Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[seymourblogger]

Actually I have to thank you for this hat thing. It has turned out perfectly. Princess Beatrice wore a hat that was more hat than a hat. It was "worse" than a hat, an "obscene" hat. More so. This is what I have been saying over and over because no one gets it, yet you bring up an image that says it so perfectly. Beatrice's hat. Making fun of "hatdom", making fun of royal rituals that are silly.

By claiming that Beatrice was "making fun of royal rituals", you are doing precisely that against which you have been arguing here in numerous posts: you are interpreting, and what you interpret is tainted by the 'postmodern glasses' you seem to be wearing all the time. So unless there exists convincing evidence of Beatrice being a 'post-modern rebel' (for the mere wearing of this hat does not qualify as sufficient evidence), your comments are a mere personal interpretation. I suppose Foucault would have agreed.

Now why didn't she behave like a normal person? Wear a pretty hat with flowers on it, pretty colors, pretty on her hair, her face framed prettily. The ladies here would have been happy instead of groaning over it because the ladies here are very normal, very conditioned, very good little girls who don't jump over the traces.

See above. You are interpreting again. Your interpretation can be countered with other interpretations; so again, I ask you where is your additional evidence?

You are confusing categories again. "Interpretation" as far a a "hat" goes is a fun thing. Maybe she didn't know but it said it all the same. The hat designer knew for sure as fashion is a subversive art form. I said fashion, not clothes.

By "interpretation" within the Discourse something different is meant. It determines so very much in so many fields and so many ways. It occludes alternative perceptions, textbook inclusions, historical revisionism, etc. When I use the term "interpretation" in a philosophical sense, it has nothing to do with playful interpretations of a very funny hat that thumbed its nose at royal protocol.

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

[seymourblogger]

Baudrillard's comment on the third Reich was that maybe it existed and prevented something far worse. I think Stalin would have been. You?

Both Hitler and Stalin were abysmal monsters. Which is why it makes no sense positioning one over the other as the "lesser evil".

Stalin did the gulags before Hitler did the camps. Hitler learned from and copied Stalin. Stalin was by far the more ingenious and intelligent of the two. Had HItler not come to domination of Germany, Stalin might have won the world.

Have you ever read some of that book - forget its name - on what might have happened historically if such and such had not happened. The one I remember is when the Huns were surrounding Vienna and the clumsy knights in armor were marching to defend it. They were going to lose to the military acumen of the Mongols. The general had a 200 mile wide flank, and a strategy for destroying cities that was not seen again until the Civil War. The Khan died and they all had to go back to China to vote in the new Khan.

Vienna was saved. There were other parts of Germany reduced to ashes and people were living in caves again after the scourge had passed.

I've read victor Herman's account of the Gulag and I think being a non Jew, would choose Hitler over Stalin. But of course Hitler would never have come to power had not the European nations facilitated his moves before the war. And the damage done at Versailles by the diplomats.

Better give it up x-ray. You are not gonna win against me. You can't keep up and you don't want to learn. A pity.

[caroljane]

Actually I have to thank you for this hat thing. It has turned out perfectly. Princess Beatrice wore a hat that was more hat than a hat. It was "worse" than a hat, an "obscene" hat. More so. This is what I have been saying over and over because no one gets it, yet you bring up an image that says it so perfectly. Beatrice's hat. Making fun of "hatdom", making fun of royal rituals that are silly.

By claiming that Beatrice was "making fun of royal rituals", you are doing precisely that against which you have been arguing here in numerous posts: you are interpreting, and what you interpret is tainted by the 'postmodern glasses' you seem to be wearing all the time. So unless there exists convincing evidence of Beatrice being a 'post-modern rebel' (for the mere wearing of this hat does not qualify as sufficient evidence), your comments are a mere personal interpretation. I suppose Foucault would have agreed.

Now why didn't she behave like a normal person? Wear a pretty hat with flowers on it, pretty colors, pretty on her hair, her face framed prettily. The ladies here would have been happy instead of groaning over it because the ladies here are very normal, very conditioned, very good little girls who don't jump over the traces.

See above. You are interpreting again. Your interpretation can be countered with other interpretations; so again, I ask you where is your additional evidence?

You are confusing categories again. "Interpretation" as far a a "hat" goes is a fun thing. Maybe she didn't know but it said it all the same. The hat designer knew for sure as fashion is a subversive art form. I said fashion, not clothes.

