Passing the torch!

[Ciro]

I wonder why Phil has never quit posting on forums, where he has been humiliated and misrespected many times?

Ciro

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder why Phil has never quit posting on forums, where he has been umiliated and misrespected many times?

Ciro

You might ask him, Ciro. I think he's so idea oriented that as long as he gets substantive replies he'll stick around in spite of any BS others might be inclined to shovel. I do enjoy the way he gets under Perigo's skin.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ As I already e-m'd Phil, I think he has a Don Quixote complex (better than plain ol' masochism, anyways.)

~ Still, there are alternative psychologizings (er, 'motivational analyzings/speculatings): some have a need for tackling obviously 'Lost Battles' (different from overly-imported or mis-interpreted/prioritized ones, such as Quixote's delusional and hallucinatory ones). O-t-other-h, such a type of arguer can be confused with merely those who will DEFINITELY NOT let the opponent/'enemy' have-the-last-word in their justifications for insulting disagreers.

~ Then, there's the Devil's-Advocate type.

~ Whichever, Phil's a 'good' guy.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

~ Whichever, Phil's a 'good' guy.

John,

I think so too.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

I assumed that Dodger meant, not all, but quite a few movie versions of Shakespearean plays turned movie. However, he never said all, he never said some.

Congratulations. I didn't say my way was the only way to see it. Just explained my thought process. It wasn't an illogical assumption given the information, nor was yours.

[Dodger]

I assumed that Dodger meant, not all, but quite a few movie versions of Shakespearean plays turned movie. However, he never said all, he never said some.

Congratulations. I didn't say my way was the only way to see it. Just explained my thought process. It wasn't an illogical assumption given the information, nor was yours.

Assumptions may be logical at points but they are always potentially hazardous

Take for instance, the digression that is has caused.

[Danneskjold]

Then ask whether the digression was caused by my assumption or your aversion to them. The assumption wasn't an illogical conclusion based on information available. It's your aversion to being judged and made assumptions about combined with my pointing out that assumptions are a large part of logic that spiraled the conversation out of control.

[Dodger]

Then ask whether the digression was caused by my assumption or your aversion to them. The assumption wasn't an illogical conclusion based on information available. It's your aversion to being judged and made assumptions about combined with my pointing out that assumptions are a large part of logic that spiraled the conversation out of control.

That's a damn low blow.

So would you like me to leave you in your bitterness?

[BAMF]

He can't be budged. ;)

Sometimes, rather than just blurting out your assumptions in a douchebag-like manner, it's nice to ask clarifying questions.

P.S. I don't think this conversation is...*uses an insane, clown-like voice* OUTTA CONTROL! :frantics:

Edited May 7, 2007 by Kori

[Jonathan]

Earlier on this thread I had asked Phil about his experiences and successes in spreading O'ist ideas. I see that he's given a more detailed answer on SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2530#comment-31694

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Earlier on this thread I had asked Phil about his experiences and successes in spreading O'ist ideas. I see that he's given a more detailed answer on SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2530#comment-31694

Jonathan,

You gotta insult him and call him all kinds of nasty names first. Cussing his mother is not mandatory, but it certainly helps. Say the word "trichotomy" and he's yours. Stroke it and he's yours forever. It has something to do with passionately rational spiritual fuel...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Earlier on this thread I had asked Phil about his experiences and successes in spreading O'ist ideas. I see that he's given a more detailed answer on SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2530#comment-31694

Jonathan,

You gotta insult him and call him all kinds of nasty names first. Cussing his mother is not mandatory, but it certainly helps. Say the word "trichotomy" and he's yours. Stroke it and he's yours forever. It has something to do with passionately rational spiritual fuel...

Michael

You're probably right. My impression is that Phil tends to focus his time and effort on rapping the knuckles of those he thinks need it most. "Have yardstick, will travel." Maybe it's a good sign that he spends more time on SOLOP than OL. Apparently OL needs less fixing?

Oh, and I've heard that his mom was a real floozy.

