A refreshing ray of sunlight - Tao of Rand

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is the source of your sweeping statements about what is and is not satire?

I have none.

I'm bluffing.

I never studied this topic.

In fact, I never heard of satire before Delingpole mentioned it.

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I'm a complete idiot.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's his correction comment:

James Delingpole misterioso 5 days ago −

I grant you that "satire" isn't quite the mot juste. Parable? Moral fable?

When I was partway into reading Atlas the first time, I started to think that it resembled a Medieval morality play. Then I started to think that it was an allegory similar to The Pilgrim's Progress, which tale Delingpole refers to in his article. By the time I finished Atlas, I'd come to think of it as a deliberate attempt at a new mythology

Ellen

I like the notion of a "moral fable." I'd never really thought of it that way --- just as fiction, but "fiction" is too general. Of course, it is quite a bit longer than Aesop's fables, but it attempts to tell what could happen --- what the consequences would be --- if the world were run a certain way and what the outcome might be if those with a proper morality would stand on principle.

I don't see it as an attempt at a new mythology. That sounds like a more apt description of Scientology, for example, not of a philosophy based on reason.

On another thread, I explained what I meant/mean in thinking of Atlas as a "mythology."

In that context, I meant the categorization as a high compliment. By "mythology," I meant an ethos - a view of how to live - fleshed out in the form of a story featuring moral exemplars. The stories we have of Jesus' life, ministry, and death are an example. Also the Greek epic The Odyssey and the old Northern saga of "Beowulf." These were all "mythologies" with which I had familiarity when I first read Atlas. None of them was a deliberate construction of a story by a single person with a worked-out ethics in mind which she wanted to show in living form in her tale. I was exteremly impressed by what Rand had accomplished, and I remain extremely impressed to this day.

There's a different meaning with which I use "myth" or "mythology," however, the meaning in statements such as, "That's a myth," i.e., a false claim or story. There's "myth" in this sense about Rand.

[....]

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is the source of your sweeping statements about what is and is not satire?

I have none.

I'm bluffing.

I never studied this topic.

In fact, I never heard of satire before Delingpole mentioned it.

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I'm a complete idiot.

Michael

I know I am going to regret this, but I'm too much of a smartass to keep my peace.

So here we go.

That quote of mine is a satire.

And it did what satires are supposed to do. Notice that this thread shut down over a week ago.

This is what happens when you go from pontificating about satire to actually doing one (albeit that was a diddly satire, a tidbit).

Am I aware of Juvenal and Wikipedia and blah blah blah? Yup.

Was I during the discussion? Yup. (Not as much as now, as I looked deeper this past week, but still yup.)

Do I agree? Nah. Somebody in Wikipedia's satire article has been is busy busy busy repeating and repeating that humor is not necessary to satire. And the list of dystopian novels above is practically copy/pasted from that article.

I see that as artsy-fartsy academic BS. You won't see that out in the real world. In fact, I believe this is the reason for so much insistence on it in the Wikipedia article and where that idea comes up at a sporadic other place or two on the InterWebs. Some academics (not all) are trying to make it so by repetition.

But if we use the meaning given by the artsy-fartsy folks where satire is practically any literature that makes social criticism, The Communist Manifesto would have to be classified as a satire. Good luck with that one. What? Satire has to be fiction? Then A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift is not a satire? Heh. We can do this crap all day and get nowhere.

So I'm not talking to the academics about this. I'm talking right now for the benefit of the reader.

For the moment, let's look at a phrase from the Encyclopedia Britannica (see here).

satire, artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.

Satire is a protean term. Together with its derivatives, it is one of the most heavily worked literary designations and one of the most imprecise.

btw (for readers who may not know), protean means "tending or able to change frequently or easily." (See here.)

Notice that after a litany of humor in the description above, even the EB says its literary designation is "one of the most imprecise." This means that if dystopic tragedies can be designated as satire, with fist pounded on table for emphasis, it also mean they cannot with tongue stuck out, right before the raspberry. Why? Because it's imprecise. There is no standard meaning.

