Flame War Rant


Newberry

Recommended Posts

On Authors Needed thread, I hijacked the thread to rant about Jonathan. I want to get something off my chest; I won't rehash, but offer a new insight and a possible alternative.

Like almost all of you in Objectivism, I like ideas, and that is something I enjoy on forums. At one point several years ago on the old solo there was a really fun synergy of discussions, several different kinds of people, different groups of friends, and hell of lot of bantering. If someone expressed a view you didn't like there were always two or three people who would chime in with a retort--that would roughly match your own.

For years I have been puzzled by Perigo's rants and take downs of really fine people. His and others explanations, apologies, condemnations didn't seem to fit right. Recently, I read a post of his, with his typical character assassination thrown in as an aside about my integrity, and it grouped together about 4 slights that made me bad. Each of those slights had a common denominator: the slights were not about my integrity but about my loyalty to him. Replacing him at a TAS conference, questioning the artistic integrity of his idol Lanza, and siding with Barbara Branden (though I have no idea where that came from).

The puzzle was if he believes in passion, independence, objectivism, reason, etc why the disconnect? Loyalty to a person isn't part of passionate people who go their own way...of course, we all build friendships that appear loyal, but they are built on experience and shared values, not submission.

So here is a very clever and prominent man trashing hundreds of really good people, for all kinds of reasons, except naming that it is because they are not loyal to him.

I don't know about how other people here feel about it, but instead of dismissing Perigo simply outright, I understand quite a bit more than I had previously.

This brings me also to Jonathan. He has puzzled me as well. As a stated artist, he should enjoy that there is a colleague painting a lot, showing, writing art stuff. It shouldn't matter how much he agrees in detail about it, but there should be some camaraderie there. Reversing it, if he would like recognition then it simply takes sharing his own works, his excitement for his aesthetic discoveries, his ongoing projects, and etc. Even if he were a commercial artist, I would enjoy seeing how he solves problems and what he is doing. But he predominately shares his critical postings, not leaving me any room to relate.

One of the biggest puzzling things about Jonathan has been his instance that I am wrong about practically everything. What is odd, is that when I have replied in good faith, with all my sincerity, truthful observations, personal perspective...it is never accepted. Even if that is only right for me. It has gone way beyond disagreement, or an argument, world views, types of art...there is a really personal uncomfortable feeling about. Have any of you had someone hound you like that? I think George Smith has had something like that.

Anyway, the distinct impression I get from Jonathan is that I should not exist.

So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious? Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings? Simply call them on it? At the home the answer is easy, tell'um to got frick themselves, but on a forum it has a different dynamic. And I am at a loss on the best way to proceed.

I bring up all of this because there will be other really good people that would love to participate more on objectivist forums, who may have felt as I do.

Perhaps the best solution to this is to question the critics motives.

That's my rant.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I don't have anything of any importance to say about the remaining examples, but if you are asking "why" about the first one, I'm guessing one of the main reasons is pretty straightforward. It's called "wine."

rde

Let's Have Another One/Just Like The Other One

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings me also to Jonathan. He has puzzled me as well. As a stated artist, he should enjoy that there is a colleague painting a lot, showing, writing art stuff. It shouldn't matter how much he agrees in detail about it, but there should be some camaraderie there. Reversing it, if he would like recognition then it simply takes sharing his own works, his excitement for his aesthetic discoveries, his ongoing projects, and etc. Even if he were a commerical artist, I would enjoy seeing how he solves problems and what he is doing. But he only shares predominately his critical postings, not leaving me any room relate.

Michael,

While painting certainly isn't my #1 hobby, I really enjoy it and I spend quite a bit of mental effort on it. I checked out the websites below your name, and I liked the content of your 'Buildings Workshop.' Your other works were good, but buildings and landscapes have always been my favorite subjects to paint. The same applies to your painting style in these pieces (i.e. Santa Monica Palms).

Anyways, it was great to see somebody else (who's actually a really good painter) interested in similar styles and subjects as I am. I agree 100% with you about the camaraderie issue.

And, questioning motives is always a good practice.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Jonathan and you, Michael, but there does seem to be some basic disconnect regarding esthetics--objective or subjective? In that context it matters not a whit whether he displays his work or not. You also seem to be trolling for business to some modest extent. I don't see anything wrong with that, though. You are a much more complete public package. Jonathan is just his words.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings me also to Jonathan. He has puzzled me as well. As a stated artist, he should enjoy that there is a colleague painting a lot, showing, writing art stuff. It shouldn't matter how much he agrees in detail about it, but there should be some camaraderie there. Reversing it, if he would like recognition then it simply takes sharing his own works, his excitement for his aesthetic discoveries, his ongoing projects, and etc. Even if he were a commerical artist, I would enjoy seeing how he solves problems and what he is doing. But he only shares predominately his critical postings, not leaving me any room relate.