J

[Philip Coates]

> My impression is that Phil tends to focus his time and effort on rapping the knuckles of those he thinks need it most.

Jonathan, you're right...we Christian missionaries venture into the thickets and jungles among the Hutus and the Tutsis where the heathen are the densest and the light is the most missing. I take my innoculations and slather on some bug spray and venture into the wilds of Solo to bring wisdom to the savages who most desperately need it. I view my pleas for "civility" there to be the exact equivalent of trying to tell the natives to give up cannibalism. It will take centuries and they will have to throw away all the old recipes and the fine sauces they had prepared.

When I go to Solo and sneak into the headman's and witch doctors tents, I have the sadistic and non-productive pleasure of smacking around some intellectual bullies and sticking my boot very far up some butts which need it every once in a while, then retiring while they scream in outrage :-)

> You gotta insult him and call him all kinds of nasty names first. Cussing his mother is not mandatory, but it certainly helps.

Michael, this last won't work, I cuss her myself. Gotta be more creative and find new ways to insult me - take a lesson from Linz: he's very inventive when he's had some Shiraz. :-)

> his experiences and successes in spreading O'ist ideas. I see that he's given a more detailed answer on SOLOP

Jonathan and Michael, more seriously, it's an interesting question: I've found that my posts on OL and RoR don't get as much response or thorough debate as on SoloP - for example, my Objectivist Training ideas didn't get the response (or the quality went a bit askew or on a tangent from what I was trying to focus on). It's certainly people's right not to want to explore the topics I raise in great detail or to post a reponse...or to be interesten in my -way- of exploring.

But it's also my right to decide how much time I want to invest in response to that. It's a judgment call. In general though, I'm getting a bit burned out on all three lists in regard to lack of interest in the 'nuts and bolts' things that interest me...and which I have a lot of experience in. No offense, that's just the way it is.

I'll give one example: In my current 'future of Objectivism' thread on Solo...I got four or five great responses and four or five troll like responses. The latter doesn't matter to me, but if I can't get at least four or five people interested in thinking thru the matter, I lose interest. Someone said that the more frequent posters on OL are more likely to disagree with Oism or be lukewarm or not want to spend time debating how to spread it. That's fine and I understand.

But that's not my view...or my main interest in terms of who to engage with. Been there. Done that. Already answered all the mistaken views of people who think (mistakenly) that there are philosophical holes in Oism.

I'm a moral and epistemological crusader: While I disagree with AR on many of her **psychological** views I believe the basic philosophy, the Meta, Epist, Eth, Pol of Oism are **100% correct** (but do not want to spend time debating what I already know on this such as pages and pages on silly and elementary epistemological confusions like the survival vs. flourishing false alternative, which I can answer in a heartbeat).

And I want to move on to save the world by spreading this philosophy and applying it to all kinds of issues.

That doesn't affect who I would have as personal friends, it's not a moral or sense of life issue or socializing issue - I have always had non-Oist friends and people I like immensely. But it does affect where I would post...and that often leads me into hostile or intense sites rather than lukewarm or static sites.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

We got off on a weird footing last time. I just looked over that series of posts and I don't know where or how the error hit. It reminded me of a spring jumping out of the back of a clock. Boinggggggggg. Then the clock doesn't tick anymore and makes weird noises when you shake it.

What's even weirder was that I had always heard you complain that nobody gave serious consideration to your posts. So I decided to give it my best with some rather long (what I thought were) well-thought-out posts and you got really ticked.

I think there was a communication problem and a disagreement over some initial premises. I know from my view, going from post to reader, a meaning you understood grew along the way from the meaning I intended and one did not bear much resemblance to the other in the end. I got the impression you felt the same about your posts.

