Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[seymourblogger]

Posted Today, 12:18 AM

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

Great! Your comment means Darren and I are on the right road! Thank you for telling me what I needed to know.

Beaucoup hits. Success is the best revenge.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymourblogger,

Yeah...

Dumb me, I guess...

Seriously, good luck with your site.

You hunger for a flock and seem to finally have a start, so grow one.

The Internet has room for all kinds.

May the Spirit of Floating Generalizations be with you.

(OK, that last sentence was not under "seriously," but was a quip instead. An accurate one, but still a quip. )

Michael

[PDS]

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?

Hard to tell what role Darren has on this site.

If he is a co-author, as is implied, then I will continue to check in on things.

[Xray]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

[Brant Gaede]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Objectivism as a belief system is not a philosophy. As a philosophy, it is not a belief system. The former is Ayn Rand's "philosophy," centered on the ethics and her view of the ideal man. That's mostly ethics, then some politics then the axioms. The logical progression is reality, reason, rational self interest, freedom (individual rights). This last sentence reflects the commonality of the philosophy and the belief system and is individualism from A to Z. When one elevates off these basics we've got problems. One must elevate because the individual has a social existence and a complicated and non-plastic psychology, which is hard to change, and no one is generally morally privileged to insist on changing others, certainly even unto killing them as is the wont of the totalitarians, who, if they've no guns, may resort to sundry vicious vituperation.

--Brant

[Xray]

Hard to tell what role Darren has on this site.

If he is a co-author, as is implied, then I will continue to check in on things.

I just read a comment by Darren there:

He thinks of Rand's epistemology and metaphysics "not as attempts at serious scholarship, but as extended footnotes to readers of her novels; "asides" made to them by the various characters of Galt, Reardon, Taggart, Roark, et al., for the purpose of strengthening the plausibility of the story, and, ultimately, maintaining that all-important suspension of the reader's disbelief.

The philosophy of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics and epistemology) — like Atlas Shrugged itself — is ultimately meant as entertainment, not scholarship." (end quote Darren)

http://aynrand2.blog...s-floating.html

I don't think the term "entertainment" fits. Rand was very serious about her philosophy.

[PDS]

Hard to tell what role Darren has on this site.

If he is a co-author, as is implied, then I will continue to check in on things.

I just read a comment by Darren there:

He thinks of Rand's epistemology and metaphysics "not as attempts at serious scholarship, but as extended footnotes to readers of her novels; "asides" made to them by the various characters of Galt, Reardon, Taggart, Roark, et al., for the purpose of strengthening the plausibility of the story, and, ultimately, maintaining that all-important suspension of the reader's disbelief.

The philosophy of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics and epistemology) — like Atlas Shrugged itself — is ultimately meant as entertainment, not scholarship." (end quote Darren)

http://aynrand2.blog...s-floating.html

I don't think the term "entertainment" fits. Rand was very serious about her philosophy.

The verdict is in: that ain't Darren talking.

[seymourblogger]

Hard to tell what role Darren has on this site.

If he is a co-author, as is implied, then I will continue to check in on things.

I just read a comment by Darren there:

He thinks of Rand's epistemology and metaphysics "not as attempts at serious scholarship, but as extended footnotes to readers of her novels; "asides" made to them by the various characters of Galt, Reardon, Taggart, Roark, et al., for the purpose of strengthening the plausibility of the story, and, ultimately, maintaining that all-important suspension of the reader's disbelief.

The philosophy of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics and epistemology) — like Atlas Shrugged itself — is ultimately meant as entertainment, not scholarship." (end quote Darren)

http://aynrand2.blog...s-floating.html

I don't think the term "entertainment" fits. Rand was very serious about her philosophy.

The verdict is in: that ain't Darren talking.

Just you waight Henry Higgins, just you waight. It's nerrad m'boy, it's nerrad. LOL!

He's not a co-writer, he's a co-administrator. A copyrighted one. He's gonna get a book deal outta this, just you wait!

