william.scherk

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,165

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    66

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by william.scherk

    nealelehman

    Posted

    I try to understand each philosopher from a dialectic/psychological

    /psychoanalytical/evolutionary perspective.

    Hmmm. If you haven't already, read Frederick Crews on Freud/psychoanalysis, anything you can get by Allen Esterson, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Frank Cioffi, and the very interesting current-philosophical-outrages site Butterflies and Wheels , a British site that is part of my regular reading.

    My favourite living philosopher is Susan Haack. :)

    Would enjoy continuing the discussion and learning the specifics of posting,searching,etc.

    Here's a series of tips that I have worked out:

    1. Use Firefox (for Mac or Windows or Unix or whatever): mozilla.org

    2. Install useful extensions for your purposes (look especially at tools for saving sessions -- meaning Firefox will preserve everything you had up on your screen); the most bestest greaterer extension is Scrapbook (Scrapbook is a tool that sucks up a portion or a full page, and allows you to suck up the content of links; it saves all the material on your local disk and provides a directory; you can thus research offline): Firefox extensions.

    3. Use standard search technique. In the case of the OL search function, it is quite good, but requires some fussing and experimentation.

    Here is an example: I used 'emotion' as a search term, and chose 'posts' as my presentation. The results highlight all instances of the word, and allow you to quickly skim an enormous amount of material to get to what interests you. Here is the link to the results of that search.

    ( the two best posters on Emotion wrt Objectivism are Marsha Familiaro Enright and Steven Shmurak. Enright has a PDF on her site for you,** and would no doubt be extremely pleased to hear from you (she had rather plangently hope to engender discussion of her article, "If “Emotions Are Not Tools of Cognition,” What Are They?: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Reason and Emotion,"** which appeared in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

    Shmurak (and links) can be found in the thread that bears his name (e.g, search Shmurak and emotion, or, if you are lazy**, the topic header "The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion."

    Here is an introduction to Enright: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...entry1887)

    So, do similarly with your other interests, and add precision to narrow your focus. There is nothing in Objectivism or this site that is especially new or helpful with research. Keep your focus and do your homework

    :devil:

    4. Bear in mind that there are a lot of stupid people posting on this topic on this list. Not to say that one cannot be both a good Objectivist and a good thinker, the point being that neither one is necessarily related to the other.

    4.a There is a very useful function of the standard Google search interface: site search. Have you discovered that already, Neale?

    5. You don`t have to "show your work" and you don't have to "do the work." But it helps establish your bona fides.

    ++++++++++++

    **Autistic Spectrum Disorders

    Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology

    Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36>

    The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion

    Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology

    Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36>

    Myers-Briggs and Objectivism

    MBTI a key to getting O'ism 'out there'?

    Source: Objectivist Living Forum -> Psychology

    Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=36>

    http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...lite=%2Bemotion

    or,

    http://tinyurl.com/2zr2ru

    **The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion

    Source: The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion - Objectivist Living Forum

    Address : <http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=785&st=0&p=7417entry7417>

    **If “Emotions Are Not Tools of Cognition,” What Are They?: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Reason and Emotion

    http://www.fountainheadinstitute.com/Emotions.pdf

    _________________________________--

    From Marsha's Acknowledgements and first note. This is an excellent place to orient your quest. She has done her homework and it shows!!!!:

    Much thanks to all those who have generously helped me with this work, by

    talking, reading and commenting: Robert Campbell, Murray Franck, Louis James,

    Chris Matthew Sciabarra, the members of the New Intellectual Forum, and the

    members of the New York Objectivist Salon. Foremost, however, thanks goes to my

    husband, John Enright, for his unflagging willingness to read the work . . . over and

    over and over, and for his excellent editorship.

    1. Chris Matthew Sciabarra (1995) offers an extensive, well-researched and

    thoughtful examination of Rand’s views on reason and emotion, as well as her views

    on the psychoepistemology of art. Neera Badhwar (2001) has succinctly commented

    on many of the same difficulties and discrepancies—and research issues—regarding

    the relation between reason and emotion as I do in this paper.