By "interpretation" within the Discourse something different is meant. It determines so very much in so many fields and so many ways. It occludes alternative perceptions, textbook inclusions, historical revisionism, etc. When I use the term "interpretation" in a philosophical sense, it has nothing to do with playful interpretations of a very funny hat that thumbed its nose at royal protocol.

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

You are reciting the rote of jolly old Baudrillard, as you have learned in your many happy years at school. More's the pity.

[Brant Gaede]

Baudrillard's comment on the third Reich was that maybe it existed and prevented something far worse. I think Stalin would have been. You?

Both Hitler and Stalin were abysmal monsters. Which is why it makes no sense positioning one over the other as the "lesser evil".

Stalin did the gulags before Hitler did the camps. Hitler learned from and copied Stalin. Stalin was by far the more ingenious and intelligent of the two. Had HItler not come to domination of Germany, Stalin might have won the world.

Have you ever read some of that book - forget its name - on what might have happened historically if such and such had not happened. The one I remember is when the Huns were surrounding Vienna and the clumsy knights in armor were marching to defend it. They were going to lose to the military acumen of the Mongols. The general had a 200 mile wide flank, and a strategy for destroying cities that was not seen again until the Civil War. The Khan died and they all had to go back to China to vote in the new Khan.

Vienna was saved. There were other parts of Germany reduced to ashes and people were living in caves again after the scourge had passed.

I've read victor Herman's account of the Gulag and I think being a non Jew, would choose Hitler over Stalin. But of course Hitler would never have come to power had not the European nations facilitated his moves before the war. And the damage done at Versailles by the diplomats.

Better give it up x-ray. You are not gonna win against me. You can't keep up and you don't want to learn. A pity.

Where's the "sense"? And the Third R.: "maybe it existed"? Stalin win the world? Hitler stopped him? WTF? Then a slew of non-sequiturs seemingly about Stalin as the inheritor of the Mongol hordes conquering the world.

--Brant

[caroljane]

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning.

[seymourblogger]

Actually I have to thank you for this hat thing. It has turned out perfectly. Princess Beatrice wore a hat that was more hat than a hat. It was "worse" than a hat, an "obscene" hat. More so. This is what I have been saying over and over because no one gets it, yet you bring up an image that says it so perfectly. Beatrice's hat. Making fun of "hatdom", making fun of royal rituals that are silly.

By claiming that Beatrice was "making fun of royal rituals", you are doing precisely that against which you have been arguing here in numerous posts: you are interpreting, and what you interpret is tainted by the 'postmodern glasses' you seem to be wearing all the time. So unless there exists convincing evidence of Beatrice being a 'post-modern rebel' (for the mere wearing of this hat does not qualify as sufficient evidence), your comments are a mere personal interpretation. I suppose Foucault would have agreed.

Now why didn't she behave like a normal person? Wear a pretty hat with flowers on it, pretty colors, pretty on her hair, her face framed prettily. The ladies here would have been happy instead of groaning over it because the ladies here are very normal, very conditioned, very good little girls who don't jump over the traces.

See above. You are interpreting again. Your interpretation can be countered with other interpretations; so again, I ask you where is your additional evidence?

You are confusing categories again. "Interpretation" as far a a "hat" goes is a fun thing. Maybe she didn't know but it said it all the same. The hat designer knew for sure as fashion is a subversive art form. I said fashion, not clothes.

By "interpretation" within the Discourse something different is meant. It determines so very much in so many fields and so many ways. It occludes alternative perceptions, textbook inclusions, historical revisionism, etc. When I use the term "interpretation" in a philosophical sense, it has nothing to do with playful interpretations of a very funny hat that thumbed its nose at royal protocol.

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

You are reciting the rote of jolly old Baudrillard, as you have learned in your many happy years at school. More's the pity.

Never learned Baudrillard at school. And not until One year ago. He can't be memorized a he doesn't write that way. He writes only in fragments as Nietzsche did so that one can't learn him by rote. Nor Nietzsche. s-ray says she is not an objectivist but you could have fooled me. She spouts the part line so well. My new blog is http://aynrand2.blogspot.com. Take a look.

[seymourblogger]

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning.

No she doesn't. She's too much of an authoritarian in her thinking. I bet she doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students?