So I have a suggestion, if you are amenable. I don't know if we will ever agree on the premise that the world needs saving, but I have no doubt that we can agree that it would be vastly improved with the spread of Objectivism. (And I dearly hope Objectivist Internet forums are not an example of what a future Objectivist-leaning society would be. Ya' think we can save the Internet, too? Oops... There I go again. )

My suggestion is that we discuss something specific and not general. I mean, specific to education and not general, like to how to protect the philosophy or Rand's reputation or whatever. If there is a good education program in the works, does it matter if one is doing it to save the world and the other is doing it simply to teach information to students, or a combination of both?

I will even start the ball rolling. There is a guy, Paul Grignon, who produced an extremely powerful video called Money As Debt. He did this out of his own head. He took a subject that has been traditionally complicated and simplified it in a most charming manner. No one I know who sees this video thinks about the current money system the same afterwards. They are changed forever for the better.

I believe an approach like this video would be marvelous for a beginning series in Objectivism, or even more complicated ones like Objectivist epistemology. A little bit of talent and gumption should do it. I know I have my own plans for doing something like this.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dear Mr Coates

I'm new to OL and I have a few days access to a computer. Would you mind please restating an outline of your proposal? Thanks.

W.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan and Michael, more seriously, it's an interesting question: I've found that my posts on OL and RoR don't get as much response or thorough debate as on SoloP - for example, my Objectivist Training ideas didn't get the response (or the quality went a bit askew or on a tangent from what I was trying to focus on). It's certainly people's right not to want to explore the topics I raise in great detail or to post a reponse...or to be interesten in my -way- of exploring.

Phil,

As I mentioned earlier, I'm interested in reading about your ideas. You wrote that you were thinking of offering details of what your educational programs would consist of, and I'm still looking forward to discovering what those details might be.

I'll be blunt. You've complained that you've gotten resistance to the very idea of a systematic educational program, and maybe I'm getting a false impression of you, but I get the sense that you're not so much upset about resistance as you are about the fact that we haven't appraised your ideas as valuable before you've presented them.

You seem to expect that your mere announcement of your plan to present your ideas at some unspecified point in the future should be met with an unrealistically high degree of enthusiasm. That implies to me that either you have a very exaggerated opinion of yourself, or that you might actually know what you're talking about (which, btw, is one of the reasons that I asked about your past successes, and why I posted the link above to your more detailed account of your activism).

The vibe of a lot of your posts seems to be that your efforts and wisdom have gone unappreciated. Have the rest of us been remiss in not commenting on some of your comments on the Objectivist movement's problems? Maybe. I often find myself in agreement with you, having said many of the same things myself, and I'm sure others feel the same way. I think the difference between us is that I and others haven't felt the need to gripe when you haven't commented on the astuteness of our observations.

But if you need an "Amen, brother," and a "pretty please," well, then Amen, brother, and pretty please with sugar on top post your detailed ideas on educational programs. If I have anything intelligent to say in response, I'll do so. If I feel that I'm not qualified to add anything of value to the discussion, I'll say so and I'll sincerely thank you for giving me something to think about which is outside my area of expertise.

Speaking of which, you and I have very different interests, but maybe we have common ground for some fruitful discussions. You don't appear to be planning on covering the fifth branch of Objectivist philosophy in your educational program outline. Is that because you believe that it's not essential to Objectivism? If so, why? Do you see any problems with the Objectivist Esthetics, which, if left unaddressed in an educational program on Objectivist philosophy, might hinder students' (or the general public's) willingness to accept the philosophy?

J

[Philip Coates]

Michael and Wolf, time is an issue for me on these long-drawn out discussions. I'm "whining" more and more about things I don't like because I'm probably getting near the end of my interest in using unmoderated discussion websites as a way to advance my thoughts.

Having experienced Atlantis, Owl, Original Solo, RoR, OL, NoodleFood Comments, SoloP, I don't think they work as well as sitting down and taking weeks to write an article or months and years to write a book. And getting it right once and for all. I'm finding all of the blogs and websites and discussion lists ...and this is not just Oist sites...to be sort of self-indulgent, and sometimes just "chat lists". I'm finding more and more that discussion lists and threads are not productive. On -any- website...especially on Oist websites where people love to beat something to death endlessly and use a thousand words when a hundred would do.