B... b... b... but Wikipedia said it was satire. That means it must be true.

A... a... a... and the Encyclopedia Britannica says the term is imprecise. That must mean this is true, too.

Ah, but there is a standard meaning, my child. Fear not. It is the reason that people who claim humor (even of the negative kind) is not necessary to satire are obliged to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat their claim. And still nobody truly adopts their meaning for actually producing a satire. The academics only argue with each other (and anyone unlucky enough to stumble across their path) over what has already been produced.

In other words, if you want to work in the marketplace and learn writing skills to do so, you will learn to poke fun at others when you write satire, and oblique, vicious fun at that.

If you want to work at a college and maybe shoot for tenure so you can escape the marketplace, you will play word games, make some kind of boneheaded theory that satire is actually science fiction or whatever, reference a lot of obscure crap and try to force it into the theory, and have a go at it. If you doctor your junk up to look nice, the other academics will go, "Woah... heavy."

Ka-ching. Paycheck.

All that messy competition no more. You are a genius.

Here's the real issue. The concept of satire is one thing. The word satire has been detoured in academia at times to mean something other than the concept. But this is not true in the marketplace. The public still sees satire as comedy (negative comedy, maybe, but still comedy). When a writer sits down to write a satire, he will be thinking along cutting humor lines. Not about high drama or tragedy.

As to the genre of Atlas Shrugged being a satire, that one still takes my breath away. Maybe it would be a good idea to see what Rand thought. She only said it in her advertising a gazillion times over decades. In fact, it's still in the ads. She said the genre of AS was a mystery story, except it wasn't about the murder of man's body, but instead the murder of his soul.

Anyone remember that?

Now we're going to call murder mysteries satires, too?

I'm not.

So a word to the wise. Be careful when you want to lecture someone about his craft. He may work you into it.

Here are some satires I have written here on OL. Some folks may not like them, but many do. I know I sure had fun writing them.

Lampoon of Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo and The Atlas Society: Objectivist Schism Blues.

The backstory: Perigo haughtily refused to speak at an Atlas Society seminar after being invited because he wanted to cuss folks in spite from the stage and they wouldn't let him. But then he traveled halfway around the world to speak right next to the seminar so he could siphon off the TAS public to plug Valliant's boneheaded book. The TAS folks always went back for more abuse. They still do. And the abuse still comes. So I did a pox on both houses. (The TAS part was more of a poke in the ribs, of course, but not the Perigo part.)

Lampooning George Smith: see here.

I love George, so this was more in good fun than criticism. The backstory: We were bickering over David Barton and Chris Rodda. I had invested some long hours in listening to her criticisms of Barton months earlier and could take no more. She is Valliant on steroids. Or worse, a cross between Valliant and Lawrence O'Donnell. Sniggering in triumph over misplaced commas and crap like that. George wanted me to listen to her some more so we could bicker over examples of what I considered spin. I said hell no and let 'er fly. It's a cute little thing, too. Call it an alternative form of communication.

Lampooning Phil Coates: see here.

Just read the story at the beginning. Don't read the whole post, it's not worth it. The backstory: I couldn't get Phil to stop haranguing posters like a tattletale and teacher's pet, which irritated everyone, so I had some fun with him. This one didn't work, though. It didn't even slow him down. Still, Oyster Living Restaurant is kinda cool, even if I say so myself...

I've probably got more around here. But it's late and good authors know what happens when you ignore the rule of threes.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

I know I am going to regret this, but I'm too much of a smartass to keep my peace.

So here we go.

That quote of mine is a satire.

And it did what satires are supposed to do. Notice that this thread shut down over a week ago.

This is what happens when you go from pontificating about satire to actually doing one (albeit that was a diddly satire, a tidbit).

Am I aware of Juvenal and Wikipedia and blah blah blah? Yup.

Was I during the discussion? Yup. (Not as much as now, as I looked deeper this past week, but still yup.)