    2. I want to state for the record that my intention is not to be derogatory

    to Rand’s thinking in the least, for I have the greatest respect for it. I have learned

    too much from her, and benefited from her wisdom and insight far too often to

    complain that she erred, she didn’t have all the answers, or that her answers were less

    than complete! These days there seems to be a wave of whining about the negative

    effects of Rand’s ideas on those who once accepted them. While I’m sorry for any

    bad effects her ideas, her attitudes, or her errors, may have had on my life, it

    behooves me to take responsibility for having accepted and used them.

    3. For a long and interesting discussion on the subconscious and implicit

    premises, see Campbell 2002.

    [ . . . ] &cetera

    william.scherk

    Posted

    I'm banned. I think I'm completely deleted. Forevaaaahhhh! Banished! I may understand a little bit...a while back, I was a member of SOLO...then I asked for my account to be deleted for my own personal reasons. Then I joined back up (god knows why...wth). I was a member for a bit and didn't really post anything. Then I saw a thread where Perigo called Phillip "Phyllis"...and WTF? So I asked him "why?" Next day...BANNED. It's a difficult question, I know. BUT...when you're a totally meanie poopy head doodymeister, you can ban people whenever you wish.

    (Shit..maybe if he made up a clever insulting nickname for Phillip, I wouldn't have as much of a problem. But, come on, "Phyllis"? I was more clever than that in third grade.)

    Okay. I have raise the issue at SOLO, and went out on a limb. If you didn't upload a photo, you would be moderated (there was a date by which you needed to comply). Stupid, inconsistent rulings, but if you wanted to get your question answered, that is what you needed to do to retain your posting privileges. I would put the lie to all their bullshit by asking your account to be un-moderated. Offer a photo, re-enter the discussion.

    I am now politely ramming this shit down their throats, and would like to know we can count on you to put your money [picture] where you mouth [words] are.

    No need to answer this, or any of my suggestions/quandaries, but, what prevents you from offering an image? You don't do this here on OL. Why not, I wonder.

    If it is a question of preserving your privacy, the practice over there has been to accept whatever the fuck people upload. If we want to force the hand of the Commissars (to make them consistent with their avowed principle), we have to colour within their lines.

    I will do up a photo/image for you. All it will show is a rather fuzzy-featured young woman . . . since there is no way for them to check anything, it is a question of integrity. Do they want Bona Fides established, or do they want a tool to check and harry those they dislike.

    If you don't want to experiment, I am going to to it on my own, as this is a weak spot over there (and here, gawd knows).

    May I have permission to quote from, or paraphrase, your undestanding of the banning/deletion/moderation? It is so very awkward for me to write: "I am told . . ." while obscuring both the teller and the telling contents!

    I'm up to it, but it weakens my case, and I want your help in getting answers. I will do some work on this tomorrow, perhaps sending you a draft of the post I have in mind for you go/no go.

    TTYL

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Actually, if you really want to get banned, just ask dearest Linz why he calls Phillip Coates "Phyllis." That should just about do it. It's a tough question, I know...I'm sure he was just putting me on temporary banishment while he thought about his answer.

    Are you saying you are banned or moderated at SOLO? If so, I will ask about it, in that thread re: Phyliis/Victor. If not, feel free to post the guidelines spoof yourself.

    Heh.

    nealelehman

    Posted

    You should post this as a topic!

    Yes, and put this search in the searchbox before you do post your bit to the list (this is a topic that has recieved attention, and can be dug out of previous threads with the right tools):

    emotion shmurak marsha

    -- my very first post to an O-list was on emotion. If you like I can show you some of the posts that might answer your questions. Nobody (or the guy next to him) reads these blogs compared to the list itself.

    William

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Actually, while it is almost impossible to do Abba as well as or better than the original, you should check out Sinead O'Connor's version of "Chiquitita" sometime. It comes close.

    As that's unfortunately not online, we'll have to make do with her making a pinned butterfly of

    .

    I was a punk-rocking country boy in 1978, and remember that Waterloo was the only song that had rocked in the desert of late seventies pop. Then I learned that they recorded on a 108 tracks on a private island. I agree, nothing comes close.

    Thanks for Sinead. I had no idea of her cover, infidel as I am re: music since 1986, when I retired from performing.

    I am afraid to look at the Cobain link, gawd . . .

    PS -- hey, who have I prossed with my "Love March," would you know?