Okay, as I've occasionally told you over the years, I'm not here (or on other O-forums) to discuss me or my work with you. I'm not here to seek your approval or recognition. I'm here to discuss ideas.

One of the biggest puzzling things about Jonathan has been his instance that I am wrong about practically everything.

I don't think you're wrong about practically everything. You're only wrong about the subjects which you approach with carelessness and philosophical zealotry.

When you make statements about history, art and the philosophy of aesthetics that are wrong, do you expect me to remain silent?

What is odd, is that when I have replied in good faith, with all my sincerity, truthful observations, personal perspective...it is never accepted.

From my perspective, it's not too often that you reply in good faith to my arguments. But let's see if you can do so now. Please answer the following question with a simple, direct yes or no: Is it an example of fairness, good faith and reason for a person to write a negative review of an artwork after seeing only about one-fifth of it (along with a display of some of the props used in its filming)?

Even if only that is right for me. It has gone way beyond disagreement, or an argument, world views, types of art...there is a really personal uncomfortable feeling about. Have any of you had someone hound you like that? I think George Smith has had something like that.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my impression of you is that there is an expectation that no one should disagree with you, and that if they do, they must have ulterior motives. Your attitude seems to be that you can't possibly be wrong about anything, and it is therefore perplexing that people would try to claim that you're wrong. "Why are they so evil?" and "Why are they out to get me?" seem to be the only questions that you're willing to entertain, and never "Do their arguments have any merit?" or "Do I need to look inward and reflect on my own actions and motives?"

Anyway, the distinct impression I get from Jonathan is that I should not exist.

The impression that I get from you is that the artists and thinkers you villify should not exist. Why is it so upsetting to you that other people create and enjoy art that you dislike? Why do you need to publicly rant about it?

So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious?

From my perspective, you can be quite malicious. You're sometimes a bully. You have an axe to grind. You smear other artists and thinkers. You seem to have no interest in correcting yourself when confronted with information that you hadn't been aware of and which refutes your position.

Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings?

Maybe consider the possibility that others are not necessarily in need of becoming better human beings? Maybe at least consider the idea of evaluating your own behavior?

Simply call them on it? At the home the answer is easy, tell'um to got frick themselves, but on a forum it has a different dynamic. And I am at a loss on the best way to proceed.

I think the best approach would be to try respond to the substance of my criticisms of your ideas rather than complaining that I'm a big nasty meanie. Maybe try setting aside your emotions for a while and actually using reason to consider some of the arguments that I've posted. Maybe go back and look at some of the information that I've provided in my disagreements with you and actually address the content of my arguments point by point. And consider the possibility of reconsidering your views accordingly.

This might be a good place to start reevaluating your views. It's a Wikipedia article on Romanticism. Read the first sentence in the second paragraph:

The movement validated strong emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as trepidation, horror and terror and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities, both new aesthetic categories.

How do you think that squares with your previously expressed views on Kant and the Sublime and its being the "foundation" of Postmodern art? Don't you think that your opinions need to be altered?

I bring up all of this because there will be other really good people that would love to participate more on objectivist forums, who may have felt as I do.

Perhaps the best solution to this is question critics motives.

No, I think that questioning others' motives while avoiding substance is what you've been doing for years, and it hasn't been very helpful. I think you should try the opposite approach for once, which would be to assume that anyone who disagrees with your ideas isn't necessarily evil, and then proceed to consider and address their arguments. Continuing to vent your feelings and villify those who disagree with you isn't an effective way of dealing with them. I think that addressing their arguments would be a much better way to go. And, speaking personally, it would be the best way to gain my respect and camaraderie (not that I don't have any respect for you now -- I've said many times that I think you're a talented artist and very knowledgeable about many aspects of the visual arts).

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got in the middle of one of y’all’s scraps once. Didn't help. Waste of time.

I don't think it would be a waste of time if you're willing to actually inform yourself of the issues that Michael and I have disagreed on. Are you willing to do so? For example, are you willing to invest any time in studying the history of the aesthetic concept of the Sublime, Kant's views on it compared to those of his predecessors, whether or not Newberry has accurately represented them, and whether or not my criticisms of his views have merit?

