Philip Coates

Solving a Puzzle-- Understanding Some People's Reactions

Recommended Posts

The very simple reason is that there is a Dominating Discourse here. All fundamental founding Discourses include their opposites in their structural founding. It is inherent that in the dialectic, the argument can continue forever when there ae opposing perceptions, feelings, thoughts, facts, opinions, etc etc etc.

If you "CUT" into the Discourse, fury will erupt, not just hostility. People die when they do this, Galileo had to recant. Rand spent decades arguing and only in her fiction could she say it and obtain closure. Her non-fiction was always open to interpretation and argumentation.

<...>

I don't think there is a Dominating Discourse here on OL. To me, it looks like the posters here are too motley a crew for that to happen.

On more orthodox forums though, where a "true doctrine" is ardently being defended against having its premises checked, you are far more likely to come across a Dominant Discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominating Discourse... motley ... crew

Angela:

If there is gonna be any of that thar Dominatin Stuff goin on here, me and the Crue will take control of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've been wondering about which this seems a good place to ask: Has Phil posted on OO? From reports of that list, it sounds to me as if the people there would be more amenable to Phil's hectoring, which relies on attempts to elicit an Objectivist guilt which isn't present in the people whose behavior he tries to mold here.

I suggested it to him, on the grounds that they have active moderation and enforced "civility". There would be that much less for him to whine about over there. He spent some time on Betsy's forum, so I can't see why he'd have a moral objection to OO.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=12105&view=findpost&p=106645

Maybe he's under the misapprehension that OO is "owned" by Comrade Sonia. It isn't. Just look what I was able to post there.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23036&view=findpost&p=288044

Of course, I could have spelled out what I meant by "the above juxtaposition" better, but I was anticipating more back and forth so the meaning could emerge. Instead, they locked the thread, not because of me but because of a raving loon from the fundy side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very simple reason is that there is a Dominating Discourse here. All fundamental founding Discourses include their opposites in their structural founding. It is inherent that in the dialectic, the argument can continue forever when there ae opposing perceptions, feelings, thoughts, facts, opinions, etc etc etc.

If you "CUT" into the Discourse, fury will erupt, not just hostility. People die when they do this, Galileo had to recant. Rand spent decades arguing and only in her fiction could she say it and obtain closure. Her non-fiction was always open to interpretation and argumentation.

<...>

I don't think there is a Dominating Discourse here on OL. To me, it looks like the posters here are too motley a crew for that to happen.

On more orthodox forums though, where a "true doctrine" is ardently being defended against having its premises checked, you are far more likely to come across a Dominant Discourse.

The "Dominating Discourse" is Objectivism sans Rand's novels. Any Objectivist site is right in and of that "Discourse."

--Brant

I think I got it right--Janet could come with a lot of good Objectivist criticisms if she had any interest beyond Objectivism was Rand's "gift" to Branden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> a Dominating Discourse here [sB]

You can rely on them not to see it. Sometimes it takes someone outside or with a fresh perspective to point out the obvious. But then you'll get Willy's predictable comeback: Have you read at least ten thousand posts? Have you been a member for years? Do you have footnotes?

And her's my favorite for sleazy by William in #25: Maybe you're a troll?

Disgusting. He even put trolling in capital letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> a Dominating Discourse here [sB]

You can rely on them not to see it. Sometimes it takes someone outside or with a fresh perspective to point out the obvious. But then you'll get Willy's predictable comeback: Have you read at least ten thousand posts? Have you been a member for years? Do you have footnotes?

And her's my favorite for sleazy by William in #25: Maybe you're a troll?

Disgusting. He even put trolling in capital letters.

Phil, you expect people to memorize your every post and then cite them exactly, when they are arguing with you. You seldom return the favour. You know I love you but unless you intend to embrace the meaningless of meaning with seymour, your gander will always be tangily sauced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very simple reason is that there is a Dominating Discourse here. All fundamental founding Discourses include their opposites in their structural founding. It is inherent that in the dialectic, the argument can continue forever when there ae opposing perceptions, feelings, thoughts, facts, opinions, etc etc etc.

If you "CUT" into the Discourse, fury will erupt, not just hostility. People die when they do this, Galileo had to recant. Rand spent decades arguing and only in her fiction could she say it and obtain closure. Her non-fiction was always open to interpretation and argumentation.

<...>

I don't think there is a Dominating Discourse here on OL. To me, it looks like the posters here are too motley a crew for that to happen.

On more orthodox forums though, where a "true doctrine" is ardently being defended against having its premises checked, you are far more likely to come across a Dominant Discourse.

There does seem to have been a Dominating Discourse recently, namely: Why is Phil so misunderstood, and why is he treated so unfairly?

