Jump to content



Member Since 23 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Mar 23 2012 12:05 AM

Topics I've Started

Garbage from Seymourblogger

14 February 2012 - 06:10 PM

(NOTE FROM MSK: This pearl of wisdom came from another thread right after this post.)

If that's the truth, should it be spoke or just inferred?


My concern is not with that poster, but instead with OL.

Should truth on OL be spoken or just inferred?

Think about it.

I don't mind teasing readers to jazz up a payoff for them, but I don't like teasing readers with BS. So I just blurt it out when a tease like that starts.


She sure hit SOLP like a blunderbuss. She's really scattered, replying to posts I didn't make as if I did. After seeing that, maybe you should have restricted her to three a day. I couldn't do what you do in running this place even if I had the time. I'm actually less tolerant.


And much more of a hothead who smears Foucault with slander because you don't have the knowledge, nor the persistence to get it as Shenck (sp?) has said, you need to address his work intelligently. It's "yellow journalism" of the kind Rand wrote about in her Journal, while she was researching Hurst for the character of Wynand. In fact your slur on Foucault was to attack me and make him seem like an unprincipled virus murderer of Mexican boys. Therefore anything he wrote that Seymourblogger quoted was worthless. Turn Foucault into a scumbag and get me at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone eh.

That's another shoddy tactic of yours and shows your lack of integrity, something I have known all along. I am glad it is out in the open for all to see, even MSK sees it now. I am pleased and proud to be someone you dislike so much you would smear someone I was intellectually admiring and quoting.

It seems Foucault was aware he was dying and yet in denial. He finished the last two volumes of his History of Sexuality that he had been planning and talked about for almost 2 decades after he published vol I. The final manuscript went to his publisher just days before he went into the hospital where he died shortly after. He left no formal will. His longtime lover and partner was agonizing over the fact that his family might get control of his writing and only by diligent searching in their apartment did he find a letter leaving everything to him, Daniel Defert. And in the letter very strongly put was : No posthumous publication. None. Defert has respected his wishes while everyone has screamed. Much like Peikoff and Rand. All Foucault's notes are in the archive at the Bibioteche (sp?) where they remain. There were boxes and boxes of genalogies he was working on. Transcripts from tapes at his lectures at the College de France have been transcribed and published.

He was loved, admired, respected, feared by students all over the world. And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back. I also think they were intelligent and not nasty little motherfuckers who like to smear people with gossip.

I especially noticed you just had to mention that roman faux sort of novel a friend of his wrote. Nasty nasty person that you are..

Is that the truth now--finally?

You may have a legit beef about my Foucault comment. I do wonder what is consensual age for a boy? Did he love them knowing he had AIDS?

As for my integrity and Michael, I've not gotten anything from him about that. Did you infer an intimation from him? That's not how he works.

What novel are you talking about? I don't remember it.

It's now blatantly obvious you care nothing about Rand except as a pony for your pomo ride. We're supposed to respect your feelings about Foucault while you do nothing but throw her into your Foucaultian Brier patch?


Are you such an idiot that you don't know people with AIDS have sex without murdering someone or infecting someone.

You are the one who used the term roman faux. Actually it was a novel and it had real elements in it about Foucault, his lover and his death. You probably pasted it from somewhere because you didn't know what you were talking about. I am sorry your life is so complicated. I would be surprised if it weren't.

Nasty motherfucker.

And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.

Reading DeLillo's Cosmopolis Through Ayn Rand

26 January 2012 - 11:29 PM

I am presently working on reading Cosmopolis through Ayn Rand for a symposium on DeLillo and a panel on Cosmopolis. Right now I'm falling asleep though. Tomorrow is another day.

Rand through a Nietzsche filter

22 January 2012 - 07:28 PM

(NOTE FROM MSK: I peeled this off from a different thread.)

I don't know if this thread is dead or not.

I pay no attention to Objectivism as a formal philosophy. It is quite different from Rand's fiction. And the two are in different orders. Her fiction is in the Order of Seduction and her non-fiction is in the Order of Production. I am taking this from the work of Jean Baudrillard.

Fountainhead is permeated with Nietzsche. Her writing style in it is aphoristic, seductive, suggestive and while not all things Nietzsche, certainly so much of him is revealed and concealed that if Fountainhead is read through Nietzsche, all the psychological drivel of the Superman/Overman vanishes. We see Roark and Wynand trying to embody the growth towards that experience of existence. Dominique has been portrayed as a psychological masochist seeking her own self-destruction. And this view has been solidified by Rand's own words which we can read in her published Journal. The context of it was that Patricia Neal was having difficulty with her portrayal of the character of dominique and Rand was explaining it for her. Well, Rand certainly had to explain within the Dominating Discourse of psychological interpretation so Dominique was doomed forever to be seen in this way.

Fountainhead was printed on wartime paper. Rand wrote it with Nietzsche at the helm. Every chapter was to be prefaced with a quote from Nietzsche and a tribute to him for the book. alas Hitler had embraced Nietzsche and doomed him for the time being. No publisher would have allowed Nietzsche to be named in print as Rand intended.

Kiss of Death!

Lest anyone blame Rand for her lack of courage even Foucault, as intellectually powerful as he was, said toward the end of his life, that he regretted not acknowledging Nietzsche earlier in his career for his great debt to him. Foucault expanded on Nietzsche's genealogical method to make the method the preferred was of thinking about human behavior. Psychology, history, language, etc. Both of these titans were wise to follow Galileo, eh.

Dominique can be read as a Nietzschean strategist, choosing the "worst" excess possible. This is the same strategy Eric Packer uses in Cosmopolis to implode the global currency market. Rand took everything to excess, to the edge of the abyss where it topples over into the chasm. This is Nietzsche folks.

Considering Ayn Rand as a Post Modern Philosopher - heir to Nietzsche

22 January 2012 - 07:05 PM

Are there others who wish to explore this topic with me. Ron Merrill in his book was so close with his uncovering of Rand's first edition of We the Living, comparing it with her revised edition, and her rationalization that her English was wavery at the time she wrote it. Barbara Branden in her book describes Rand as buying Zarathustra as her first book in English when she got here and underlining all her favorite passages. So we know she perfected her English by reading Nietzsche. As William Burroughs says, a good way to learn a working knowledge of a foreign language is to take a book in that language that is one of your favorites and the same book in your native language. By the time you finish you will have a decent command of the language.

I don't know if you have experienced how a favorite writer, at an early impressionable age, can take over your imagination, your thinking, your language, etc. But I guess many of you do as Rand has done that for many readers.

There are other parallels with Nietzsche that we could discuss. Rand's linguistic gifts received from Nietzsche and his unique way of thinking and writing.

Yes? No?