Do I agree? Nah. Somebody in Wikipedia's satire article has been is busy busy busy repeating and repeating that humor is not necessary to satire. And the list of dystopian novels above is practically copy/pasted from that article.

I see that as artsy-fartsy academic BS. You won't see that out in the real world. In fact, I believe this is the reason for so much insistence on it in the Wikipedia article and where that idea comes up at a sporadic other place or two on the InterWebs. Some academics (not all) are trying to make it so by repetition.

I cited Wikipedia simply to counter your assertion that "Satire is a form of comedy" and that a serious book like Atlas Shrugged cannot be called a satire. Wikipedia is far from being the only authority on the subject. See also here, here, and here. There are whole libraries of books on literary terms and the meaning of them. So feel free to cite any website, any book, any scholar that supports your narrow definition of the word.

The essential point is that my use of the word "satire" in a more inclusive way is anything but "odd" or "crackpot" as you claimed in Post #10.

If you see scholars as "artsy-fartsy academic," i.e. untrustworthy and at odds with the general public, then go take a poll. But any high school student who's read Animal Farm can tell you a) it is a satire and b) it is not a comedy.

In my initial post I said, "Among other things, Atlas Shrugged is a satire."

You responded, "While there are some satirical elements in a few sporadic parts of Atlas Shrugged, I would hardly call the book a comedy."

On that point we can agree and on that agreement, perhaps, we should leave the matter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In my initial post I said, "Among other things, Atlas Shrugged is a satire."

You responded, "While there are some satirical elements in a few sporadic parts of Atlas Shrugged, I would hardly call the book a comedy."

On that point we can agree and on that agreement, perhaps, we should leave the matter.

FF,

Now you're talking my language.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

btw - One of the books you linked to from Amazon (Satire: A Critical Reintroduction by Dustin Griffin) has an introduction on Amazon itself that is almost a self-satire of the artsy-fartsy school:

Griffin concludes that satire is problematic, open-ended, essayistic, and ambiguous in its relationship to history, uncertain in its political effect, resistant to formal closure, more inclined to ask questions than provide answers, and ambivalent about the pleasures it offers.

I couldn't make that one up.

(You didn't really read those three books, did you? )

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

btw - One of the books you linked to from Amazon (Satire: A Critical Reintroduction by Dustin Griffin) has an introduction on Amazon itself that is almost a self-satire of the artsy-fartsy school:

Griffin concludes that satire is problematic, open-ended, essayistic, and ambiguous in its relationship to history, uncertain in its political effect, resistant to formal closure, more inclined to ask questions than provide answers, and ambivalent about the pleasures it offers.

I couldn't make that one up.

(You didn't really read those three books, did you? )

Michael

First, let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb. Secondly, the gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition. On that point I heartily agree. In literature there are a great many terms that require lengthy and nuanced explanations.

A very good example for this forum is "romanticism." Ayn Rand said, "Romantic literature accepts as its fundamental principle . . . that the role of a fiction writer is to present things not as they are but as they might be or ought to be."

The problem is that Rand's definition while capturing the "expressive" aspect of romanticism, ignores the rest of it, which included rejecting reason, science, commerce, and the "atomistic" society produced by rationalism. No wonder then that the romantics largely hated the free market, the division of labor and the Industrial Revolution. For an excellent treatment of the romantic movement see, M.H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp.

As for the three books I cited on satire, I read all of one and parts of the other two in order to prepare for an evening course I taught on George Orwell.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

First, let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb. Secondly, the gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition. On that point I heartily agree.

FF,

Ah come on. It was going so good for a minute.

Do you really want to do this enlightened master instructing the unwashed masses routine? OK. Let's go there for a minute.

You wrote, "Let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb."

Really? And you know that how? Do you know him?

You may say well the publisher, not the author supplies blurb text. OK. That's often true (and often not.) So are you certain Griffen did not write the text for The University Press of Kentucky? If so, how do you know he did not write it? In my experience, university presses are not very strong in the marketing department and there is a culture of authors writing their promotional material, at least the first draft. Or they write it in direct collusion with the publisher. It's not always, but it happens plenty. But how do you know Griffen did not do something like that?