It seems that Phil the Innocent has been violated again and again while maintaining his virginity throughout.

Why it was necessary for Phil to start yet another thread on this egomaniacal topic escapes me. There are plenty of other threads -- most of them started by Phil -- that he could have used.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so strong a reaction out of all proportion to the cause?

It is because, mainly, that you have a way of writing things that annoy the crap out of people on one level or another. I didn't say challenge, I said annoy. Basically, it's just a style problem.

I got over it years ago. I can actually read your stuff and occasionally enjoy it. The only caveat for me is that you have this fierce habit (or need, I guess) to start threads like this one. They're all the same and people get tired of it. You should just repost three or four of your best complaining ones about how people don't get you. It will save you time, and really, I don't think it will decrease your impact when you go there.

rde

I Finally Get Time To Come Over Here And The First Thing I See Is Phil-Whining<tm>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I pretty much thought I should persevere while totally unready for what I was doing. Didn't really work out I guess. However, thanks for the encouragement

I used to do career workshops. The idea is to go far back and remember what you did early on that you did just because you loved doing it, not because it got money and not because someone praised you. Then you look at those things and just contemplate. What kinds of patterns do they fall into? What possibilities do they have now.

In other words, as Baudrillard says, :et the world think you.

What I am doing now blogging is as great a satisfaction for me as some things I have done in the past, and more than a lot of them.

Email me if you want feedback on all this as I just love doing it. Actually I have taught children and counseled adults that did things working with me that just left me in astonishment. I knew I could never have done THAT! And I would have loved to. So how is it I could help someone else do what I could not enable myself to do. I still don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can rely on them not to see it. Sometimes it takes someone outside or with a fresh perspective to point out the obvious. But then you'll get Willy's predictable comeback: Have you read at least ten thousand posts? Have you been a member for years? Do you have footnotes?

And her's my favorite for sleazy by William in #25: Maybe you're a troll?

Disgusting. He even put trolling in capital letters.

Any dialogue you participate in has a Dominating Discourse. The DD that Foucault was reserching was the DD of science, language, medicine, psychology, anthropology, all the human sciences. But there are minor ones wherever you go. The department in which you teach at a university.

The Dominating Discourse determines what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, how you can say it, who is to say it, and why you can say it. Anything outside that falls into the run off by the side of the road. This is where Foucault spent his life. In the archives looking at the run off by the roadside. And it is only then that we see what is forbidden, the refusal to know.

If you think of Rand getting turned down by 13 publishers on Fountainhead. And please if it's 12 or 15 I am not interested in this trivia. It was quite a few anyway. Why? Because Fountainhead was out of the DD of best selling books. Atlas was published just because she was Rand, Fountainhead made a fortune, the movie was lauded, so Cerf another outside thinker, got it. Atlas is also outside the DD of best selling novels.

And when you "cut" the DD and are a success, then you change the Dominating Discourse. Andy Warhol. Picasso. Pollack.

I have run off sites for this as it seems to be what I do, even before I knew that that's what I did. I have finally gotten the message and started my own blogs. But you can have a blog forever and no one will know you are there. Then what do you do? I am doing it. Looking for free thinking intelligent people wherever they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil's not threatening the discourse. Or you.

--Brant

regroup

Don't bet on it.

Brant,

Actually you can count on it. You know the history of this melodrama.

The Dominating Discourse determines what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, how you can say it, who is to say it, and why you can say it.

. . .

I have run off sites for this as it seems to be what I do, even before I knew that that's what I did.

Seymourblogger,

You won't be run off OL unless you consistently infringe the only so-called "Dominating Discourse" that counts: the posting guidelines. And so far you haven't infringed them (to my knowledge). Even if you do, I practice flexibility before things get ugly since I vastly prefer not ugly. In short, I don't have to take you seriously or even like you for you to post.

Whether you run off on your own steam is your business. For instance, you may not like the lack of howling around here.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil's not threatening the discourse. Or you.

--Brant

regroup

Don't bet on it.

Brant,

Actually you can count on it. You know the history of this melodrama.

The Dominating Discourse determines what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, how you can say it, who is to say it, and why you can say it.

. . .

I have run off sites for this as it seems to be what I do, even before I knew that that's what I did.

Seymourblogger,

You won't be run off OL unless you consistently infringe the only so-called "Dominating Discourse" that counts: the posting guidelines. And so far you haven't infringed them (to my knowledge). Even if you do, I practice flexibility before things get ugly since I vastly prefer not ugly. In short, I don't have to take you seriously or even like you for you to post.

Whether you run off on your own steam is your business. For instance, you may not like the lack of howling around here.