[caroljane]

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning.

No she doesn't. She's too much of an authoritarian in her thinking. I bet she doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students?

You just don't get it. You are in a place where people have conversations, share experiences, talk about ideas, and show what kind of learners and thinkers they are by what they post and how they interact. It is not about credentialism.

[seymourblogger]

You are a very literal person. You think kin a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

ITalk about projection. It is you who are at the lowest level of learning, despite your rote theoretical grasp of what learning might be.Xray knows more about early learning than you do, and also about lifelong learning.

No she doesn't. She's too much of an authoritarian in her thinking. I bet she doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students?

You just don't get it. You are in a place where people have conversations, share experiences, talk about ideas, and show what kind of learners and thinkers they are by what they post and how they interact. It is not about credentialism.

Hammers are made to test ideas and concepts. - Nietzsche

Yeh but you are all so boring. I try to learn something but there's nothing here to learn. Except Princess Beatrice's hat. Now that was very good.

[caroljane]

Hammers are made to test ideas and concepts. - Nietzsche

Yeh but you are all so boring. I try to learn something but there's nothing here to learn. Except Princess Beatrice's hat. Now that was very good.

Actually Friedrich, it is more often ideas and concepts in practice that test hammers, in hammer factories, where you seem to have acquired most of yours.

I am surprised that you are trying to learn something here. What exactly is your area of interest in study? I had the distinct impression that you came here to lecture.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yeh but you are all so boring. I try to learn something but there's nothing here to learn.

Here we go again.

Pose over substance to scratch a neurotic itch.

Any 4 year old would say, "Well, go find people who are not boring to you."

Well, duh...

That should be easy enough. There are only a billion people on the Internet. And that's not an exaggeration.

Michael

[Xray]

Stalin did the gulags before Hitler did the camps.

Your point being? Can you think of any totalitarian political system that does not have camps where they put people that don't suit them?

As for Hitler copying from others - it might interest you that he also admired the power apparatus which the Catholic church had developed in order to have a firm grip on people's lives from the cradle to the grave. Getting a firm grip on others' lives was also a key element in Hitler's own thinking.

Stalin was by far the more ingenious and intelligent of the two.

Stalin certainly was a psychopath, but he lacked the 'psychotic' streak that Hitler had, and which expressed itself in his racial fanatism.

It true that Hiltler comes across a less intelligent than Stalin (although he could be quite cunning when it came to manipulating others).

But then what does that say? i'm sure there exist enough abominable criminals with a fairly high IQ,

I've read victor Herman's account of the Gulag and I think being a non Jew, would choose Hitler over Stalin.

You should also read accounts of people who were interned in Nazi concentration camps. Do you really believe the Nazi camps were less horrible than the Soviet camps?

Even if you think that as a "non Jew" you would have escaped the gas chamber - can you imagine how your life would have looked like living under Hitler? One critical remark (even if it was said in jest) could have the Gestapo knock at your door and they would take you with them.

[Xray]

I bet she [=Xray]doesn't even know the work of Emmi Pikler or John Holt. And if she did she could never follow them. It is very difficult to do a permissive free school experience. A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray. Someone like me. Who did do it BTW. Want some stories. Some famous names of students?

It's time again for you to correct you premises: I even have a book by Emmi Pikler (German title "Laßt mir Zeit").

A teacher would have to be much more flexible in her thinking than s-ray.

If I were not flexible in my thinking, I would not last in my teaching job for one single day.

Why do you suddenly call me "s-ray" btw?

You are a very literal person. You think a literal way and your learning style is rote, which BTW, is the lowest level of learning. .This is why you reply like this to me. A pity.

As I said in previous posts to you: alI I'm asking for is preciseness. But as soon as preciseness on your part would be required, you want to slip away.

A typical indicator of an evasive "slipping away", is a trying to put some condescending label on the discussion partners, - evidenced in phrases like "a pity" ," there's nothing here to learn", "You are all so boring" - .thus hoping to shut their critical voices up.

Quite frequently, the evader also says "You don't understand" (a certain philosophy, ideology, religion, etc).

[Xray]

My new blog is http://aynrand2.blogspot.com. Take a look.

When I click on the link it says "blog not found".

s-ray [sic] says she is not an objectivist but you could have fooled me. She spouts the part line so well.