Now let's look at the common sense angle. Is the style of the blurb in the same style as the rest of the book? I don't own the book and there is no preview, so it's impossible to say with absolute accuracy. But if I were a betting man, I would bet it does. Also, I don't see that kind of style as boilerplate marketing in popular books. So I believe it's a good guess the author wrote it. And it's a better guess the author at least approved the text before publication.

Let's dig the hole deeper. You said. "The gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition." I say horseshit. That's not the gist of the sentence at all. Here is another quote from the same blurb, just a couple of sentences distant from the one I quoted above:

Because satire often operates as a mode or procedure rather than as a genre, Griffin offers not a comprehensive theory but a set of critical perspectives.

Griffen doesn't even think satire can be confined to a genre, so how can it be a "broad genre"? He certainly does not put forth a "comprehensive theory." At least the blurb says so. This means he cannot say anything for sure about the definition of satire.

Moving on. You said, "On that point I heartily agree." I am pretty sure you were thinking about the "broad" and "defies simplistic definition" part. So according to that standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is a satire. I can agree with that.

But here's the rub. Using that same standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is NOT a satire. Because it's going to depend on the authority of the one who decides the components of the non-simplistic definition--being that simplicity is thoroughly defied and all. So who may that be, pray tell? The one who throws the most quotes at the other? The one who can outsnark the other? The one who plays the snooty intellectual intimidation game better and rules in artsy-fartsy-land? The one who owns the printing press? The one who teaches a class? Or maybe by vote or referendum of selected individuals? Or by popular demand? Who?

This is conceptual mush.

I can do this stuff all day, but this is not the reason I like to discuss ideas.

So, I'll stop the crap now. I suggest you do the same. Whatever. It's your choice.

Any more wise words to light the path of the ignorant?

Inquiring minds do so very much clamor for enlightenment.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

First, let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb. Secondly, the gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition. On that point I heartily agree.

FF,

Ah come on. It was going so good for a minute.

Do you really want to do this enlightened master instructing the unwashed masses routine? OK. Let's go there for a minute.

You wrote, "Let's be clear that Griffin didn't write that blurb."

Really? And you know that how? Do you know him?

You may say well the publisher, not the author supplies blurb text. OK. That's often true (and often not.) So are you certain Griffen did not write the text for The University Press of Kentucky? If so, how do you know he did not write it? In my experience, university presses are not very strong in the marketing department and there is a culture of authors writing their promotional material, at least the first draft. Or they write it in direct collusion with the publisher. It's not always, but it happens plenty. But how do you know Griffen did not do something like that?

Now let's look at the common sense angle. Is the style of the blurb in the same style as the rest of the book? I don't own the book and there is no preview, so it's impossible to say with absolute accuracy. But if I were a betting man, I would bet it does. Also, I don't see that kind of style as boilerplate marketing in popular books. So I believe it's a good guess the author wrote it. And it's a better guess the author at least approved the text before publication.

Let's dig the hole deeper. You said. "The gist of the sentence quoted is that satire is a broad genre and defies simplistic definition." I say horseshit. That's not the gist of the sentence at all. Here is another quote from the same blurb, just a couple of sentences distant from the one I quoted above:

Because satire often operates as a mode or procedure rather than as a genre, Griffin offers not a comprehensive theory but a set of critical perspectives.

Griffen doesn't even think satire can be confined to a genre, so how can it be a "broad genre"? He certainly does not put forth a "comprehensive theory." At least the blurb says so. This means he cannot say anything for sure about the definition of satire.

Moving on. You said, "On that point I heartily agree." I am pretty sure you were thinking about the "broad" and "defies simplistic definition" part. So according to that standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is a satire. I can agree with that.

But here's the rub. Using that same standard, it's perfectly all right to say 1984 is NOT a satire. Because it's going to depend on the authority of the one who decides the components of the non-simplistic definition--being that simplicity is thoroughly defied and all. So who may that be, pray tell? The one who throws the most quotes at the other? The one who can outsnark the other? The one who plays the snooty intellectual intimidation game better and rules in artsy-fartsy-land? The one who owns the printing press? The one who teaches a class? Or maybe by vote or referendum of selected individuals? Or by popular demand? Who?