Michael

Janet and I are talking about ideas, not forum space occupied. Different kind of problem. You and I et al. remember how X-Ray was at first. It wasn't her ideas per se but how she swarmed into and over everything on OL with them.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't given you a chance to dump all over my fiction. I am sure you won't like it.

Sigh...

You're sure sure of a lot of things.

I'm not that superficial.

I used to think you weren't, either.

Michael

Superficial has a depth all its own.

She's just tired of all the set-upon today.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janet and I are talking about ideas, not forum space occupied. Different kind of problem.

Brant,

Are you sure?

You know that and I know that. I'm not sure she knows that.

If I understand correctly, she was saying that discussing certain ideas gets her run off of different sites because they infringe something she calls a dominating discourse of the site.

I do admit that promoting pedophilia or holding classes in how to build bombs and making plans for terrorist activities would fall outside of that thar dominating discourse thingie, but just presenting views on a topic does not.

I was merely informing that behavior is more the standard here than any kind of censorship of ideas. I like clarity in these things. So bad behavior like bullying, excessive hostility, spamming, trolling, serial plagiarism and so on are the issues, not liking or disliking someone's ideas. Hell, we even put up with people being two-faced on OL. We tend to call them on it, but we don't run them off.

Incidentally, dominating discourse seems to be another term for censorship. How does it sound that she worries about being thrown off OL because she doesn't fit our censorship code? What about them OL censorship codes anyhoo? Ain't they cool? Oops, I meant OL's dominating discourse...

Don't you think there's a big honking presupposition involved in that kind of thinking? One that has problems with accuracy? One that kinda makes you wanna look down on the poor bastards because they can't help themselves?

Anyway, gotta get back to howling...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's just tired of all the set-upon today.

Brant,

Could have fooled me.

I thought she wanted some howling...

From what I observed, it sure seemed like it.

Michael

Howl!

--Brant

best I can do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Abbey:

Let's start with you defining "dominating discourse."

Might be a step away from your "ping-pong" metaphor and into your preferred dialectic.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: "Dominating Discourse" - Pay Attention, Or I'll Rap Your Knuckles :smile:

> If I understand correctly, she was saying that discussing certain ideas gets her run off of different sites because they infringe something she calls a dominating discourse of the site. [MSK]

No, it seems that a group tends to move toward a consensus and ideas outside of that dominating discourse or "groupthink" tend to be instantly discounted rather than being considered. She sees that among OL regulars and in many other places. It would be true on Noodlefood, SoloP, etc. (Alternatively, sometimes a DD gets people shunned, sometimes ignored, sometimes insulted or made fun of.) Your comment that a DD always gets you run off is an oversimplification or an extreme case. She didn't say that happens -everywhere- did she?

> Incidentally, dominating discourse seems to be another term for censorship.

Again, you're oversimplifying to an extreme example. You do that a lot.

> Let's start with you defining "dominating discourse." [Adam]

Adam, you have an irritating way of asking someone to explain something that they already explained quite clearly enough for the average English reader. I assume that is because you didn't read carefully enough in the first place. Sort of a mental laziness you share with MSK, ND, Brant...and sometimes even the often more conscientious WSS and George. (Who am I forgetting? Ah yes! "La Precisonist" Stuttle. She wants footnotes and page references and quote functions as a reward for her insults. To top which she doesn't necessarily provide them herself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil whining again:

You know, it's hard to keep up with the nonsense: I was going to refute something clownishly silly from 24 hours ago, but there has been more nonsense in the last 12.

You dudes are working me too hard for the amount you're paying me.

SOB!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Dominating Discourse determines what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, how you can say it, who is to say it, and why you can say it. Anything outside that falls into the run off by the side of the road. ..Rand getting turned down by 13 publishers on Fountainhead...Why? Because Fountainhead was out of the DD of best selling books." [Post 36]

Good example. The dominating discourse of the 40's, just like the 30's was collectivism and conformism (e.g., "the Organization Man"), not independence and individualism. It's always uncomfortable to swim against the tide, to argue against or stand against your peers or your peeps. Anyone who thinks that groupthink doesn't occur in an Objectivist website like OL or elsewhere or among the ortho wing or the reformer wing is dangerously naive.

Today in a different world, the idea that you should be independent like Roark no longer seems shocking. Maybe "The Fountainhead" helped create that world?

(I prefer the term groupthink to dominating discourse or even to 'secondhandedness'. But the three concepts overlap - they don't name exactly the same thing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't given you a chance to dump all over my fiction. I am sure you won't like it.

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in every post? It's annoying, and there is no point to it. It is like appending another post to every post you write.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
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