Comrade Sonia's Panties in a Bundle

[Jonathan]

Comrade Sonia is very upset with me. I recently started a thread on OO called Dr. Hseih on The Boundaries of Art in which I very politely point out that, in her latest podcast, she is disagreeing with the Objectivist position on architecture, and that she, in her state of ignorance on the subject of photography, is claiming to be identifying "facts" about the medium which are not actually facts.

In response, she has had this to say on her Facebook page:

OO's Troll says, "In the above, Hsieh is stating that architecture does not qualify as art in the strict sense of Rand's definition. I wonder if she realizes that she is disagreeing with Rand and with the Objectivist position on the subject."



Yeah, [expletive omitted]. As it happens, I also understand the difference between a philosophic principle and the application thereof to concretes.



This douche writes these kinds of posts routinely, including one that lambasted for me something that Luc Travers said that I wasn't remotely involved with... because I hosted a webcast with Luc. Sheesh.



Also, he's a regular poster (and most at home) on that cesspoll known as Objectivist Living. I shouldn't be surprised, but honestly, I think that OO would be better off if such clowns were read-only.



Okay, I got that off my chest. Now back to work.

That's typical of Comrade Sonia: Don't address any of the substance of my criticisms of her erroneous opinions, whine about being picked on, express lots of rage, and suggest that the owners of OO prevent me from posting criticisms of her half-baked ideas.

I'd think that getting "back to work" would involve substantively addressing my arguments. Wouldn't that be the Objectivist thing to do? Instead, she really, like, just, like, um, like, look, like, she has her, like, panties in, like, a bundle over it.

As for my "lambasting" her for her association with Luc Travers, my point, as I stated on the relevant thread, was that:

"Hsieh's promotion of him and his presentations makes me wonder how and why certain people choose certain other people as their teachers or trusted allies or authorities. When they have no knowledge of a given subject, do they choose to associate with and be taught by someone who will challenge their predispositions and relieve them of their ignorance, or do they choose someone who they think will make them feel validated about their uninformed predispositions? Is Travers worthy of promotion solely because he's an Objectivist (and despite the fact that he unintentionally ends up demonstrating in his presentations that he can't apply the Objectivist theory of aesthetic appraisal to visual art -- that he inevitably must rely on "outside considerations" to identify "artists' meanings")?"

J

P.S. Now she's been asked why she deleted the expletive in her Facebook rant. Her response is:

"Because I couldn't decide which one would be most suitable! Asshat, jackass, jerkoff, fuckwad, motherfucker, fothermucker... Too many were too apt."

My, such anger about having received polite, informed criticism of her opinions!

[George H. Smith]

Also, he's a regular poster (and most at home) on that cesspoll known as Objectivist Living.

Is a "cesspoll" anything like a "cesspool"? Just curious. I want to know what kind of crowd I've been hanging out with all these years.

In any case, I didn't know that Diana was quite so prickly about criticism -- but then I don't read her blogs unless someone quotes them on OL.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

You've got a chip pan that could accommodate a Marlin, but you're going after a Fathead Minnow. In other words, don't you have bigger fish to fry? Or maybe you've just run short on breading?

I wonder when was the last time she entertained disagreement over any intellectual issue. I've ignored her for quite a while, I remember she pretty well dodged the date rape imbroglio, and I can't think of anything related to her since then.

[Brant Gaede]

Let's take a cess poll, George, and find out.

--Brant
architecture is a selective recreation of the reality of the cave

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's start by defining our terms, shall we?

Here is the Online Dictionary definition of cess:

cess
n. Irish

Luck.

[Possibly short for success.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

That's a copy/paste, but I gave the link so you can see for yourself.

There are other definitions like certain types of taxes, but I like this one the best for polling.

Michael

[Peter]

I had no idea Diana was so bitchy. I thought my disagreement with OO was fueled by their crotchety young moderators not by her attitude. Objectivist Living is a beautiful oasis in the middle of a desert. Cesspoll indeed! I can’t believe that entry of hers where she uses George Carlin’s seven forbidden words and then invents “fothermucker.” What a maroon.

Peter

[George H. Smith]

P.S. Now she's been asked why she deleted the expletive in her Facebook rant. Her response is:

"Because I couldn't decide which one would be most suitable! Asshat, jackass, jerkoff, fuckwad, motherfucker, fothermucker... Too many were too apt."

Look on the bright side. At least Diana didn't call you a "mystic" (pronounced mestick). That would have been the unkindest cut of all, the Randian insult that far exceeds all the names she listed.

What is a "fuckwad" anyway? A "wad" of "fuck"? I could never figure that one out. Given the conceptual confusion here, which is anti-mind and anti-life, I must conclude that only a Kantian would use the word.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I went to the Facebook link you provided, but I didn't find anything relevant.

It's just as well. I don't need to spend time on gossip.

To the substance, I think before people can talk intelligently about aesthetics, they have to have a solid inner conception of human nature, even if it is not in words. I cannot imagine appreciating art in the manner a person does who has a vastly different view of human nature than I do. So it is futile for me to talk to such a person about it.

Fortunately, this standard rarely kicks in during my discussions. Normal everyday people, for example, have enough of a view of human nature to know that, say, pop music is great for dancing and they find pleasure in that--all without injecting hidden meanings as the true reason of whatever. (Not that hidden meanings aren't good and pleasurable when you find them. But they're the gravy, not the mashed potatoes.)

Give me one of these people any day of the week over a person who derives (rationalizes) human nature from philosophical principles.

You're supposed to do it the other way around. You're supposed to derive principles from observing nature, including human nature. Then you test the principles. But that's at a higher stage, not the fundamental one I am mentioning here.

For example, take ethics. This is essentially human values for the future (i.e., code of values to guide man's choices--and notice that "choices" can only be made in the future when a person adopts a moral priniciple).

From what I've read of Hsieh over the years, she promotes what I privately call the Tattle-Tale School of Ethics. In other words, she looks for rules for living she can derive from some philosophical statement or other and tells others to follow them. The way it works in practice, i.e., in the future, is if you catch people not following these rules, you tattle on them and send them to the corner.

That's a caricature, but that's the overwhelming impression I get. And imagine the way such a person appreciates art!

This is opposed to, say, encouraging people to set the bar higher and higher in their lives--starting with independent thinking--so they can achieve great things.

Great deeds are not made by following rule-books.

Neither is great art.

But obedience is...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Diana can't stand to see, be around or interact with Objectivist untouchables.

--Brant

Objectivist hygiene in action

[Jonathan]

You've got a chip pan that could accommodate a Marlin, but you're going after a Fathead Minnow. In other words, don't you have bigger fish to fry? Or maybe you've just run short on breading?

I've been trying to catch enough fatheads to use them as bait for Marlins.

J

[Jonathan]

More comments added to the Facebook tantrum:

Sascha Settegast: Uhm, wasn't Rand herself conflicted about whether architecture qualified as a fine art, instead of just as a decorative art? I don't have the Romantic Manifesto here, but that seems what I (mis)remember from it. Oh well.

Diana Hsieh: I think she changed her mind over time, to the view that architecture wasn't art.

Sascha Settegast: If so, then that would only confirm what I think is often true about those dogmatic accusers: That they don't even know the thinkers very well that they demand obedience to.

Diana Hsieh: This guy isn't a dogmatist himself -- he's on OL, after all -- except that he demands that everyone who is not a subjectivist like him be a straighjacketed dogmatist.

Sascha Settegast: Beautiful. *rolls eyes*

Wow, this Sascha guy is a piece of work. First he believes that he has "confirmed" that I'm a dogmatic accuser who doesn't even know the thinkers that I demand obedience to. Then he turns on a dime and believes Comrade Sonia's lie that I am a subjectivist. He seems to be the perfect target audience for her: pliable, uninterested in investigating what's right in front of him, unwilling to think for himself, and eager to follow others in condemning whoever they claim is an enemy.

More:

Brandon S Killen: I'm curious Diana where you've found Rand being ambivalent about architecture as art.

Diana Hsieh: I've heard that Binswanger reported that. (There's a discussion of it on the thread linked in the main post.)

Diana Hsieh: Here: http://www.aristos.org/whatart/ch10a.htm

Brandon S Killen: Thank you!

Diana Hsieh: BTW, that's not a good source on AR's aesthetics, but they'd surely be honest about reporting the basics of what HB said.

Hahahaha! Yeah, like Comrade Sonia would know what is or is not a good source on AR's aesthetics! Like she's an expert on the subject. It's clear that she knows very little about it. I wonder if she's even aware of the fact that she has no signigicant differences with Kamhi and Torres. Heh. So what's with her snobby pretense at knowing what is or is not a good source on the Objectivist Esthetics? Does she believe that looking down her nose at something makes her look important and authoritative? If so, Sascha Settegast is probably buying into it.

Anyway, it's good to see that Dr. Comrade Sonia, Ph.D, did eventually "get back to work" to the important task of posting cute things that she has found online to her Facebook page.

J

[Selene]

Her use of pure hearsay as evidence is intellectual weakness at it's worse.

Anyone know what she did her PHD thesis on?

[Jonathan]

I had no idea Diana was so bitchy. I thought my disagreement with OO was fueled by their crotchety young moderators not by her attitude. Objectivist Living is a beautiful oasis in the middle of a desert. Cesspoll indeed! I can’t believe that entry of hers where she uses George Carlin’s seven forbidden words and then invents “fothermucker.” What a maroon.

Peter

I'm on moderation over at OO. This is the straw that broke the camel's back:

Who said anything about "refusing to work with others"? I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm talking about the Roarkian sense of life. The independent creator. The pride of originality. Um, read the sections in Atlas Shrugged where Rand very righteously and powerfully mocks the idea of people borrowing or appropriating others' creations and turning them into popular slogans or popular art/entertainment pieces, and then I think you might get a better sense of where I'm coming from.

The point is that one isn't being a "producer" by rearranging, defacing or adding a line of text to others' work. If that's your notion of productivity, then I think there's probably quite a lot yet that you need to learn about Objectivism and the scale of vision that it promotes. Your view of it seems to be so tiny and insignificant.

The moderators saw it as a vicious personal attack. Seriously. This is the current state of the Objectivist movement. Being a sort of Mort Liddy and appropriating others' work in the name of promoting Objectivism is seen as "productivity," and criticizing such "productivity" as lacking vision and being tiny by Objectivst standards is enough to get one moderated.

Anyhoo, since I'm on moderation, my posts sometimes take a while to show up, but I'm starting to think that a post of mine from yesterday isn't going to make the cut for some reason. It was a post which praised Comrade Sonia's essay which she posted here. I posted it yesterday afternoon, prior to other posts of mine which made it through moderator approval. I'd ask the moderators why it hasn't shown up, but I've learned that that's pointless.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I went to the Facebook link you provided, but I didn't find anything relevant.

Jonathan,

Because you kept posting on this, I went back and I found it. On my computer, you have to scroll to the bottom on a Facebook feed and wait a bit for older entries to show up. The first time around, I didn't have the patience.

I'm glad to see Hsieh getting back to her avenging angel condemnatory mode. She kinda lost that tone for a while after being bludgeoned by the Checking Premises thing and losing her preeminent Peikoff suck-up standing. I'm not glad because I like her condemnations (although some of them do have good comedic entertainment value), but I do like it when the outside looks like the inside.

I hope she finds peace of mind some day.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'm glad to see Hsieh getting back to her avenging angel condemnatory mode.

I also like her a lot better when she's a fighter rather than a deferential schemer or poor little victim.

She kinda lost that tone for a while after being bludgeoned by the Checking Premises thing and losing her preeminent Peikoff suck-up standing. I'm not glad because I like her condemnations (although some of them do have good comedic entertainment value), but I do like it when the outside looks like the inside.

Yeah, she had put a hell of a lot of effort into that sucking-up. I think she probably believed that she had achieved the status of an equal, and was on the verge of getting her payoff, but was devastated to discover that she was quite expendable.

I hope she finds peace of mind some day.

I do too. When I listened to her podcast segment on art, her suggestion to people that they should not get their panties in a bundle over issues such as whether or not photography is an art form made me think that maybe she had grown up a bit, so I thought that it was a perfect opportunity to reach across the aisle with a friendly hand and politely educate her on the subject of photography as an art form, and allow her to demonstrate the act of not getting her panties in a bundle over it. Instead, somehow her panties got not only seriously bundled, but totally twisted and torn. It was a panty meltdown. I guess she's still exempt from practicing what she preaches.

J

[9thdoctor]

Also, he's a regular poster (and most at home) on that cesspoll known as Objectivist Living. I shouldn't be surprised, but honestly, I think that OO would be better off if such clowns were read-only.

"Read-only", what a beautiful euphemism for "banned"!

[PDS]

I'm glad to see Hsieh getting back to her avenging angel condemnatory mode.

I also like her a lot better when she's a fighter rather than a deferential schemer or poor little victim.

>She kinda lost that tone for a while after being bludgeoned by the Checking Premises thing and losing her preeminent Peikoff suck-up standing. I'm not glad because I like her condemnations (although some of them do have good comedic entertainment value), but I do like it when the outside looks like the inside.

Yeah, she had put a hell of a lot of effort into that sucking-up. I think she probably believed that she had achieved the status of an equal, and was on the verge of getting her payoff, but was devastated to discover that she was quite expendable.

I hope she finds peace of mind some day.

I do too. When I listened to her podcast segment on art, her suggestion to people that they should not get their panties in a bundle over issues such as whether or not photography is an art form made me think that maybe she had grown up a bit, so I thought that it was a perfect opportunity to reach across the aisle with a friendly hand and politely educate her on the subject of photography as an art form, and allow her to demonstrate the act of not getting her panties in a bundle over it. Instead, somehow her panties got not only seriously bundled, but totally twisted and torn. It was a panty meltdown. I guess she's still exempt from practicing what she preaches.

J

Small point of order: If memory serves, the Comrade is a dabbler in all things equine. Wouldn't it therefore be more appropriate to say that she has her knickers in a twist?

Or am I yet again mixing my English leisure activity metaphors?

[Jonathan]

Sure, she's into horses, but she's even more into Objectivism, so I naturally assumed that she probably wears big ol' Ayn Rand Brand™ panties.

I kind of just threw up in my mouth a little when I thought of Nat Branden getting down in there. Eesh.

J

[PDS]

Sure, she's into horses, but she's even more into Objectivism, so I naturally assumed that she probably wears big ol' Ayn Rand Brand™ panties.

I kind of just threw up in my mouth a little when I thought of Nat Branden getting down in there. Eesh.

J

The real question is whether Phil is going to be pissed at you for violating the privacy of his dresser drawers.

[caroljane]

Do they sell those in Canada? I've been looking for weeks.

[PDS]

Do they sell those in Canada? I've been looking for weeks.

Daunce:

I am certain you could get a pair from any member of the Toronto Maple Leafs.*

*Probably no way to talk to a Canadian lady...

[caroljane]

Do they sell those in Canada? I've been looking for weeks.

Daunce:

I am certain you could get a pair from any member of the Toronto Maple Leafs.*

*Probably no way to talk to a Canadian lady...

Thanks for the advice. I shall make an attempt to remove them personally.

If that's what they're wearing under the Blue and White these days, you can call them pantywaists all you want. It is not only Mormons and Emile's distraught Columbus correspondent who knows the power of magic underwear.

Yours in cycling,

Amelia Bloomer (Miss)

[caroljane]

Further to above I notice fans donated a few HATS to a struggling young player last night. Just checked a few stats and can't seem to find the Wings with a player in the top 10 or team points above 39, unlike,oh, say the :Leafs --gee, must be some mistake, no?

Gleefully,

Carol

It sure is hard to type with all your fingers crossed.

[PDS]

Further to above I notice fans donated a few HATS to a struggling young player last night. Just checked a few stats and can't seem to find the Wings with a player in the top 10 or team points above 39, unlike,oh, say the :Leafs --gee, must be some mistake, no?

Gleefully,

Carol

It sure is hard to type with all your fingers crossed.

Daunce: my deepest apologies.

I was not aware that the Maple Leafs were actually doing decent this year, and may make the playoffs for the first time in roughly 10 years, notwithstanding that they draw upon the best Canadian hockey talent and have a super fat payroll year in and year out.

It would appear that the Leafs' panties are no longer in a bundle, and/or that they have been discarded altogether.

In light of this, may I suggest PM to Phil instead?

[caroljane]

No use. I sent him two pairs of lucky maple leaf socks already but he still won't trade.

Kadrette