I'm not an Objectivist. I neither share Rand's endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism, nor do I conceive e. g. of selfishness as a virtue; I see it as a simple given.

I do think of rationality though as a key element for a philosophy, and use certain elements of Objectivism as a tool in discussions.

By doing this kind of patchworking, I'm violating yet another Objectivist principle that says one cannot take parts from it because it is an integrated whole. (NB said something about this in his "Benefits and Hazards" article).

But of course one can take parts from Objectivism. One can take parts from any philosophy and work them into one's own.

Only if I would call myself an Objectivist while rejecting essential parts of the philosophy, this would be problematic because of the resulting contradiction.

Arguing from an Objectivist position for example works excellently when you are discussing with theists.

For the epistemologically strongest part of Objectivism is the rejection as irrational of any ethics based on religion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why do you suddenly call me "s-ray" btw?

Angela,

It's merely a minor example of post-modern typing.

(Sorry, that was too well set-up to resist. )

Michael

[seymourblogger]

My new blog is http://aynrand2.blogspot.com. Take a look.

When I click on the link it says "blog not found".

s-ray [sic] says she is not an objectivist but you could have fooled me. She spouts the part line so well.

I'm not an Objectivist. I neither share Rand's endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism, nor do I conceive e. g. of selfishness as a virtue; I see it as a simple given.

I do think of rationality though as a key element for a philosophy, and use certain elements of Objectivism as a tool in discussions.

By doing this kind of patchworking, I'm violating yet another Objectivist principle that says one cannot take parts from it because it is an integrated whole. (NB said something about this in his "Benefits and Hazards" article).

But of course one can take parts from Objectivism. One can take parts from any philosophy and work them into one's own.

Only if I would call myself an Objectivist while rejecting essential parts of the philosophy, this would be problematic because of the resulting contradiction.

Arguing from an Objectivist position for example works excellently when you are discussing with theists.

For the epistemologically strongest part of Objectivism is the rejection as irrational of any ethics based on religion.

On taking parts from objectivism Sciabarra is very clear on this. Peikoff's summary also. It is an integrated system because everything is in relation to everything else. If you start pulling it apart piecemeal the wole ting crumbles.

Graham Greene studied Catholicism when he wished to marry a Catholic, as a man not a child. He evidently discussed conversion with a very subtle priest. He converted and married.

He has said that the entire system of religion known as Catholicism depends o this carefully constructed structure of beliefs. If one of the "pieces" is doubted or disbelieved, the entire structure shakes and crumbles. It as been carefully constructed for hundreds of years by subtle and intelligent minds.

In this Rand is following Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a moralist and is acutely aware of hypocrisy. Rand was also. When it came to her personal life she resorted to denial and rationalization. She was good at it. Her "belief" that sexual choice resulted from your highest value and was a logical choice and decision took it to extremes. But she took everything to extremes. That's Nietzsche and Nietzsche flowing through Rand. It backs you into a corner. Rand was backed into a corner. So was Branden. And so is Peikoff.

They cannot nor could not see what was wrong. Why if she was his highest value, and she was, why could e not get it up for her? Why could he not physically desire her? Why did he not need her sexually?

To not desire her indicated a flaw in her philosophy. To Branden and to herself. It broke the enclosed system opening it up, and that could not be allowed.

Gee I have 4 more comments allowed. I wonder if they roll over like minutes on cell phones. I bet they don't. Isn't Michael Stuart Kelly lucky!

I don't know why the link won't go there. It goes there at solopassion. Maybe something here..........? Oh that is blasphemy!

When the link won't work, you paste it in the browser. That's good to know because it happens a lot. Just copy it, then go up to the bar and paste it in then click go! That should do it. I had to hurry and import posts because it was getting so many hits as a blank.

Dareen has left 2 comments on the beginning post. They are absolutely brilliant.

I am so jealous!

[Xray]

When the link won't work, you paste it in the browser. That's good to know because it happens a lot. Just copy it, then go up to the bar and paste it in then click go! That should do it.

I just tried the 'paste in the browser' method but it didn't work either. On which thread/post on SOLO did you post the link also?

Dareen has left 2 comments on the beginning post. They are absolutely brilliant.

I am so jealous!

"Dareen" - You mean Darren?

If you are "jealous" because you think D's comments surpass yours in brilliance, in your place I'd take this as an opportunity to study how this poster lays out his arguments.

