the *cause* for a person being progressive or socially conservative. Reason plays no real part in his diagnoses about progressives and social conservatives. Therefore I can fairly conclude that reason plays no part in his diagnoses.

Peter

On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason. See what David Hume has to say on this matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"The truth is simple: we are inherently irrational beings capable of rational thought" -- C. S. Hyatt

We are inherently conceptual beings then comes rational-irrational for rational reasons out of various stages of fear and ignorance, bravery, cowardice and circumstances. Over time this rational can be corrupted enough to morph into irrational and likely stay there.

I'm not saying this is correct; what I'm saying is C.S. Hyatt made a trite statement if that's all he said.

--Brant

[Xray]

On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason.

Do logic and reason have more 'ancillary' qualities then, which humans will apply if it helps them to fulfill their desires/reach their goals?

(Example: the desire for faster and easier movement led to the invention of the wheel).

[BaalChatzaf]

On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason.

Do logic and reason have more 'ancillary' qualities then, which humans will apply if it helps them to fulfill their desires/reach their goals?

(Example: the desire for faster and easier movement led to the invention of the wheel).

Yes. Reason is ancillary, rather than primary.