This is conceptual mush.

I can do this stuff all day, but this is not the reason I like to discuss ideas.

So, I'll stop the crap now. I suggest you do the same. Whatever. It's your choice.

Any more wise words to light the path of the ignorant?

Inquiring minds do so very much clamor for enlightenment.

Michael

I do not know who wrote the blurb. In any case, the words make perfect sense to me.

1984 qualifies as a satire if we accept the definitions of satire that are in wide currency:

Merriam-Webster: "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn"

Dictionary.com: "1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule."

It would not qualify if we we were to use an idiosyncratic definition insists that all satire is comedy.

Am I appealing to authority by referencing Wiki and other sources? Perhaps so.

And you are, of course, free to insist on a definition that is pure and free of "mush" and owes nothing to the "artsy-fartsy" (an undefined term).

What you cannot do, unless you submit supporting evidence, is to declare that applying the word "satire" to non-comedic works is "odd" or "crackpot." It is no such thing. There are quite a few serious novels that are accepted by both scholars and the wider public as satirical.

It is rather like Mr. Moralist insisting elsewhere on this forum that only a person with morals can be called a "woman" and that all other members of that gender are merely "females." Moralist is entitled to his specialized vocabulary and you to yours.

But don't start telling the rest of us that we're using words the wrong way.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But don't start telling the rest of us that we're using words the wrong way.

FF,

I never said that.

(Besides, who are you to tell anyone what to do? Heh. You're a bossy little thing, ain't you? Do you stamp your foot and pout, too?)

I said you are using concepts the wrong way.

There is a difference between a concept and a word. I'm beginning to believe you don't know the difference. You certainly show inconsistent signs in conceptual thinking.

I suggest reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or rereading it if you already have in order to understand it this time around. Granted, it's Objectivism 102, not 101, and boring as all hell, but you have a good mind when you aren't using it for playing social standing mind games. I'm sure you will manage to get through it and actually understand it if you try (and without referencing the artsy-fartsy world or correcting the unwashed masses to boot).

In other words, I believe you have the capacity to use your own mind and do your own thinking should you wish to. You alone. Individual. But hey, I might be wrong. I have been before...

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

One of the archetypes Rand really, really liked came from the Judeo-Christian mythology. I remember reading where she considered Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer as an Avenging Angel.

[....]

In fact, John Galt is an Avenging Angel mixed with Prometheus. He is pure myth in the best sense of the term. That's probably why his character arc is a flat line, i.e, not an arc at all.

Also, Galt is a reverse Christ.

One of the images of Christ is that of the lamb sacrificed to cleanse the sins of the world. Galt refuses the role of sacrificial victim.

Another of the parallels is Galt on the torture rack compared to Christ on the cross.

See the next post.

[One type of character arc] is having some kind of self-limiting belief in the beginning and breaking through it in the end to finally realize a longing.

Both Dagny and Rearden.

Ellen

Ellen,

I don't go as far as to call Galt a reverse Christ. I see more parallels than differences. Gathering disciples. Saving the world. And so on. (Our mileage obviously differs. )

I'm sure you remember, I got into a kerfuffle back in the SoloHQ days when I claimed Rand's characters turned the other cheek as a tactic at times (see here). Trying to get the simple idea of strategy and tactic across to those folks after Perigo went on the warpath was my big wake-up call as to how irrational O-Land really can become. And how easy crowd control worked on O-Land people. All I could do back then was look on in awe.

And I still think that Galt telling the torture machine operator how to fix it parallels Jesus building his own cross. Granted, Galt wanted to humiliate the operator (Perigo even had him not only laughing, but laughing sadistically ) , but suppose the operator was not so stupid. Unless Rand was projecting fortune-telling into Galt's super-powers and he was 100% sure the operator would not be able to fix the machine, that was a risk. (Of course she wasn't giving Galt that super-power. ) But in that case, the machine Galt was helping to fix was still the machine the captors were using to torture him. Considering the risk, that qualifies as a big honking cheek-turn in my book.