Ellen has collected some crucial posts Darren made on SOLO; (there had been some insecurity about whether this is a theist or an agnostic). But those post should erase all doubt as to where he's coming from:

He [= Darren] presented his CodER thesis in a lengthy series of posts on SOLO, excerpts from which I quoted in post #514 on this thread.

Here are those excerpts again. All come from posts on the current page 6 (reading in reverse-date order, 90 posts/thread) of Rand and Darwin - Conflict or Not?:

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96622

Being extremely reasonable and good-natured myself, I am more than amenable to a Grand Theory of Evolution in which the end-goal is pre-existing, or in which Big Natural Selection has been instructed, in advance, as to what sorts of biological traits are to be deemed "desirable" and therefore "fit", in order to reach a pre-existing goal, and which traits are to be discarded. All you need to do is assume a Big Coder in the Sky: someone who is the analogue in physical nature to Richard Dawkins himself when he's in front of his computer.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96715

The Big Coder (necessitated by Dawkins's own assumptions in his computer simulation) Always Was And Always Will Be.

The fact that I posit an intelligent first cause as opposed to an inert one in no way changes the logic of the reply.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96720

[...] if you assume that existence doesn't require creation, then there's no problem positing an Intelligent First Cause whose existence always was. The reason one posits an Intelligent First Cause is to explain the existence of a system of coded-chemistry, which obviously cannot emerge -- spontaneously or incrementally -- from non-intelligent causes. Codes are always tell-tale products of intelligence, goal-directedness, and teleology.

[....] "Codes" come from "Coders." They never "emerge" -- not spontaneously, not incrementally.

[....]

We're substituting a known cause -- intelligence -- for unknown causes, in order to explain a known effect: coded-chemistry in biological organisms.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96732

Given the time constraints imposed by the age of the universe (approximately 12-15 billion years), the start of life is a mathematically impossible event.

[....]

An impossible event for chance requires intelligence to explain it. God? As far as my replies to Leonid go, I only mentioned a "Big Coder in the Sky." Could be intelligent martians.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96735

[...] biological coded-chemistry is isomorphic with all other known codes such as ASCII and Morse Code; and since we know that codes cannot arise from chance, necessity, or any combination thereof, that leaves only intelligence as a cause.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96750

[Asked "why one needs to postulate creator"]: To account for things that could not have come into existence through random combinations of pre-existing material entities, or by means of necessary, deterministic forces; i.e., codes.

[Asked "why your first cause has to be intelligent]: Because of the existence of codes, which are always the product of intelligence. In the case of human life, of course, I'm perfectly willing to consider that biological coded-chemistry was designed by intelligent martians or venusians.

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-96756

The "secret of life" is not "super-complicated chemical interactions." Most of life's chemistry is fairly straightforward. What makes life special (and interesting) is the existence of a system of coded chemistry, with cellular apparatus that encode and decode strings of simple chemicals that function in an organism exactly like binary mathematical symbols in a computer algorithm, or like alphabetic symbols within a system of a written language. [....] The "code" part of the "genetic code" resides in the arbitrary, optional, non-determined order, or sequence of base molecules.

This arbitrary, or optional, aspect of symbol-sequence is one of the typical features of true codes -- like Morse Code, for example. [....]

[Coded] y whom? We don't know. I call him The Big Coder in the Sky, though Leonid took offense that I assumed He lives above ground-level.

Thanks Ellen for posting this here.

Janet: "The Big Coder (...) Always Was And Always Will Be" [end quote Darren] is as clear as it can get.

[caroljane]

Gee I have 4 more comments allowed. I wonder if they roll over like minutes on cell phones. I bet they don't. Isn't Michael Stuart Kelly lucky!

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

[PDS]

Gee I have 4 more comments allowed. I wonder if they roll over like minutes on cell phones. I bet they don't. Isn't Michael Stuart Kelly lucky!

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

Town flirts have their charms, however.

As much as I hoped otherwise, with a vision of a little old lady in Springfield battling it out in the field of ideas in her dotage, I am afraid SM-Blogger is simply a blowhard, and a pretty mean one at that. A tornado cut through her neck of the woods last week, and yet she finds it relevant to continue to tilt at post-modern windmills, talking about such savory topics as whether NB can "get it up" or not, and if not, why not.

