Rand through a Nietzsche filter


Recommended Posts

So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there,

Calling Janet's activities an attempt to "stuff Rand in there" expresses it well.

But since Rand simply does not fit in there, all of Janet's efforts are in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 785
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[replying to Carol]:

How do you know whether I am lying or not. This is simulated reality. there is no true and no false. There is only credibility. You are ilogicalo as you decide I am telling the truth in regards to your above, but think I am lying about the hacking of my computer. Contradictions, contradictions. A pity.

Janet,

But of course there is a true and false. Either you were hacked or not. Right?

Whether one believes you or not is independent of what happened. Right?

You may really believe you were hacked and interpret as 'conspiracy' what could have been a mere technical problem.

In that case, you would be in error about a fact, but not lying. For as opposed to being in error, a lie is conscous attempt to conceal a truth the liar is aware of.

But as for truth about facts - it is always consistent and contradiction-free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there,
Calling Janet's activities an attempt to "stuff Rand in there" expresses it well. But since Rand simply does not fit in there, all of Janet's efforts are in vain.

I want to make something clear: I have no objection per se to reading Rand (or any other writer) from various perspectives, whether Nietzschean or otherwise. Hermeneutics (the theory and methodology of interpretation) goes back centuries and was first applied to biblical texts. (John Locke had some very perceptive comments on this subject in his Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.) But many of the post-modernists -- especially Derrida and his deconstructionist followers, such as Stanley Fish (whom Camille Paglia once called "a totalitarian Tinkerbell") -- have made a mockery out of hermeneutics.

Once, while teaching at an IHS conference on the East Coast, I attended a lecture by Fish in which he proclaimed, in effect, that the author's intentions in writing a text have no more relevance to its meaning than the interpretation of any other person. During the Q&A, one of the students who attended the lecture with me asked Fish an awkward and obvious question viz: Did deconstructionism apply to Fish's own defense of deconstructionism? If so, then would he object if listeners interpreted his lecture as an ironic criticism of deconstructionism? Fish bumbled around for a while but could not come up with a coherent answer. Surprise, surprise!

The first and most important responsibility of a responsible reader is to make a serious effort to understand a text as the writer himself understood it. After that, it might be possible to use various interpretative perspectives to tease out presuppositions and implications that the writer himself may not have been aware of. But there needs to be a standard -- namely, the intention of the writer -- against which variant readings can be compared and evaluated. Without that standard, hermeneutics becomes a silly and pointless game of Humpty-Dumptyism, in which a text means anything you want it to mean. This, in essence, is Janet's approach.

As I noted in a previous post, Foucault was not a deconstructionist. His interest in the "archeology" of knowledge, which includes an investigation of the cognitive schemes by which people from different cultures and different eras categorize their perceptions and ideas, had nothing to do with deconstructionism. As I also noted, when Derrida took an isolated passage from one of Foucault's texts and deconstructed it, thereby arriving at an interpretation that differed radically from Foucualt's intended meaning, Foucault became so angry that he refused to speak to Derrida for ten years, or thereabouts.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to make something clear: I have no objection per se to reading Rand (or any other writer) from various perspectives, whether Nietzschean or otherwise.

George,

I could not agree more.

But many of the post-modernists -- especially Derrida and his deconstructionist followers, such as Stanley Fish (whom Camille Paglia once called "a totalitarian Tinkerbell") -- have made a mockery out of hermeneutics.

Do you put Janet's attempts to read Rand through others as such mockery?

The first and most important responsibility of a responsible reader is to make a serious effort to understand a text as the writer himself understood it.

Do you think Janet understands Rand in this manner?

I have another question based on something you wrote before--when you challenged Janet to open a discussion thread. Do you think Janet even understands the post-modern folks she's always name-dropping as they understand their own writing?

I know what my answers to all these are and they are not flattering to her. I merely ask because your points are excellent and I want to have a record of unambiguous clarity for the reader, given that many readers are not familiar with the works of post-modern writers. And given that Janet writes in a constant cloud of obfuscation and outright error, but also frames it in pompous airs as if she knows what she is talking about.

I don't know how one does that accompanied by the loud sucking noises you mentioned on SLOP, but weirder things have existed--and maybe the slurp is like the dog whistle in that not everyone hears it. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been posting too much on this crap today, but I just saw something that warmed my heart, so I might as well get it all out.

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo apparently has a few choice words about me (from here). There's more over there than I quoted, but let's not overdo it. The "thing" he mentions is moi:

The thing ingratiated itself with Babs on SOLO and ultimately lured her away to O-Lying where she would never be criticised and they could indulge their mutual admiration of the pedo-publisher Peron, banned from NZ for his pedo-publication Unbound.

Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy...

This dude used to have a way with words. What the hell happened? Anyway, that's not really how it went down nor is the spin anywhere near reality.

People who have followed this know the true story and for people who don't know, it's a sad tale about a mediocre but colorful bully who tried to become an "Objectivist leader" (his term) by damaging folks better than him and got discredited big-time--along with that piece of trash he tried to promote (PARC). I'm tired right now, so the rest you'll have to look up. It's all over the place, anyway.

But I am deeply gratified that I helped squash (like a bug) that lout's efforts to harm good people and it lives on in his heart the way he expressed it. I only hope he seasons it with liberal doses of bile and heartburn.

I know I shouldn't be that way, but it just feels too damn good.

Sometimes the bad guys actually do lose in life and it kills them inside. Man, does that make me feel smug and tingly all over.

And for the record, Barbara Branden and James Peron are wonderful people. Productive. High merit. Principled. Loyal to their values. It has been an honor and a privilege to know them. (James and I are not very close, more due to different paths in life than anything else. I love Barbara.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who haven't been following SOLO, the action has shifted to a different thread:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8954#comment-105889

Writing these short polemical posts has been great fun for me -- a great way to relieve the tension that I typically build up when doing real writing.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there,
Calling Janet's activities an attempt to "stuff Rand in there" expresses it well. But since Rand simply does not fit in there, all of Janet's efforts are in vain.

I want to make something clear: I have no objection per se to reading Rand (or any other writer) from various perspectives, whether Nietzschean or otherwise.

<...>

In picking up Carol's comment about Janet "trying to stuff Rand in there", I was referring to more than a mere reading of Rand from a certain perspective, (as in e. g. pointing out where Nietzschean thought may have influenced her.

I was referring to Janet's flat-out categorizing Rand as a post-modern writer, and I think she is wrong there.

For example, post-modern writers often play with the reader's expectation of reality, and frequently demolish this expectation in their fiction. I can't see anything in Rand's work remotely resembling this.

Re the quote Janet lists in her profile "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed" - does she seriously believe Rand would have endorsed this subjectivist view? The quoted statement is the very opposite of Objectivist thought.

As are Janet's attacks on truth allegedly not existing in what she calls 'simulated reality' here.

As if forum posters were no different from post-modern fictional characters ... :rolleyes:

For those who haven't been following SOLO, the action has shifted to a different thread:

http://www.solopassi...#comment-105889

In her posts, Janet is mostly parroting stuff she took from her postmodern 'gurus'.

Her enthusiastic attitude is an indicator that she is still lightyears away from reaching a stage where she would critically examine the philosophy of her gurus.

Important as gurus can be at a certain phase in an individual's life, I think there also comes a point where it becomes equally important to continue the intellectual/philosophical journey on one's own, without being dependent on the guru's thought system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there,
Calling Janet's activities an attempt to "stuff Rand in there" expresses it well. But since Rand simply does not fit in there, all of Janet's efforts are in vain.

I want to make something clear: I have no objection per se to reading Rand (or any other writer) from various perspectives, whether Nietzschean or otherwise.

<...>

In picking up Carol's comment about Janet "trying to stuff Rand in there", I was referring to more than a mere reading of Rand from a certain perspective, (as in e. g. pointing out where Nietzschean thought may have influenced her.

I was referring to Janet's flat-out categorizing Rand as a post-modern writer, and I think she is wrong there.

For example, post-modern writers often play with the reader's expectation of reality, and frequently demolish this expectation in their fiction. I can't see anything in Rand's work remotely resembling this.

Re the quote Janet lists in her profile "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed" - does she seriously believe Rand would have endorsed this subjectivist view? The quoted statement is the very opposite of Objectivist thought.

As are Janet's attacks on truth allegedly not existing in what she calls 'simulated reality' here.

As if forum posters were no different from post-modern fictional characters ... :rolleyes:

For those who haven't been following SOLO, the action has shifted to a different thread:

http://www.solopassi...#comment-105889

In her posts, Janet is mostly parroting stuff she took from her postmodern 'gurus'.

Her enthusiastic attitude is an indicator that she is still lightyears away from reaching a stage where she would critically examine the philosophy of her gurus.

Important as gurus can be at a certain phase in an individual's life, I think there also comes a point where it becomes equally important to continue the intellectual/philosophical journey on one's own, without being dependent on the guru's thought system.

