Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. On the "Lindsay and his 'take' on Zionism/Israel" thread on SOLOP, Diana Hsieh wrote: MSK, With your experience and knowledge of addiction, would you say that the fear of being grilled persistently by a strongly moral spouse would prevent a person from drinking heavily on a regular basis, or is it much more common for a person with a serious drinking problem to do his best to hide his habit from such a spouse, as well as from her friends and admirers? Might such scolding play a part in driving an addict to confine himself to drinking in a place where he can be alone for hours or days at a tim
  2. MSK: Speaking of obsessing, have any of you Linz-bashers flown all the way to New Zealand to deliver a speech to a half dozen friends and relatives of someone else who was having a pitiful book signing in a store (which doesn't carry the book being signed) down the street from a conference at which Perigo was delivering a speech which you were trying to refute before hearing it? Now that would be obsessing. J
  3. BAMF I'm in south central Minnesota, in a region which is becoming the Kansas of the north. I've been in several situations where tornadoes have passed around or over the area that I was in, but these were the first that I've ever seen up close and personal. Photos and video footage just don't do it justice. A couple of friends and I were within a few feet of very solid shelter, so we stayed out and watched the thing approaching as long as possible without being unsafe about it. We ducked inside when it was about six blocks away. Seeing the size and power of it was...well, indescribable. Two
  4. This is what my world looked like on Thursday: These are stills from a video that someone else shot from a couple miles west of where I was, which was about two or three blocks from the tornado in the first image. The second and third shots are from about 10 and 20 seconds later. The fourth was taken a few minutes after that when all four or five tornadoes combined to form one biggun. A few houses were destroyed and many others battered, but there was actually surprisingly little damage to people and structures. A lot of crops are down or were ripped from the ground. In one field that I sa
  5. I'm sure I would have loved the art, and the science and the traveling companions might have been somewhat interesting too. ;-) J
  6. Hilarious, Victor. I love the diaper. But where is his trusty evil-fighting weapon, his golden, super-pomposity-powered air conducting baton? J
  7. Thank you, Ellen. And welcome home! I look forward to any tales (and photos) of your travels that you'd be willing to share with us. J
  8. Rich: Imagine a radically original artistic genius, a real-life Howard Roark or Richard Halley, working on commission for a committee made up of Objectivists. Is it your impression that his masterly independent vision would be respected by the committee, or would he receive considerably more demands and advice on how to "improve" his creation than what Roark received in The Fountainhead? J
  9. "I do hope you were able to see in your mind's eye my tongue planted very firmly in my cheek..." Yup, that's how I saw it. I just thought I'd give a serious answer along with the "good Objectivist" one. J
  10. According to Peikoff's theory of moral lying, if I were having an affair with a married woman, might it be morally acceptable for me to lie to her if I felt that she was being a "snooper" about my feelings for other women? And how would we know if the story that Frank O'Connor used rows of empty booze bottles to mix artist's paints isn't an example of a moral Peikovian response to "snoopers"? J
  11. Barbara wrote: Thanks for your understanding. As I said in my post which started this thread, I think I've been ~applying~ Objectivism to the discussions on RoR that I've participated in. A common theme among my posts over the years on SOLOYahoo/SOLOHQ/RoR has been to oppose Objectivists judging the psychological health, moral character, and "sense of life" of people based on the art that they create or find value in. If certain Objectivists see a work as glorifying something negative, like, say, hopelessness and failure, they refuse to listen to the reasons behind why others see it different
  12. Thanks, all, for the comments and compliments. I'm tight for time right now but will post some thoughts when I get some free time in the next few days. And I'll do my "assignment," Michael. J
  13. MSK: But I don't want to fit in with evil renegades like you, Michael. I want good, clean, proper Objectivists like Joe Rowlands to like and accept me. I want to learn to be just like them. I want to help change the world by figuring out how to condemn the right art (or should I say the wrong non-art?), and I don't want to just mimic and agree with Joe's opinions without actually believing them. I want to learn the principles which guide him in exempting himself from following Rand's theories and requirements for judging art while claiming that those who disagree with him are anti-Objectivist
  14. Victor: But I've already tried an independent orientation to reality, and look where it got me -- dissenter moderation!!! So, no, don't try to trick me into remaining evil, Victor. Independent thinking is just the type of thing that I should not be doing. It's "anti-Objectivist" according to the policies of Joe Rowlands and his staff at RoR. J
  15. I, too, look forward to the discussions that an OL music section might generate. But, actually, I'd much rather hear the original music created by members here. I've heard Roger's work and think he's amazingly talented. Any chance that some of you other pros will post clips? J
  16. To dissent is to disagree, and I've written a hell of a lot of posts in which I've disagreed with Objectivists. So it's accurate to call me a dissenter in that context. But there's more to my being officially labeled a dissenter by the staff of RoR last week. The purpose of applying the term to me, and to limiting my freedom to post, is to imply that my views aren't just disagreements with Objectivists, but that they are ~disagreements with Objectivism~. It's a chicken shit way of tainting all arguments in favor of one side before the arguments have taken place. Its purpose is to say, "Everyth
  17. Good work, Robert. I'm especially looking forward to Hsieh relaying your views to Andy Bernstein and asking him (and, hell, why she's at it, all ARIans) to grant Sciabarra permission to publicly release their private correspondence with him. J
  18. Jonathan

