seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post? George, It's plumage. Michael You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said. You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake. Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life. I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Fpucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means. Ghs So you want to do a pro and con. Nope to that trap. Come up with something better.If you regard it as a "trap" for someone to suggest that you explain what you like about Foucault and regard as his best ideas, then you are probably a tin-plated phony. It is a perfectly reasonable request.GhsNo it isn't. Apparently you are not aware of Foucault's utterances on polemics. "I never engage in them." You cannot engage in them without doing so within the Dominating Discourse of dialectics. In other words, On your turf. Do you really want to play ping-pong here for years and years. I used to but no more. Rand stopped it by just stating a premise that couldn't be argued with, or so she thought.Your move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I want to put up the one darren did on me at solo. It is rique. Naked. Can I use it or should I choose the bathing suit one he did to ridicule me?Can't you come up with something better than that? Especially seeing as that's stuff done at a site of people who hate me?Re nudes in avatars, I'd rather not have them. Not for prudery. But just so other people with bad ideas and/or intentions don't start turning a philosophy forum into a zoo.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post? George, It's plumage. Michael You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said. You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life.I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.Ghs Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post? George, It's plumage. Michael You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said. You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life.I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.GhsThis looks like a good discussion, of value to those who have not read Foucault at all.Level playing field, you have read him in translation so Seymour should disclose whether she read him in the original or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Dialectic: The main course in a bad French restaurant.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Dialectic: The main course in a bad French restaurant.--BrantDiet eclectic, or it's diuretic time!The dire ethics of this world, cyber and not, require those who evangelize to do so in the dialect of the natives. Otherwise it's no loaves, no fishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 This looks like a good discussion, of value to those who have not read Foucault at all.Level playing field, you have read him in translation so Seymour should disclose whether she read him in the original or not.No I only read him in English. To debate pro and con is to go against everything he wrote, said, did, taught. I've been there done that. Doing it is only a high level intellectual game where we can all show ho9w smart we are. Or aren't. Plumage.If you really want to understand him : http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/01/review-moneyball-foucault-and.html read this post I did on him and of course the one above it which brings in Baudrillard. Then we may be on a level laying field quicker and better. If you saw Moneyball. If not, then we are back on square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Something seymourblogger just posted about NBI days made me realize something. I've wondered why when I post something critical, even if it's midly so and polite (like I think we shouldn't be so politics heavy and why a whole thread on a political event overseas), I get a very hostile response. Four or five people jump in and participate. And it's normally the same four of five. And if I persist it very often involves character and honesty and 'hypocrisy' attacks. I've always been the same kind of person - high school, college, companies I worked for, normal people I've hung out with. Willing to observe a criticism or offer advice. Not shy or a wallflower in that respect. Yet I've -never- gotten so unremittingly hostile (let alone often quite personal and vicious) a response as I have on several Objectivist boards.Why so strong a reaction out of all proportion to the cause?I suspect that the very people who attack me the most vehemently were often silent and acquiescent back in their NBI or Peikoff days (depending how old they are.) Now, it's as if you went through years of Catholic school and bowed your head and didn't talk back to the authority figures and now someone pops up on a discussion board and defends any kind of order, strict rules, grammar, etc.Don't give me no stinkin' badges. From some deep level of your subconscious the displaced feelings of frustration, guilt, resentment well up. You get a chance finally to project onto that person all the authoritarianism, all the strict rules that you resented. And perhaps in some cases, you may have felt squelched, felt that you should have politely questioned Rand, Peikoff, the 'in crowd', Objectivism earlier on.