I was referring to Janet's flat-out categorizing Rand as a post-modern writer, and I think she is wrong there.

For example, post-modern writers often play with the reader's expectation of reality, and frequently demolish this expectation in their fiction. I can't see anything in Rand's work remotely resembling this.

I have never characterized Rand per se as being a post modern writer. She wrote in the 1940's and 1950's. The Modern era ended around 1950.

What i have said explicitly is that her fiction is a forerunner of post modern thinking, and I detest that label as much as any of you, but I am using it as a ready-made, for want of something better that would not take a paragraph to say.

There are others we can place in this category: Borges; Klossowski, Robbe-Grillet, Rand, and of course, Nietzsche. There are many more but these are the ones that came off the top of my head right now.

Fictional artists are often clairvoyant about the future. Do you dispute Rand's ability in this? None of these writers were consciously setting forth a platform for post modern thinking. they were writing. They were artists.

The ones writing in the post modern vein now are often aware of it. DeLillo for one, although he will not acknowledge that. It is impossible that so accomplished and acclaimed a writer - late in his career BTW - who has read as widely as he has, would not know anything about post modern thinking.

The fact that people here know nothing about it does not make it irrelevant. It just makes you culturally deficient.

For some reason x-ray I don't exactly see you this way. You are quite as I was in the early 60's when I bought the whole package of objectivism, hook, line and sinker.

As it does sink your thinking. They rhyme in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked out the latest at the SLOP trough, where the influence of GHS’s best known opus has come under renewed scrutiny. Recently I pointed out a reference to ATCAG by the head of American Atheists.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=155062

For those who aren’t familiar with him, here he is in one of the greatest moments in talking head history. Zap to about 1:45.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI

But for GHS’s early influence, would we have this treasurable moment? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Modern era ended around 1950.

Close, but no cigar. The modern era ended on Feb. 10, 1949. And it ended in Japan, where a child was born.

Ghs

The Modern era ended around 1950.

<b>around</b> is the important word here. Around is a modifier. Around means about, not exactly .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all have our inner apophenia about our own life narratives, the dots connect because they must, for our lives to be coherent to us.

Carol,

A milder form of apophenia (one that actually corresponds to reality) is garden-variety induction.

The apophenia I'm talking about is not related to reality except for a coincidence-with-label-on-it in the apophenics mind. But there's a problem.

You can't sell it--hell, you can't even sell the label--because nobody's buying. People are not in your head. So you need to wed it to the Texas Sharpshooter technique before anyone will take it seriously. Otherwise people will just leave the apophenic babblers to babble on all alone.

Look at the following explanation, then look at the cases with strong commonality I mentioned above, i.e, post-modernism, conspiracy paranoia and backwater revival tent meetings. It's a perfect fit.

We already have the epistemology: bullshi,.. er... coincidence. Now for the marketing.

Here's how the Texas Sharpshooter thing works. (btw - I have no idea why it's called "Texas," but there it is.)

You take a rifle and go to a barn. Make sure nobody's around. This is because you don't want to shoot anyone by accident. You are, after all, a terrible shot. But you also don't want anyone to see you. Take along several cases of ammo.

Start shooting at the side of the barn and keep shooting all day long.

When you run out of ammo, go up to the side of the barn and notice the places where the bullet holes are clustered together. If you used enough ammo, there should be a few that look impressive. Draw a bulls-eye around the thickest sets of holes.

Finally, bring your friends around and show them the bulls-eyes with multiple holes in them. Then brag about how good your sharpshooting is.

Is that Baudrillard or is that Baudrillard?

Be careful with THEM, though. THEY'RE everywhere!

Praeeze Jaeeezzhus!

:smile:

Michael

Actually you are talking about yourself Michael Stuart Kelly. It's called projection. Anna Freud. Jung liked it a lot as an explanation for human psychology.

You're too easy to hit though. Like my bf who could hit a target with his eyes slitted almost closed and the gun lying on his lap. Sexy though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Modern era ended around 1950.
Close, but no cigar. The modern era ended on Feb. 10, 1949. And it ended in Japan, where a child was born. Ghs
The Modern era ended around 1950. <b>around</b> is the important word here. Around is a modifier. Around means about, not exactly .

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Modern era ended around 1950.
Close, but no cigar. The modern era ended on Feb. 10, 1949. And it ended in Japan, where a child was born. Ghs
The Modern era ended around 1950. <b>around</b> is the important word here. Around is a modifier. Around means about, not exactly .

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan. ___

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Just a f___ing minute! The world was made when I was born and the world is mine to win!