    Dissenter

    Ethan: It was the only criterion that you mentioned, at least as far as I've seen. Now you're saying that there were other criteria as well? Ethan: OK, Ethan, I apologize for shooting the messenger. Sorry for the confusion. I now understand that you were relaying the information that the "immune to argument" comment may or may not have applied to me, and that I may or may not have been placed in Dissent for other, yet to be named criteria. Please get back to me when you can relay some solid information, and then maybe we'll chat about my Objectivist church comment. J
  19. Jonathan

    Dissenter

    Ethan: Yes, please do. Either that or retract your statement that I am "immune to the arguments of others." You should worry about your own baseless insults. Without evidence, you've accused me of being immune to the arguments of others. Once you've either retracted and apologized for the statement or demonstrated its truth, we can discuss whether or not my speculation about Joe wanting RoR to be something of an Objectivist church is a baseless insult. J
  20. Jonathan

    Dissenter

    Thank you, Michael. That's very nice to hear. I enjoy being here and I'm glad that I've brought some value in return. J
  21. Jonathan

    Dissenter

    I agree with others here that Joe has the right to do whatever he wants with his own site. Personally, with me all he had to do was ask that I not post on RoR with the type of questions or comments that challenge his beliefs and upset him, or that I no longer post at all. He apparently wants RoR to be something of an Objectivist church, a place where O'ists can congregate and praise the good Word of Rand. That's fine with me. He can do whatever he wants with his site. Since he's saying that he was considering moderation or banishment for those of us whom he classifies as dirty dog dissenters,
  22. Jonathan

    Dissenter

    Hey, I've been tagged as a Dissenter on RoR as well. Ethan Dawe wrote, Christ. What a joke. Joe Rowlands has been immune to ~my~ arguments. You know, in Objectivist discussions on art I often feel like I'm in that moment from Annie Hall when Woody Allen's character is waiting in line to see a film. Some know-it-all in line is yapping to his date about the writings of Marshall McLuhan. Allen's character finally gets sick of the pompous twit and pulls McLuhan out from behind a post. McLuhan tells the twit that he knows nothing about his work. The only difference is that when I "pull a McLuhan"
  23. Victor: Yes they are. Read Richter and Tansey's articles and interviews on the subjects of their paintings, processes, the ideas behind their art, their philosophical, aesthetic and cultural influences, etc. Read what Arthur Danto, Robert Storr, Mark C. Taylor, H. W. Janson, Anthony F. Janson and Edward Lucie-Smith have written about Richter, Tansey and postmodern painting (as well as what they've written about many other postmodernist artists who use figuration and representation in their work). Victor, Apparently I've confused you with my minor, parenthetical comment about Objectivists app