[italics are mine, not yours]Can you help me with a simple question? How can you (or anyone else) know what is going on in someone else's head as in understanding intention or motivation. In my entire life I have never been able to know anything about anyone else other than what I inferred from their externalities: speech, writings, public actions, body language, facial expression etc. Short of a real time PET scan how can anyone know what is going on in someone else's head?I have been "mind blind" my entire life. I did not even begin to grasp body language until my mid 20s and for me body language is like a foreign language. I only know about it by purely empirical and external means. I cannot relate it to anything going on inside med. To put a point on it, I have not got the foggiest notion of what someone else is feeling other than by inference and guesswork. I have not the foggiest notion of what motivates others. So I simply take them at their word when they express a motive publicly. And even then I don't know - since they could be mistaken or lying.Ba'al ChatzafYou have seduced me into answering you. I am not sure. One could say a touch of autism, but that is clinical and I don't like it. Tell me more. Your ID indicates you are not American. Maybe that has something to do with what you wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ms. Abbey:Robert is very American. Asperger syndrome.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If you regard it as a "trap" for someone to suggest that you explain what you like about Foucault and regard as his best ideas, then you are probably a tin-plated phony. It is a perfectly reasonable request.GhsNo it isn't. Apparently you are not aware of Foucault's utterances on polemics. "I never engage in them." You cannot engage in them without doing so within the Dominating Discourse of dialectics. In other words, On your turf. Do you really want to play ping-pong here for years and years. I used to but no more. Rand stopped it by just stating a premise that couldn't be argued with, or so she thought.Your move.As the saying goes, one cannot checkmate an opponent who refuses to play chess. So stick with the name-dropping and steer clear of serious discussions, by all means.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Phil,If you want to know why the same four or five people are usually hostile to your posts, why don't you ask them (or us)? I suspect they (or we)would be happy to explain their (or our) reactions.In fact, the reasons have been explained many times before. You just don't want to listen. That's your prerogative, of course, but the truth is that you have a manner of expressing yourself that can be excessively self-centered and condescending, even when you have legitimate points. At times you seem to be deliberately provoking hostile responses, but I'm not sure how much of this you are actually aware of. This puzzles me, frankly, because you could solve the problem fairly easily, provided you were willing to make a little effort. But you won't change anything unless you first admit that your critics might have a point, and you have been unwilling to do this, preferring instead to speculate about the motives of your critics, even though they don't typically have the same problem with other posters. It is more a matter of style than substance. Try writing some posts without the pronouns "I" and "me." That might help. GhsYou are more familiar with him than I. What is his resistance to hearing you? Figure that out and you will have your answer. If you want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 As the saying goes, one cannot checkmate an opponent who refuses to play chess. So stick with the name-dropping and steer clear of serious discussions, by all means.GhsNow here the orders come: Authoritarianism has entered the comments. Heil!You don't play my game my way, go home.Didja all notice the change in the Discourse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ms. Abbey:Robert is very American. Asperger syndrome.AdamYes I know what he says fits the pathology. But I have read Madness and Civilization so I won't buy it. Nor as a former therapist will I buy it. However I don't know where to go next in our simulated reality here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Fpucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.So you want to do a pro and con. Nope to that trap. Come up with something better.I must say I'm quite surprised, after the thunderous preceding ouverture she gave, at such an early cop-out by Sblogger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his lifeYou say why would I.........I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.Then you change your mind and say I tell you what......See this is exactly what I mean. The problem is linguistic. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The dire ethics of this world, cyber and not, require those who evangelize to do so in the dialect of the natives. Otherwise it's no loaves, no fishes.Subversives must swim in the sea like a fish - Mao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Heart of Darkness time...Lawrence of Arabia...Paul MuadibThe tao of immersion...“I must not fear.Fear is the mind-killer.Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.I will face my fear.I will permit it to pass over me and through me.And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.Only I will remain.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 As the saying goes, one cannot checkmate an opponent who refuses to play chess. So stick with the name-dropping and steer clear of serious discussions, by all means. Ghs Now here the orders come: Authoritarianism has entered the comments. Heil! You don't play my game my way, go home. Didja all notice the change in the Discourse?Authoritarianism? Because I reacted when you refused to specify what you like about Foucault?Here's a flash: When someone on OL likes something or someone -- say, a book, a movie, or an author -- he or she typically begins a thread explaining why. Then other people respond. This is known as a discussion. Btw, I read your "review" of Moneyball, and I have seen the movie. What you call its "dominating discourse" and "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action," other people would call its theme, plot, and dialogue. You have illustrated the very thing I most dislike about Foucault. The guy is insufferably pretentious, and so are you.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The dire ethics of this world, cyber and not, require those who evangelize to do so in the dialect of the natives. Otherwise it's no loaves, no fishes.Subversives must swim in the sea like a fish - MaoI love pearls of wisdom by mass murderers. Do you have anything by Hitler or Stalin that might fit the occasion?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Subject: Nice Try, George> why the same four or five people are usually hostile to your posts...the reasons have been explained many times before [GHS]Yes, and the "reasons" given are not the real reasons. They are i) rationalizations, ii) psychologizing, iii) personal insults and other ad hominems, iv) evasions, etc.And I've explained -that- many times before. E.g., saying you're a schoomarm who needs attention just because you are not willing to hear a criticism -or- that I have a "hole in my soul" is not a well-meaning, benevolent 'reason' from a thoughtful unbiased source that I'm just "unwilling to hear."What you guys are doing is that you are furiously trying to paint the messenger as at fault because you deeply resent the message. You've been trying to do that for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 > Subversives must swim in the sea like a fish - Mao [sB]> I love pearls of wisdom by mass murderers. Do you have anything by Hitler or Stalin that might fit the occasion? [GHS]That's a sleazy "debater's" answer, George. How would you like it if you quoted "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" in aid of the point that you have to start somewhere with a simple step, and someone asked you if you had any other quotes from mass murderers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his lifeYou say why would I.........I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.Then you change your mind and say I tell you what......See this is exactly what I mean. The problem is linguistic.Janet,There is not linguistic problem in the replies you quoted above. Nor is there any contradiction.For even if one does not see a point in discussing a certain author, one can still tell the communication partner. 'But If you think X is so very brilliant, feel free to demonstrate and explain, and I'll be glad to join in."The communicative intent is to get you to put your cards on the table, for it will show to what extent you are knowledgeable about the subject.Another inference you can draw from the 'message' you got by Ghs's reply (even if haven't experienced him in any debate yet): this might be a very seasoned debater who thrives on challenge.So there is no no linguistic problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his lifeYou say why would I.........I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.Then you change your mind and say I tell you what......See this is exactly what I mean. The problem is linguistic.No, the problem is that you don't know how to read. Again: I have no interest in initiating a serious discussion of Foulcault, because I can barely stand the guy. Morever, his writing is so diffuse as to admit a variety of interpretations -- so if I claimed that Foulcault said X, you could easily say, No, he actually said Y. So if you think Foucault was such a genius, then you tell us what you think he said that is so original and/or brilliant, and then others can comment.But you refuse to play the "game" known as "giving one's reasons," and that's fine with me. I doubt if you could even explain Foucault's ideas, much less defend them. You can throw around a few catch-phrases from his writings, but nothing more.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 As the saying goes, one cannot checkmate an opponent who refuses to play chess. So stick with the name-dropping and steer clear of serious discussions, by all means. Ghs Now here the orders come: Authoritarianism has entered the comments. Heil! You don't play my game my way, go home. Didja all notice the change in the Discourse?Authoritarianism? Because I reacted when you refused to specify what you like about Foucault?Here's a flash: When someone on OL likes something or someone -- say, a book, a movie, or an author -- he or she typically begins a thread explaining why. Then other people respond. This is known as a discussion. Btw, I read your "review" of Moneyball, and I have seen the movie. What you call its "dominating discourse" and "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action," other people would call its theme, plot, and dialogue.You have illustrated the very thing I most dislike about Foucault. The guy is insufferably pretentious, and so are you.GhsNow if we can just get her qualified as an ignoramus also, she has a good chance at McCaskey's vacant seat on the ARI board of directors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 > Subversives must swim in the sea like a fish - Mao [sB]> I love pearls of wisdom by mass murderers. Do you have anything by Hitler or Stalin that might fit the occasion? [GHS]That's a sleazy "debater's" answer, George.How would you like it if you quoted "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" in aid of the point that you have to start somewhere with a simple step, and someone asked you if you had any other quotes from mass murderers?You are obviously unaware of Foucault's "Maoist period." Do you think it is just an accident that Janet quoted Mao? More than a few fans of Foucault are also fans of Mao.Do your homework before you mouth off again.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Flouncing was frowned upon by Ayn Rand. It’s in Galt’s speech. I don’t care if it a shemale flounce or a female flounce. The topic of this thread is “Solving a Puzzle-- Understanding Some People's Reactions,” and Seymour is now understood to be a flouncer. Therefore, the topic is open to other flamboyant mediocrities who want to be the center of attention for a while. I would disconnect from the thread but something interesting might be said by Phil or George, or whoever “Hon” is, or those others who are intrigued by a two year old wearing a big flowered hat, or my favorite, the hat with owl ears and eyes. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now