In mythological terms, rather than reverse Christ, I consider Galt to be Christ with a Randian spin. Sure, some of the message is different, but much of it has strong parallels. Especially on individualism. Jesus's message was that the individual was precious for life in the hereafter, so it was OK to be selfish in that regard (although he didn't explicitly say that). Galt's message is that all individuals are precious (although he didn't explicitly say that), but for living their own lives on this earth. Call one supernatural individualism and the other material individualism.

I could go on and on about this. But I don't discuss it much because it pisses too many people off in O-Land and I just get tired of bickering.

I recently got the a book by John Aglialoro's stepson: The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground by Mark David Henderson. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if he will talk about this stuff. Later when I read it, I will talk about it here on the forum.

The thing about metaphors and myths is that they can be interpreted in many different manners. And they all work. It just depends on your own understanding. Just look at all the different approaches to Christianity. We're starting to see this divergence with Rand's works, too.

On your point about the character arcs of Dagny and Hank, there are two other interesting arcs in secondary characters in AS: Cheryl and Wet Nurse. Both moved from innocent blindness (even with bad education in Wet Nurse's case) to full awareness--both with death at the end, too.

Michael

I like the sound of "supernatural individualism".

[Francisco Ferrer]

But don't start telling the rest of us that we're using words the wrong way.

FF,

I never said that.

(Besides, who are you to tell anyone what to do? Heh. You're a bossy little thing, ain't you? Do you stamp your foot and pout, too?)

I said you are using concepts the wrong way.

There is a difference between a concept and a word. I'm beginning to believe you don't know the difference. You certainly show inconsistent signs in conceptual thinking.

I suggest reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or rereading it if you already have in order to understand it this time around. Granted, it's Objectivism 102, not 101, and boring as all hell, but you have a good mind when you aren't using it for playing social standing mind games. I'm sure you will manage to get through it and actually understand it if you try (and without referencing the artsy-fartsy world or correcting the unwashed masses to boot).

In other words, I believe you have the capacity to use your own mind and do your own thinking should you wish to. You alone. Individual. But hey, I might be wrong. I have been before...

Michael

Let's return to your Post #10:

Feel free to attach odd meanings to words as you deny their normal meanings. But you come off as a crackpot when you try to instruct people about things you do not know. I predict you will always have communication problems.

Note the phrase, "attach odd meanings to words."

In describing Atlas Shrugged as, among other things, a "satire," I used the word in a way that is consistent with its usage throughout the English-speaking world. As I showed with references to several sources, satire is not exclusively comedic and may be applied to serious, even dystopian works.

As for the distinction between concepts and words, the only way you can know what concepts I am forming is by reading the words I use to represent those concepts. Yet you have offered no proof that the idea of satire as a genre of literature that encompasses both the comedic and the serious is conceptually in error.

I have a very clear idea of what the word means. When I use the word, others understand me without difficulty. You are the only one who appears to have a problem.

I have read ITOE. Kindly cite the part wherein Rand forbids concepts that admit a wide range of objects into the class.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

I am right.

You don't know the difference between a word and a concept. Otherwise you would not have made a gross error as you quibbled over semantics just now. You need to reread the book.

OK, I'm starting to get a bead on you. You are confused on concepts and insecure as all hell, demonstrated by your precious little bossiness and yawp yawp yawp defensiveness.

But I repeat, I see a good mind buried under the crap you throw out.

I wouldn't have talked to you as long as I have if I didn't.

I'm just not a fan of crap. And I will continue to treat it as such so long as you bury your mind under it and talk to me. Squishy in there, ain't it?

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

I am right.

You don't know the difference between a word and a concept. Otherwise you would not have made a gross error as you quibbled over semantics just now. You need to reread the book.

OK, I'm starting to get a bead on you. You are confused on concepts and insecure as all hell, demonstrated by your precious little bossiness and yawp yawp yawp defensiveness.

But I repeat, I see a good mind buried under the crap you throw out.

I wouldn't have talked to you as long as I have if I didn't.

I'm just not a fan of crap. And I will continue to treat it as such so long as you bury your mind under it and talk to me. Squishy in there, ain't it?

Michael

If I've made an error, point it out. Otherwise you're just making unsupported assertions.

You invoke the name of Ayn Rand and her book on epistemology, yet when challenged for a citation, you answer with more accusations and complaints: "yawp, yawp, yawp."

I certainly appreciate your concern about my insecurities. Now that you've apparently abandoned the attempt to prove that I've attached an odd and crackpot meaning to the word "satire," perhaps you'll feel on firmer ground in the realm of counseling.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

FF,

The error was focusing on the word "word" and leaving out "deny their normal meanings." What the hell do you think "meaning" refers to if not a concept? That's what I was talking about and it went right over your head.

You exhibit what is commonly referred to in the Objectivist literature as a "concrete bound mentality." In my experience, people like that don't discuss, they compete. They often play gotcha as their driving intellectual motor (as is your bent). Peikoff once did a pretty good lampoon of this mentality in a lecture, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand." He was discussing the difference between thinking in principles and thinking concrete-bound, and how Rand thought in principles.

Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

Anyway, do carry on. Enjoy the forum. I'm not going to be drawn into your mind games. But please respect the posting guidelines. And try to contain your urge to boss others around or I will intervene. That's not a request. That's a demand.

For the readers, I am willing to discuss satire with anyone, including any errors or misunderstandings I may make. OL regulars know I own up when I am wrong. In the present case, I have my reasons so I don't think I am, but I'm willing to discuss it. But on an idea level. Conceptual level. Essentials. Not on a mind game level. I'm not up for helping a person play out a neurotic inner script so he can buttress up a false sense of self-worth in his mind.

Here's the script I am referring to:

FF (joining a discussion and targeting a person): You are wrong. XXXXX is true, not what you say.

PERSON: No, you didn't get my meaning. I'm trying to...

FF: Here are examples of where you are wrong. (Presents copy/paste items and links to entire articles, websites or books instead of quoting them.) See? You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

PERSON (getting irritated): No, you're wrong about what I'm talking about.

FF: Show me one source of where I am wrong. You can't. Ha Ha!

PERSON: (Tries to explain.)

FF (cherry-picking a word from the explanation, making errors and getting the concepts all mixed up): You see? You say this word, but you are unable to provide a single source to back it up. And I have provided many to prove you are wrong. Don't you dare talk to me about what you are wrong about. Just sit down and shut up. You have no right to speak until you bow down to me.

OK... I exaggerated a little. But I invite the reader to go back through discussions with this dude (especially if you have engaged him) and you will see this pattern over and over and over. This dude could "win" on a completely wrong idea, know it, and still be satisfied. But this is using people for mental masturbation, not discussing ideas. It's a neurotic itch and it plays out the same every time. I bet if anyone has a lot of time to waste and has the stomach to go through all his posts (I don't), they would find some great examples.

It's also a good pattern for derailing discussions of ideas and making them all about FF. Just look at this thread. Are we talking about the cool impact Rand is having on the culture in unexpected places as evidenced by the article in the opening post? Nope. We are talking about FF and why he is not wrong. This is kind of like a morph of Phil Coates, but with a bit of nastiness added.

Psychologizing? After all those examples from this dude? Hell yeah.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

The error was focusing on the word "word" and leaving out "deny their normal meanings." What the hell do you think "meaning" refers to if not a concept? That's what I was talking about and it went right over your head.

But I did not deny the "normal" meaning of the word "satire." In fact, I provided evidence that my definition (concept) of the word was normal, i.e., consistent with the definition (concept) that is widely understood by those who regularly write about the subject.