--Brant

it ain't over til it's over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan. I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D. Ghs
Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you. Ba'al Chatzaf

I wish I could clarify my point, but I cannot because you would not understand. You would not understand because, as Janet says when she cannot explain her her cryptic remarks, we are working within different dialectics.

You are working within the dialectic known as making sense of things. I, in stark contrast, am working within the dialectic known as throwing stink bombs at fools -- a dialectic technically known to postmodernists as Deconstructing Janetism. :laugh:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime.

Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan. Did it end because I was born? Or was this an instance of Jungian synchronicity? We don't know, partially because we cannot be said to know anything. But we can say, with some degree of credibility, that the modern era ended and a new era began at the moment of my birth.

Thus began the post-modern era of Georgyism -- an era that, according the Burroughs/Rand theory (as interpreted by the Janetist school of deconstructionism), did not exist until I was around to perceive it.

I plan to write a book on this issue. The title will be: Georgyism: The Birth of A New Era. Problems and Perspectives. I have already written rough drafts of a few chapters, but they are too polished and comprehensible, so I will need to write some pre-rough drafts by adding a lot of needless words.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of glad I have been lured into looking at SLOP. There's a guy over there with a wicked sense of humor that I have enjoyed reading. A dude named Darren.

I don't know about his positive views or anything else about him since I haven't really read all that much (there are limits), but he sure seems to hone in on the BS some people serve up in using Objecivist jargon to keep from thinking through issues. (Probably because it hurts. :smile: )

My favorite comment by him so far was in response to Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's bating the religious people with a trap question of whether their consciousness survived the death of their brains.

... your consciousness survived the death of your brain. Why should others be different?

:smile:

LOL...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.

I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D.

Ghs

Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?

You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime.

Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan. Did it end because I was born? Or was this an instance of Jungian synchronicity? We don't know, partially because we cannot be said to know anything. But we can say, with some degree of credibility, that the modern era ended and a new era began at the moment of my birth.

Thus began the post-modern era of Georgyism -- an era that, according the Burroughs/Rand theory (as interpreted by the Janetist school of deconstructionism), did not exist until I was around to perceive it.

I plan to write a book on this issue. The title will be: Georgyism: The Birth of A New Era. Problems and Perspectives. I have already written rough drafts of a few chapters, but they are too polished and comprehensible, so I will need to write some pre-rough drafts by adding a lot of needless words.

Ghs

I have a candidate for one of your cover blurbs, and perhaps even the Forward to this proposed door-stopper, but I fear that it may require your taking a trip to Springfield. Missouri, that is. Perhaps the expenses of said travel could be offset by a pay-per-view arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to give an approximation when precision is possible. I can be even more precise: The modern era ended at 8:26 a.m..Feb. 10, 1949, on a U.S. military base in Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan. I know because I was there when the modern era ended. Q.E.D. Ghs
Could you clarify that a bit? Thank you. Ba'al Chatzaf
I am going to hazard the guess that it was at this precise point that an ornery young atheist entered the world, who would be named George H. Smith. They say that youth is wasted on the young. Is there a similar adage for the wasting of good one liners?
You are a wise man for someone who has not yet lived a single lifetime. Yes, the modern era ended at the moment of my birth in Japan. Did it end because I was born? Or was this an instance of Jungian synchronicity? We don't know, partially because we cannot be said to know anything. But we can say, with some degree of credibility, that the modern era ended and a new era began at the moment of my birth. Thus began the post-modern era of Georgyism -- an era that, according the Burroughs/Rand theory (as interpreted by the Janetist school of deconstructionism), did not exist until I was around to perceive it. I plan to write a book on this issue. The title will be: Georgyism: The Birth of A New Era. Problems and Perspectives. I have already written rough drafts of a few chapters, but they are too polished and comprehensible, so I will need to write some pre-rough drafts by adding a lot of needless words. Ghs
I have a candidate for one of your cover blurbs, and perhaps even the Forward to this proposed door-stopper, but I fear that it may require your taking a trip to Springfield. Missouri, that is. Perhaps the expenses of said travel could be offset by a pay-per-view arrangement?

I used to do a lot of traveling -- 4 to 6 weeks every summer, for 16 years, for IHS and Cato conferences; and 10 day trip from LA to Nashville and back again every couple months, for over 6 years, for Knowledge Products.

I grew thoroughly sick of airports and busses with wings. Nowadays I travel on via wormholes. Do you know of a wormhole between Bloomington (IL) and Springfield?

Ghs

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