[seymourblogger]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Objectivism as a belief system is not a philosophy. As a philosophy, it is not a belief system. The former is Ayn Rand's "philosophy," centered on the ethics and her view of the ideal man. That's mostly ethics, then some politics then the axioms. The logical progression is reality, reason, rational self interest, freedom (individual rights). This last sentence reflects the commonality of the philosophy and the belief system and is individualism from A to Z. When one elevates off these basics we've got problems. One must elevate because the individual has a social existence and a complicated and non-plastic psychology, which is hard to change, and no one is generally morally privileged to insist on changing others, certainly even unto killing them as is the wont of the totalitarians, who, if they've no guns, may resort to sundry vicious vituperation.

--Brant

The logical progression is reality, reason, rational self interest, freedom (individual rights).

Here's where you lose it. Progression is linear, continuous, historical. Didn't you read darren's comment on the Cambrian abrupt Event analysis following Thom's mathematics of non-continuous catastrophe theory applied to evolution according to Darwinian theory. Discontinuity has taken Darwin, Marx,history, all the human sciences, etc out of the Hegelian Discourse of the Dialectic where you are still standing with your feet glued to the dirt.

[seymourblogger]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message.

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there. Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

[PDS]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message.

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there. Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

I will say this, SM-Blogger, you have accidentally motivated me to (re?) read Thus Spake Zarathustra.

The law of unintended consequences is alive and well...

[Ellen Stuttle]

The verdict is in:   that ain't Darren talking.

But what of this entry from today (March 6, 2012) titled "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution"?

Ellen

[PDS]

The verdict is in: that ain't Darren talking.

But what of this entry from today (March 6, 2012) titled "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution"?

Ellen

What say you, Ellen?

I think SM-Blogger admits I was right about the verdict above.

I read what the person not actually designated as "Darren" wrote on the link you cited, and have a theory. I'll show mine if you show yours.

[Ellen Stuttle]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11653&st=620&p=157939entry157939

What say you, Ellen?

I say it's Darren.

I think SM-Blogger admits I was right about the verdict above.

I didn't read her that way.  She says he's co-administrator not co-writer post #633.  I took her to mean by co-writer co-writing individual pieces. I think what she's saying is that he's writing his entries and she's writing hers.

It does seem weird to me that Darren would argue that Rand meant her philosophy as "entertainment."  Doesn't Darren know better than that!!??  But the coherence, style and vocabulary in those two first brief entries by "Darren" don't seem to me to be anything Janet could have managed.

The "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution" piece is what Darren argued on SOLO.

(ADD: On my screen there's a line at the bottom of that piece which says "posted by Darren." Which of course needn't be truthful. Credibility and all that. )

Ellen

[PDS]

http://www.objectivi...39

What say you, Ellen?

I say it's Darren.

I think SM-Blogger admits I was right about the verdict above.

I didn't read her that way. She says he's co-administrator not co-writer post #633. I took her to mean by co-writer co-writing individual pieces. I think what she's saying is that he's writing his entries and she's writing hers.

It does seem weird to me that Darren would argue that Rand meant her philosophy as "entertainment." Doesn't Darren know better than that!!?? But the coherence, style and vocabulary in those two first brief entries by "Darren" don't seem to me to be anything Janet could have managed.

The "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution" piece is what Darren argued on SOLO.

(ADD: On my screen there's a line at the bottom of that piece which says "posted by Darren." Which of course needn't be truthful. Credibility and all that. )

Ellen

Looks like 2 different cut and paste jobs to me.

The first paragraph is pretty well written and shows some personality, and the remainder is downright pedestrian, with the same amount of punch as a bill of lading.

The essay is not cohesive at all. Makes me think there are two different sources, sloppily pasted together.

[seymourblogger]

http://www.objectivi...39

What say you, Ellen?

I say it's Darren.

I think SM-Blogger admits I was right about the verdict above.

I didn't read her that way. She says he's co-administrator not co-writer post #633. I took her to mean by co-writer co-writing individual pieces. I think what she's saying is that he's writing his entries and she's writing hers.

It does seem weird to me that Darren would argue that Rand meant her philosophy as "entertainment." Doesn't Darren know better than that!!?? But the coherence, style and vocabulary in those two first brief entries by "Darren" don't seem to me to be anything Janet could have managed.

The "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution" piece is what Darren argued on SOLO.

(ADD: On my screen there's a line at the bottom of that piece which says "posted by Darren." Which of course needn't be truthful. Credibility and all that. )

Ellen

Looks like 2 different cut and paste jobs to me.

The first paragraph is pretty well written and shows some personality, and the remainder is downright pedestrian, with the same amount of punch as a bill of lading.

The essay is not cohesive at all. Makes me think there are two different sources, sloppily pasted together.

Administrators is the label blogspot gives for x number of people who all have equal privileges/power on the site. That is darren can delete everything and so can I. He can invite other people and so can I. He can post and so can I. He can comment and so can I. Jesus did I leave anything out. If I did I am sure you will tell me that we are not equal because........... he can tie shoes expertly and I cannot.

You people are going to win at trivial pursuit the day you get on that show.

I posted darren's comment with darren's name on it as we were working out tech issues. They are worked out.

Is there anything else you all want to know?

And yes our styles are vastly different. Too bad all yours are the same. Knit pick. Nit pik.

[seymourblogger]

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.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge.

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.

Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message.

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there. Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

I will say this, SM-Blogger, you have accidentally motivated me to (re?) read Thus Spake Zarathustra.

The law of unintended consequences is alive and well...

Ah, you have made my day!

[william.scherk]

Thus Spake Zarathustra!

I read this and relished it way back when. I ate up Nietzsche like I ate up Hardy Boys. Same adventurousness, but Franklin W Dixon never approached the robust style and effervescent language of Nietzsche. Spake reminded me of the Big Lotta comic books, which I also ate up at a certain age -- the slightly-repulsive but breathtaking arrogance, the insults, the LOUD passages. Lotta was loud at times.

I am going to read Spake again.

Readers Club! Picnic! Beer, golf, trophies, tea ... E pluribus and all that. I think we should give our book reports in light of our party. I think the party should be election night. I know we will all be here, and whoever is in rehab now will surely be a responsible drinker by then. Me, I do not drink, but I am going to select several pricey beers, and borrow the neighbours nine-iron. I may even have a date with me, goading me on. Carol, I expect you to bring a date to the party, too. Now, which exact day in November should we all circleÉ

[caroljane]

Thus Spake Zarathustra!

Readers Club! Picnic! Beer, golf, trophies, tea ... E pluribus and all that. I think we should give our book reports in light of our party. I think the party should be election night. I know we will all be here, and whoever is in rehab now will surely be a responsible drinker by then. Me, I do not drink, but I am going to select several pricey beers, and borrow the neighbours nine-iron. I may even have a date with me, goading me on. Carol, I expect you to bring a date to the party, too. Now, which exact day in November should we all circleÉ

Sounds good! I dunno though...it's only eight months, that really isn't enough time for me to read a whole German book and find a date...

...

[william.scherk]

Sounds good I dunno though...it's only eight months, that really isn't enough time for me to read a whole German book and find a date...

Ask our friend Phil to bootleg you a copy in English. As for a date, I am going to tell you a secret from my Mexican vacation. I am fairly sure that it transfers to Dundas and Yonge or Ste Catherine and St Laurent. Take your computer to a bar terrace with Wifi. Get to election results. Shout at the screen. Read OL. Wear glasses. Look like you are having fun. Suddenly there will be six people at your table. They are your date.

This may not work if your computer weighs sixty pounds and has mice and no Wifi. Even then, a front porch, a lantern, a pricey singly malt, a benign widow-lady smile on your face, an intern nearby to fill the nuts and bolts bowl. Even from your front porch you can get a date -- if you use Full Canadian Charm. Or book the library resource room for a whiskey tasting and invite the hockey team and someone with a laptop/Wifi.

The best part about the party will be the planning, the promotion and the arguments over planning and promotion. I think I will invest in a new webcam so I can smear vaseline over its lens no matter what happens. I am expecting you to upgrade to Dialup, Toronto Party HQ.

I wonder if Janet might show. We could have a dedicated live chat ...

Edited March 7, 2012 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

Ask our friend Phil to bootleg you a copy in English.

We're all enjoying the Phil-free air, let's not be beckoning him back.

Here it is on Gutenberg.org

http://www.gutenberg...98-h/1998-h.htm

When you're done, for dessert, you can look at some of the early Wodehouse on the same site.

[seymourblogger]

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.

Actually The BIg Coder translates to Lacan's The Big Other.

[william.scherk]

Here it is on Gutenberg.org

http://www.gutenberg...98-h/1998-h.htm

When you're done, for dessert, you can look at some of the early Wodehouse on the same site.

I will be a while before dessert, but I am jumping straight to my favourites:

XVI. NEIGHBOUR-LOVE.

XVII. THE WAY OF THE CREATING ONE.

XVIII. OLD AND YOUNG WOMEN.

XIX. THE BITE OF THE ADDER.

XX. CHILD AND MARRIAGE.

XXI. VOLUNTARY DEATH.

And:

XXV. THE PITIFUL.

XXVI. THE PRIESTS.

XXVII. THE VIRTUOUS.

XXVIII. THE RABBLE.

And at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8190/pg8190.html ...

MY BATTLE WITH DRINK

I could tell my story in two words—the two words "I drank." But I was not always a drinker. This is the story of my downfall—and of my rise—for through the influence of a good woman, I have, thank Heaven, risen from the depths. ...

A PLEA FOR INDOOR GOLF

Indoor golf is that which is played in the home. Whether you live in a palace or a hovel, an indoor golf-course, be it only of nine holes, is well within your reach. A house offers greater facilities than an apartment, and I have found my game greatly improved since I went to live in the country. I can, perhaps, scarcely do better than give a brief description of the sporting nine-hole course which I have recently laid out in my present residence.

All authorities agree that the first hole on every links should be moderately easy, in order to give the nervous player a temporary and fictitious confidence.

At Wodehouse Manor, therefore, we drive off from the front door—in order to get the benefit of the door-mat—down an entry fairway, carpeted with rugs and without traps. The hole—a loving-cup—is just under the stairs; and a good player ought to have no difficulty in doing it in two. ...

JEEVES TAKES CHARGE

Now, touching this business of old Jeeves—my man, you know—how do we stand? Lots of people think I'm much too dependent on him. My Aunt Agatha, in fact, has even gone so far as to call him my keeper. Well, what I say is: Why not? The man's a genius. From the collar upward he stands alone. I gave up trying to run my own affairs within a week of his coming to me. That was about half a dozen years ago, directly after the rather rummy business of Florence Craye, my Uncle Willoughby's book, and Edwin, the Boy Scout. ...

Edited March 7, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Actually The BIg Coder translates to Lacan's The Big Other.

ɾɐuǝʇ' ʍıll ʎon qǝ ɯʎ pɐʇǝ ou ɥɐlloʍǝ,ǝu¿ ı ɐɯ ƃoıuƃ ɐs uǝʍ ƃıuƃɹıɔɥ' dɹǝsıpǝuʇ' ɐup ı ʍɐuʇ ʎon ʇo dlɐʎ ʇɥǝ ʍıɟǝ' ɔɐllısʇɐ' ʍɥo ɐlso ǝuɾoʎs dolıʇıɔs' qloupǝsʇ ɥɐıɹ' ɐup ɥɐıɹ ɟıxɐʇıʌǝs˙

[Xray]

[quoting Xray] (bold type by Janet)

they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation.

Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message.

I have not "dug up" anything with any Obama message; my interest in politicians is near zero, which is why I usually don't pay attention to their "messages".

But if Obama actually said this about "hope and change", I suppose it has little to do with what I meant: that permanent transformation is a fundamental operating cosmic principle. Panta rhei. .

Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there.

Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

You don't get my point: My focus in speaking of permanent transformation is on the motion aspect..On vita in motu, which is just another reflection of the cosmos in motion. And since there is no such thing as a standstill, it makes no sense trying to 'cement' cherished beliefs, ideologies etc.