You exhibit what is commonly referred to in the Objectivist literature as a "concrete bound mentality." In my experience, people like that don't discuss, they compete. They often play gotcha as their driving intellectual motor (as is your bent). Peikoff once did a pretty good lampoon of this mentality in a lecture, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand." He was discussing the difference between thinking in principles and thinking concrete-bound, and how Rand thought in principles.

Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

Once more, I see that rather than offering any proof that the meaning I attached to the word "satire" was odd or crackpot, your response is to evade and fire off another unsupported accusation. The very fact I've been careful to explain my use of the word and reference it with numerous, consistent definitions (concepts) explodes the "concrete-bound" charge as an absurdity.

Anyway, do carry on. Enjoy the forum. I'm not going to be drawn into your mind games. But please respect the posting guidelines. And try to contain your urge to boss others around or I will intervene. That's not a request. That's a demand.

For the readers, I am willing to discuss satire with anyone, including any errors or misunderstandings I may make. OL regulars know I own up when I am wrong. In the present case, I have my reasons so I don't think I am, but I'm willing to discuss it. But on an idea level. Conceptual level. Essentials. Not on a mind game level. I'm not up for helping a person play out a neurotic inner script so he can buttress up a false sense of self-worth in his mind.

Here's the script I am referring to:

FF (joining a discussion and targeting a person): You are wrong. XXXXX is true, not what you say.

PERSON: No, you didn't get my meaning. I'm trying to...

FF: Here are examples of where you are wrong. (Presents copy/paste and links to entire articles instead of quoting them.) See? You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

PERSON (getting irritated): No, you're wrong about what I'm talking about.

FF: Show me one source of where I am wrong. You can't. Ha Ha!

PERSON: (Tries to explain.)

FF (cherry-picking a word from the explanation, making errors and getting the concepts all mixed up): You see? You say this word, but you are unable to provide a single source to back it up. And I have provided many to prove you are wrong. Don't you dare talk to me about what you are wrong about. Just sit down and shut up. You have no right to speak until you bow down to me.

OK... I exaggerated a little. But I invite the reader to go back through discussions with this dude (especially if you have engaged him) and you will see this pattern over and over and over. This dude could "win" on a completely wrong idea, know it, and still be satisfied. But this is using people for mental masturbation, not discussing ideas. It's a neurotic itch and it plays out the same every time. I bet if anyone has a lot of time to waste and has the stomach to go through all his posts (I don't), they would find some great examples.

It's also a good pattern for derailing discussions of ideas and making them all about FF. Just look at this thread. Are we talking about the cool impact Rand is having on the culture in unexpected places as evidenced by the article in the opening post? Nope. We are talking about FF and why he is not wrong. This is kind of like a morph of Phil Coates, but with a bit of nastiness added.

Psychologizing? After all those examples from this dude? Hell yeah.

Michael

I appreciate your attempt to re-write this thread in playlet format. Perhaps that skit is what you'd like the readers to take for what happened. Perhaps that is what you take for what happened. As for me, I prefer the unabridged version.

Regarding your notes on "mental masturbation," "false sense of inner self-worth" and "neurotic itch": again, thanks for permitting me to lie on your couch and writing up an analysis without fee.

As for the allegation of derailing the discussion, you might recall that just a day ago I attempted to call a ceasefire in Post #29. Here's how it went:

Francisco Ferrer, on 14 Sept 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

In my initial post I said, "Among other things, Atlas Shrugged is a satire."

You responded, "While there are some satirical elements in a few sporadic parts of Atlas Shrugged, I would hardly call the book a comedy."

On that point we can agree and on that agreement, perhaps, we should leave the matter.

You responded:

FF,

Now you're talking my language.

Michael

Can you tell me why that was not the end of it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can you tell me why that was not the end of it?

FF,

Figure it out. (I guarantee you most readers have.)

There are no word games or references from others to use as weapons to win an argument for that question.

You gotta mind. Use it for a change.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

I have figured it out:

You couldn't resist one more jab at what you call the "artsy-fartsy."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's actually not a bad idea.

But no.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sorry about that. Wrong thread. See the "Apples..." thread.

Ellen