I mean, don't you think you're kind of being a "dick" (as you called me on that previous thread) by sticking your nose in and giving your opinions about who "seems" reasonable and who "seems" to be a dick without having any interest in first discovering the specifics of which ideas are at the heart of Michael and my disagreements?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you willing to do so?

Willing? That’s a different standard from the operative one, which is: Interested? No. But maybe someday.

I mean, don't you think you're kind of being a "dick" (as you called me on that previous thread)

Déjà vu all over again. I didn’t call you a dick, I said you come across as one in these exchanges.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8457&view=findpost&p=95472

Curse of the Bambino strikes again. FWIW I don't think you're any match for Jabba, though I can see why Michael would feel that way.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious? Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings? Simply call them on it? At the home the answer is easy, tell'um to got frick themselves, but on a forum it has a different dynamic. And I am at a loss on the best way to proceed.

Michael,

To a large extent when someone is unfair with you or unjust or misstates or misrepresents (or even is simply not paying attention as opposed to malicious) to a certain extent I think you let the chips fall where they may. Shrug it off. Especially in a case like this.

There are several reasons for that: One is that irrationality, viciousness, malice will out. People are less likely to believe or be influenced by someone the more 'over the top' he is.

And those who are gullible or suckers or inattentive are probably not those you care that much about anyway.

You can post responses if that is not too onerous and has value to you. But that can be endless. And I think quite often one just lets silly statements stand. And fall of their own weight.

And with a creature like J., you simply don't want to be on his level.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you willing to do so?

Willing? That’s a different standard from the operative one, which is: Interested? No. But maybe someday.

Okay, so why are you sticking your nose in? Since you wrote that your previous attempt at getting involved "didn't help" and was a "waste of time," apparently you actually expected that your uninterested, uninformed opinion was actually going to be valued? Do you seriously expect me to be influenced by someone who admits to having no interest in discovering what the arguments are actually about?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious? Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings? Simply call them on it? At the home the answer is easy, tell'um to got frick themselves, but on a forum it has a different dynamic. And I am at a loss on the best way to proceed.

Michael,

To a large extent when someone is unfair with you or unjust or misstates or misrepresents (or even is simply not paying attention as opposed to malicious) to a certain extent I think you let the chips fall where they may. Shrug it off. Especially in a case like this.

There are several reasons for that: One is that irrationality, viciousness, malice will out. People are less likely to believe or be influenced by someone the more 'over the top' he is.

And those who are gullible or suckers or inattentive are probably not those you care that much about anyway.

You can post responses if that is not too onerous and has value to you. But that can be endless. And I think quite often one just lets silly statements stand. And fall of their own weight.

And with a creature like J., you simply don't want to be on his level.

Phil, do you have any interest in discussing the issues which are at the heart of my disagreements with Michael? I'm eager to avoid all of the soap opera crap and to get to some substance. We could start with the history of the aesthetic concept of the Sublime and my question to Michael from a while back, which remains unanswered, about what his actual beef is with Kant's views on the Sublime. You'd probably actually have to read Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury and some others. Are you up for it?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> We could start with the history of the aesthetic concept of the Sublime...You'd probably actually have to read Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury and some others.

Notice the dishonesty - the fake claim to suddenly want to be scholarly. And then require long stretches of reading. And that only as a start.

That and the alternation with seething hostility is why you want to avoid the guy.

Psychological problems at best.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe for something that has gotten as bitter as this, use an old saw--straighten out the angry personal things out privately via email, and then (or while, or whatever) those who wish could continue talking about the ideas on the forum.

We could all probably stand to be doing more of that when it gets hot, and for sure it would elevate things publicly.

Edit: I know firsthand it can be difficult to cull out the personal part, but it is not completely impossible, so it could be worth a try, anyway. Didn't Henry Ford once say something like "Don't fix the blame, fix the problem.?"

Bad idea?

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> We could start with the history of the aesthetic concept of the Sublime...You'd probably actually have to read Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury and some others.

Notice the dishonesty - the fake claim to suddenly want to be scholarly. And then require long stretches of reading. And that only as a start.

That and the alternation with seething hostility is why you want to avoid the guy.

Psychological problems at best.

Hilarious.

Phil, you really don't follow along at all, do you?