And I'm also getting tired of talking to other Objectivists.

Michael, thanks for your thoughtful post. With regard to your long post on my Objectivist training idea, no offense, but if I recall correctly I found it very long and found to sort of wander onto points which interested you but weren't the aspects I wanted to focus on, which is why I didn't try to answer it point by point, which I'm sure offended you...and no I don't remember why. Wolf, I'm glad to see you join us but...just for me personally...I don't have time to restate things I already posted each time a new person joins a list or is new to Oism or joins a discussion. They can go back and read past posts if they want..when I say something a second time I usually do it *less well* that the first time because I resent the time I had to spend repeating and I'm less patient. I -hate- repeating myself...it's a quirk I have. And I hate having "meta-discussions". Maybe I need to write a book. :-)

[Wolf DeVoon]

Second request. Just a few bullet points, 25 words or less?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With regard to your long response on my Objectivist training idea, no offense, but if I recall correctly I found it very long and didn't find it on target which is why I didn't try to answer it point by point, which I'm sure offended you...

Phil,

Don't be sure. I wasn't offended at all.

I do admit that I was perplexed by the breakdown in communication. From your post above, I am now starting to think the breakdown was possibly due to feeling frustrated and/or harried because of lack of time. The length of my posts sure didn't help any in that respect.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Jonathan, without a long discussion, in a training or education program I wouldn't include Objectivist Esthetics in a basic level course because there is too much else to cover that is more fundamental and because I would want people to take a course in literature and other arts before esthetics: Get a firm grounding in the concretes before studing the philosophy of the concretes.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Third request:

What, marketed to who, how?

[Philip Coates]

> Second request. Just a few bullet points, 25 words or less?

Wolf, OK, but this may be sloppy (just go back and read the earlier posts on this very thread for a clearer discussion):

Objectivist Education and Training Program -- Multi-Year

Objectivism requires systematic integration (not random essays and online discussion). Potential Oists need to take a threefold *cross-integrated* series of well-designed, rigorous courses: 1. THE PHILOSOPHY -- Objectivism itself (integrated with the History of Philosophy). 2. THE VAST INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE BASE -- The Humanities, Social Sciences, Liberal Arts - world history in essentials is the key component. 3. PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD IMPLEMENTATION -- Skills and Hands-On Courses - people and social, writing and speaking and teaching and persuasion, leadership and organization and teamwork and business skills.

None of these three areas can be skipped. If you do, you breed rationalists and ivory-tower types

[Wolf DeVoon]

Thank you.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, without a long discussion, in a training or education program I wouldn't include Objectivist Esthetics in a basic level course because there is too much else to cover that is more fundamental and because I would want people to take a course in literature and other arts before esthetics: Get a firm grounding in the concretes before studing the philosophy of the concretes.

Okay, Phil. Thanks.

I look forward to seeing your detailed curriculum if you decide to post it.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> Second request. Just a few bullet points, 25 words or less?

Wolf, OK, but this may be sloppy (just go back and read the earlier posts on this very thread for a clearer discussion):

Objectivist Education and Training Program -- Multi-Year

Objectivism requires systematic integration (not random essays and online discussion). Potential Oists need to take a threefold *cross-integrated* series of well-designed, rigorous courses: 1. THE PHILOSOPHY -- Objectivism itself (integrated with the History of Philosophy). 2. THE VAST INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE BASE -- The Humanities, Social Sciences, Liberal Arts - world history in essentials is the key component. 3. PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD IMPLEMENTATION -- Skills and Hands-On Courses - people and social, writing and speaking and teaching and persuasion, leadership and organization and teamwork and business skills.

None of these three areas can be skipped. If you do, you breed rationalists and ivory-tower types

Phil, thanks for putting up this list! I could use work in all of these areas :-). I think I trend toward empiricism, so I'll have to see what would improve that and I could always use work on my speaking skills.

Jim

Edited May 23, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson