Rich Engle

Members
  • Content Count

    2,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rich Engle

  1. Jenna, There are of course many things. Roger hit it on the head nicely, I think. As local heretic, I also suggest taking a walk on the wild side and looking at some things outside of the specific area of evolution within which Objectivism lies; in order to put it into a full context, and to get some other ideas. Specifically, a good one is a book by Ken Wilber called The Marriage of Sense and Spirit - I can't recommend this book highly enough.
  2. All true, Roger, Paul, MSK. It certainly requires little more, it has shown what it has shown. It was, however, worth throwing down over. Chris is worth throwing down over. Nasty things don't fare well when exposed to sunlight. It would be unreasonable to expect public acknowledgment of such behaviors, but on the inside maybe it was felt and recognized. The current aggregation will without doubt splinter and fragment, it will, and I suppose it needs to if any of them are to continue to grow, integrate. There will be those that remain inflexible, and that means pathology. I am sorry.
  3. Jenna, I agree. And, it's just a great read. Nathaniel is a very, very good writer of prose; he has a very unique, flowing writing style. There have been some comments here and elsewhere that I have found to be on-point regarding how PAR and MYWAR have been treated like sworn depositions, rather than subjective memoirs. Memoirs= GOOD! I assume and expect that the POV will be that of the author. To treat a memoir purely like the oh-so-always-beloved "evidence" is, aside from being the typical lockstep nonsense, an assumption that readers can't recognize the nature of a memoir in the first place
  4. Maybe the most disturbing thing about all this... The possibility that her state-of-mind, and her convictions, are such that she actually believed she was doing something good and true. That kind of state, and the action that followed represent, in a nutshell, the creepiest, most unsettling side of the movement. J'Accuse, my arse. Salem witch trial crap. You know, there's a certain kind of person, not always a particularly rotten one, that gets in that gets kind of hobbled in their own interior, and it makes them do things to people that are not really useful nor necessary.
  5. Never met him in person is how I understood it. But that didn't stop her from laying down her "judgment." What's not hah-hah funny about that is it really makes you wonder about motive. Now, Chris Sciabarra, even if he were a filthy mongrel (and of course he sure as heck isn't) isn't anything remotely close to a threat. Yet Diana chose to lay the judgment out publicly. Why? Ostensibly because she wants to do some kind of public service for other O'ist braniacs who might fall into Sciabarra's evil web of cunning and intrigue? Hmmmm?? We're all big boys and girls here- I don't need some prissy
  6. Robert- Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. I also thought it pretty reachy when Mazza brought in the whole "scaring" thing. I'll tell you one thing- from what communication I've shared with Angie, it would take a whole bigger can of whup-ass to scare that girl. And, I'm pretty sure I had the feel for where you were going with that question. As a matter of fact, I went over there and read that silly oath-thing again. It was just such an obtuse, silly kind of shot to take. Talking about that oath, to digress...You know, the thing I get out of stuff like that is "enemies." Intellectual
  7. Heh- Mr. Sherk has been put on moderation Ever see how a little kid will cover up their eyes because they think if they do so, it makes what they're seeing go away? It's kind of like that, don't y'all think? That and the emperor's new clothes story. How robustly KASS. Kickin' A Solo-Style (high fives and a towel snap on the butt). And the mention of CNA is of course if not priceless, it is for sure telling. I'm sure that one also involved trying some way to take a shot at Mr. Campbell.
  8. I would've thought that if Linz had something like this in hand, he would have substantiated it. Surely we don't have to worry about exposing anyone, right? [-X No, I'm not going to ask NB about this; it's just too...something. About the closest thing I'd believe on this is the opposite- I have been thanked in the past for going to bat on a few arguments regarding NB and BB. I'm waiting to hear what Barbara says about this latest.
  9. Why doesn't somebody just ask Nathaniel? Somebody being not me, for once... #-o
  10. I think Phil's about the ideas. And, I have to say, he's got to have a pretty big set of boys to do what he's been doing. Very not easy.
  11. I'll refine your "cult" one-word description, MSK, which is accurate on its own. It is a cult of personality. If you recall, I wrote into that on SOLO at one point, on the "Is Objectivism a Cult?" thread. I was saying at that time that it was not, although it often smelled like one. I maintain that position. Now, the real question, the Cult of Personality question... To my mind, the basic question in this is looking at the kind of person a follower gravitates to. That says something about them, maybe something they do not even know about themselves. Actually, that is the "A" game by which
  12. Perigo is so fickle, such a coquet when it comes to rules of engagement. Let's see if I can get this straight without having to put on the hip waders and go back over there... for those with strong constitutions, there's a pretty long thread going on at Club Perigo, which mutated quite a bit from ever-sensible Phil Coates' attempt at putting up open questions to Hsieh. Still, it brings out the drool. And, of course, Mrs. Valliant still managed, Fahy-like, to stick in the ever-essential "Have you read PARC?" We couldn't do without one of those! But anyway, there's a bunch of locker-room crap in
  13. MSK points out a, er, discrepancy in what should be inherent in any good trader mentality: Was I the only one who noticed that nothing was done in return during that time? In Objectivist terms, Sciabarra gave value and Hsieh displayed remarkable dexterity at receiving it. I haven’t heard anything at all about value flowing in the opposite direction. I think this is not an isolated incident. I think it is a behavior. Tempting to even suggest she packs an entitlement kinda mindset. And even where some semblance of balanced trade took place- Diana maintaining Nathaniel's website (and having be
  14. William- Good heavens, you are a true Coffee Achiever to have rolled that one. A good deal to digest, but off the rip, I like your style, man. In particular, the outing of Perigo's back-door Johnny tactics and strategies. Always in a petulant frenzy, that one. Above all, he is a narcissist, when you rip the covers off. All that scrambling and phoning and emailing! I have heard of this more than once. He needs to take up yoga or origami or something- someday he will blow a mainspring!
  15. Barbara brings up "uncomfortable" truth: And, of course -- although this seems to have slipped the minds of the people at Solo, Noodlefood, and ARI -- Rand often acknowledged her great debt to Nathaniel Branden for his work in psychology. She wrote many papers, (some of which are in my possession) discussing and chewing a number of his psyhological concepts. She said many times that he was a psychological genius, and, particularly, that "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" was a work of genius. Yes, yes, yes! There is no disputing that this was the case, so far as I've ever seen. And of course, B
  16. *and I do tend to fart long and loud and in several languages so there was a flatulence of truth to the charge. Well, thanks for sharing that, Phil! Just try to keep it under the covers, OK? [-X rde Knows who to not share a hotel room with, ever.
  17. Jenna, if you are (and if you're here, you probably are) into Rand/O'ism on a significant level, I recommend reading ITOE. I get where you're coming from. But, it's a worthwhile read just to get it right off her pen. She was rolling out what was for all practical purposes a very new thing, so it is not going to be heavily weighted with sources, etc. Just good to get it off the cuff like that. I read it twice, years ago- there are likely questions that will raise in your mind, and that's OK.
  18. Good Lord, that is maybe the finest thing I have ever seen about this whole microcosm. It says it all... ROFL, with bells and whistles and Mardi Gras beads! :D/
  19. Everyone has roots, a frame of reference. Was Rand proprietary? Probably. But it points to the question of whether or not anything is really proprietary. Everything comes from somewhere. And as it has been said- great composers don't borrow, they steal. As to her saying she "always" held the beliefs, well... it is a nature/nurture thing. "Always" was not an issue of her consciousness suddenly flashing on- she integrated into that stance, and likely did so early. If we want to talk about going against reality, it would be that to deny any of AR's Russian background. Chris, in his book, was do
  20. Charles is right, Phil. You know I was around at SOLO to watch some of that treatment bestowed upon you. It was ridiculous, it was mean, it was stupid. It was such a lynch mob mentality. Virtually always, you would simply be going in as the voice of reason, civility. Reward? Boring Old Fart of the Month Award. Immediately, it turned into a sicko, skewed attack, with Linz acting as the ringmaster. Way to reward someone for being a nice guy! To my knowledge, I never saw you go off on the attack, and that drew attacks, and that was just shitty. Best, rde
  21. I don't know how I missed this, but IMHO this is the best line in the whole Hsieh-tyeria, it really does say it all about the Queen Wannabee: Charles: It has been widely observed that Diana has an insatiable appetite for being the center of attention. Perhaps this also makes homosexuals suboptimal since they do not hunger for her sexually. By her Hsiehcological evaluation, this makes homosexuals suboptimal. I'd imagine anyone is suboptimal if they aren't Diana Hsieh. I wonder if her admiring drones realize that they, too, are suboptimal. But, I'm betting that she ain't willin' to call Leonar
  22. Yeah, Dragonfly, there's that one. I think there might be more elsewhere, but I don't have it in hand right now. Like you, I just remember something that was pretty lame.
  23. So, Phil... Does that also mean that you do not believe that Diana is in complete Objectivist robot/fundamentalist mode? Don't you see any of that? I do. This isn't one of those beloved evidence issues, for Heaven's Sake! It's either that she is so out there in her fanaticism that she can't see her own self, or, she is simply out to pick a fight, in the hopes of elevating her position (translation: attempted proactive ass-kissing, on-high). She picked a stupid fight with Chris, and there is no reason for it- the man has never hurt a flea, and anyone with a brain and some history knows it. Ho
  24. Diana lays down dry homo-rage: "I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal". "Suboptimal?" Oh, good Gawd! Maybe I should spend more time over at Limp Noodle; I'm feeling like this is a virtual treasure trove for raw working material. Where, oh where to get started on this one, if at all? So many possibilities... Well, let's just go right in there. First off, anyone that uses that kind of dry, superior entree-vous is suffering from some serious meglo-twit-itness. Diana is, on a good day, a minor, largely unrecognized thinker, outside of being the frontrunner to replace Leonard's cu
  25. So, I assume that even the mildest of jokes about obese, drooling, wine-soaked rage-filled gay NZ guys are out of the question? rde At this point, the Ultimate Height<tm> may involve Viagra<tm>, or at the very least some kind of power tool. Or, maybe going the Portnoy's Complaint route, and investing in a nice cut of raw liver. "And that's the worst thing I ever did: I fu**ked my family's dinner" -Philip Roth, "Portnoy's Complaint" (Very likely paraphrased due to the