Here's a clue: When you close your eyes, everything doesn't go dark for everyone else. It's just you. The fact that you haven't read the information that I've posted on Kant and the history of the Sublime doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The fact that you haven't followed along and that you're unaware of my substantive arguments doesn't mean that I'm "suddenly" trying to be scholarly when you awake from your haze and finally notice that I'm trying to get people to address substance.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Rich. What do we have to do to get to the substance of my disagreements with Newberry? I'd like to talk philosophy and aesthetics. Among other things, I'd like to hear why Newberry has singled out Kant's concept of the Sublime as being particularly odious, and of being the foundation of Postmodern art, but not the foundation of Romanticism, and why Burke's views (or Shaftesbury's, or Longinus's, etc.), which were similar and prior to Kant's, aren't judged to be the foundation.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, the basic problem is Jonathan and Michael have discussions we don't naturally join in on because they are over our personal levels of competence when it comes to art. The friction comes from how different they are as people and how different their views are. This doesn't mean that every so often there's not room for us ignoramuses, but we have to pay attention and not jump on the Merry-Go-Round until it slows down.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be a good debate. All I've got on it as a generalist is this...

I'm thinking someone with very a strong Rand/Objectivist orientation almost always does not have a good place in their heart for anything Kant. In O-world, Kant usually=Satan. At the least, almost anything Kant--the woman hated him with all her soul. And, a person of that nature usually is very adamant about Romantic Realism (yeah, can-o-worms there, but anyway) being the most, uh, "appropriate." Meaning also that they generally do not care for most if not all modern and post-modern art, and definitely go off at abstract art. So, Kant's view of the Sublime would, you would think, almost assuredly would not be something that they would wish to attribute to the fundamental development of Romanticism--any media. Because Kant generally=Satan, as I said, and of course because Romanticism is a keystone of what Rand described as Romantic Realism, therefore meaning there would be a Kantian linkage to it, which would be definitely found uncool. Whether it (the Kantian view) did, or did not, that is where I leave off because I haven't read enough biographies and such. It definitely didn't show up in my art history classes, either, but that is no surprise. On the other hand, I vaguely remember reading things tying Kant to post-modern art, but again, blur out. Maybe J. or M. have information to support whether it is so one way or another. We can't do surveys because all those people (well, the Romantics, for sure) are dead.

It is an interesting question, I never thought of it. I know someone I'm going to ask about it, though. :)

Have at it, boys. Be nice.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, [...]. The fact that you haven't read the information that I've posted on Kant and the history of the Sublime doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The fact that you haven't followed along and that you're unaware of my substantive arguments doesn't mean that I'm "suddenly" trying to be scholarly when you awake from your haze and finally notice that I'm trying to get people to address substance.

Reading background:

"A Few Kant Quotes" thread from two years ago;

"Goethe and Rand on Art" thread from April and May this year;

There are even some posts on the subject on the "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" thread -- direct link to a post by Jonathan.

(The underlined words are links, Phil, in case you still don't realize that underlined text might be an embedded link.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Gotchaism, "pet enemies", and flame wars by other people

Ellen, did you miss that J. was changing the subject from his constant attacks on everything N. says to pretending all he has wanted all along was a discussion of Kant?

And also, contrary to your links (which I have read and even posted in), J. is saying the price of admission is so high (go ahead and read -- not links-- but 1st entire works by three different authors and then *others*...and then come back) that no one is going to do that or postpone the discussion by the many months that would take.

Now THAT's disingenuous and dishonest.

,,,,,

Ellen, on a personal note: you really have a tendency to 'gotchaism'. To try to find a nit every time I post and then post with shameless nitpicking or context-dropping. Often ignoring (or charitably failing to grasp) the wider topic. In this case, you didn't even absorb J.'s statement and what he was trying to do.

You just used it to go into your usual 'attack Phil' mode.

Like several others on this board who bear grudges and let their objectivity slip where I or whoever is their "pet enemy" appears, you really need to become more mature. This is a thread about J's flame wars. Try to do as much research on that as you would on the topic of any other thread.

Another example of immaturity is the constant harping on links, the quote function and other trivial stuff. You do it, regardless of subject, because you have a psychological urge to find -something- to attack whenever I post. And you know very well that that is not the subject of this thread either...and would be distracted from it.

When you or anyone else do that, it's not as bad as J., who is consumed by the personal hostility thing and it's right out there on the surface. But it is dishonorable because you have to post in good faith and stick to the subject and afford me or any other opponent good faith. And the respect of addressing the overriding subject.

Rather than trying to start flame wars of your own. Under the pretense of "Oh, I'm just after truth: I'm just trying to correct the record."