If I were SM-Blogger, I would step away from the computer and take another look at Graham Greene, whom she claims to know something about. Specifically, she might take a look at The Power and the Glory, or maybe A Burnt Out Case, and read these works of art as ends in themselves, not to support more post-modern gibberish to beat others over the head with.

SM-Blogger seems to fancy herself the heroic Querry in a village of OL lepers, but Querry never insulted the lepers--he sought first to understand them, then he actually came to appreciate them, and then, most important of all, he was redeemed by them.

[9thdoctor]

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

In case you missed it, she's on SLOP boasting that she, age 78, has a 25 year old “bf”.

http://www.solopassi...#comment-106817

Reminds me of one of my favorite short stories by a "postmodern" author:

http://thefloatingli.../08/24/granita/

[caroljane]

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

In case you missed it, she's on SLOP boasting that she, age 78, has a 25 year old “bf”.

http://www.solopassi...#comment-106817

Reminds me of one of my favorite short stories by a "postmodern" author:

http://thefloatingli.../08/24/granita/

Wowie. Well,, good on her . Too bad the boy's mother is so prejudiced, luckily J has the advantage of superior academic credentials.

She is wrong about what mothers can forgive, however.

The nornettes story made my sides ache. A treasure.

[seymourblogger]

Gee I have 4 more comments allowed. I wonder if they roll over like minutes on cell phones. I bet they don't. Isn't Michael Stuart Kelly lucky!

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

Town flirts have their charms, however.

As much as I hoped otherwise, with a vision of a little old lady in Springfield battling it out in the field of ideas in her dotage, I am afraid SM-Blogger is simply a blowhard, and a pretty mean one at that. A tornado cut through her neck of the woods last week, and yet she finds it relevant to continue to tilt at post-modern windmills, talking about such savory topics as whether NB can "get it up" or not, and if not, why not.

If I were SM-Blogger, I would step away from the computer and take another look at Graham Greene, whom she claims to know something about. Specifically, she might take a look at The Power and the Glory, or maybe A Burnt Out Case, and read these works of art as ends in themselves, not to support more post-modern gibberish to beat others over the head with.

SM-Blogger seems to fancy herself the heroic Querry in a village of OL lepers, but Querry never insulted the lepers--he sought first to understand them, then he actually came to appreciate them, and then, most important of all, he was redeemed by them.

So I am Querry right? And you are the lepers I should understand, come to know and love, and learn from.

Sorry I prefer to learn from beings of higher intelligence.

Let's try again: http://aynrand2.blogspot.com Links and other stuff are having difficulty with blogspot because right now as I type google is changing servers to keep up with the Japanese goto. this is something google does regularly but this one is massive and people are screaming about losing their panties all over the place.

Or maybe te problem is here. We will see now, won't we?

In cyberspace one can never really know. There is only credibility. So It might be you are lying or x-ray is? Or it might be google? Or it might by Michael Studart Kelly? Or it might be the intelligent designer of codes? Or Daniken might be right?

But Darren will put Rand right smack in the middle of the post modern thought campgrounds. There is no post modern theory.

<b>Because</b> now listen carefully: Any theory can be turned and used against the formulator or against what the formulator wished to expose, hinder, stop. - Virilio

This is the danger of the role of theory in the dialectic.

And brilliant darren only has 5 posts at objectivist living because he is a threat to guess............................

[seymourblogger]

Yeh but you are all so boring. I try to learn something but there's nothing here to learn.

Here we go again. Pose over substance to scratch a neurotic itch. Any 4 year old would say, "Well, go find people who are not boring to you." Well, duh... That should be easy enough. There are only a billion people on the Internet. And that's not an exaggeration. Michael

But then what would you do?

Every in group needs a scapegoat or an outgroup. This is just psychology 101.

Come see my ayn Rand blog: http://aynrand2.blogspot.com

You may even like it. Darren is brilliant BTW.

[caroljane]

I looked at your blog. It's cute! Is it, like, viral? '?I can't catch anything can I? Are you sure you know where Darren's been?

Um, where are the people of higher intelligence we can learn from?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymourblogger

I looked at the blog and started to go through "Reading Eric Packer Through Ayn Rand," but I didn't bother to read much.

It's amateurish and the visual is kind of tacky.

Sorry.

Michael