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS, do I have to waste a post explaining what "gotchaism" is so that no one ignores or evades it or pretends that its okay because others do it? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, did you miss that J. was changing the subject from his constant attacks on everything N. says to pretending all he has wanted all along was a discussion of Kant?

Kant isn't the only issue I've wanted to discuss. I mentioned it as a first step toward substance because it's the issue that would probably be the easiest for non-artists to discuss. I can't imagine how hard it would be to get non-artists to inform themselves about technical visual arts issues when they refuse to look into less specialized issues like Kant's and other thinkers' views on the Sublime.

And also, contrary to your links (which I have read and even posted in), J. is saying the price of admission is so high (go ahead and read -- not links-- but 1st entire works by three different authors and then *others*...and then come back) that no one is going to do that or postpone the discussion by the many months that would take.

I didn't suggest that you'd have to read entire works, but that you'd have to be willing -- which obviously you're not -- to read the relevant ideas of certain thinkers in order to have an informed opinion. Maybe you could get by with less. It might be enough for you to do what you normally seem to do to attempt to educate yourself, which is to read a couple of sentences in an encyclopedia. Would you be willing to at least do that?

Ellen, on a personal note: you really have a tendency to 'gotchaism'. To try to find a nit every time I post and then post a counter on that. Often ignoring (or charitably faling to grasp) the wider topic. In this case, you didn't even absorb J.'s statement and what he was trying to do.

Yeah, don't bother Phil with any evidence which shows how substantive I've been for years in my discussions with Newberry. Phil doesn't want it to be true.

You just used it to go into your usual 'attack Phil' mode.

Isn't it weird how different people resort to the same mindset or tactic when confronted with a reality that they don't want to accept: "Everyone's picking on me! Everyone's attacking me!"

Like several others on this board who bear grudges and let their objectivity slip...

Hahahahaha! Oh my God.

When you or anyone else do that, it's not as bad as J., who is consumed by the personal hostility thing and it's right out there on the surface.

The idea here, Phil, is that I'm asking people to stop limiting their vision to what they imagine they see on the surface. I'm asking them to go deeper and consider the substance of my positions, but apparently that's too much work. I couldn't care less about anyone's shallow surface observations. When someone's screaming at me that they absolutely refuse to learn anything about what I've been talking about for years, but I'd better change my ways, damn it, I really can't take them seriously.

Let me know if you're ever willing to move beyond your grudge and explore the substance of my disagreements with Newberry.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] your usual 'attack Phil' mode.

Like several others on this board who bear grudges and let their objectivity slip where I or whoever is their "pet enemy" appears, you really need to become more mature. This is a thread about J's flame wars. Try to do as much research on that as you would on the topic of any other thread.

Another example of immaturity is the constant harping on links, the quote function and other trivial stuff. You do it, regardless of subject, because you have a psychological urge to find -something- to attack whenever I post. And you know very well that that is not the subject of this thread either...and would be distracted from it.

When you or anyone else do that, it's not as bad as J., who is consumed by the personal hostility thing and it's right out there on the surface. But it is dishonorable because you have to post in good faith and stick to the subject and afford me or any other opponent good faith. And the respect of addressing the overriding subject.

Phil, why don't you just admit that you were way off base in your psychologizing of Jonathan, instead of not only continuing with the same psychologizing of him but adding psychologizing of me? (Note, here I'm using "psychologizing" in Rand's actual meaning, rather than in the meaning with which it's often used, as merely an equivalent for any psychological statement.)

Jonathan has been trying to have a discussion of the Kant on the Sublime issue with Michael N. for a long time. Your motive ascriptions are unwarranted and are once more you doing one of the things you lecture others not to do.

Your claim that I have an urge to find something to attack whenever you post is even more off base than your standard run of "folks are out to get you" motive ascriptions. The fact is that ever since late 1998, when I first started posting on the old Cornell-l list, my primary urge when you've posted has been simply to skip the post. Your schoolmarming habit was well-established already then and already bored me and hasn't become any more interesting to me over the years.

Recently, I've been pushing at you properly to document source and provide context for your quotes because, for once, you've posted a few things I actually found worth replying to on threads where I've been active, but I am unwilling, in order to try to dialog with you, to have to do your sourcing and context-providing for you. If you won't do it yourself, then I'll just ignore your content on the threads of interest to me.

You owe Jonathan a big apology. Keep on with the psychologizing of me, and you'll owe me one, too.

Ellen

PS: You know what you should have done, Phil? You should have stayed out of this thread entirely and let Jonathan and Newberry thrash it out between them. It wasn't your battle.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now