Philip Coates

I was hoping this thread would lead a little less to gatsbystudies or critiques of other people's choices (though not entirely) and a little more to people offering their own positive values -- books they've read recently which were valuable or instructive.

Post 19 is a lot to chew on. In trying to absorb it, it sounds like most of those schools are flawed by leaving some crucial component of what's real out, only dealing with a portion of reality or a portion of a whole human psychology: 1) "Object Relations..focuses on the analysis of internal experience from early childhood." --- leaves out external reality & periods after early childhood. 2) "Cognitive Psychology and Gestalt psychology...mainly deal with the scientific analysis of conscious experience." -- sounds like they may leave out what is other than conscious, like the subconscious & when I hear psychologists talk abut "scientific analysis", they often mean to deny the introspective or hard to quantify. 3) "Gestalt therapy..developed by Fritz Perls, focuses on perceptual and emotional self-awareness and the integration of personality...He considered rational analysis “bullshit” " --- sounds like they might be including some of the areas that #2 omits, but omitting the component of reason. Mind/body dichotomy in psychology? 4) "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Reality Therapy generally ignore defense mechanisms as a focus of therapy. But..the pioneers [don't offer much] of a fully developed theory of mental health or personality. They focus on disciplining your thinking in a pragmatic way to resolve behavioral dysfunction." --- leaving out dm's, leaving out grand-scale or long-term integration? I'm not quite sure I fully get the sense in which there are biological and non-biological schools of psychology. The way the term is being used.

I just can't overcome my disgust at this.

> (I'm avoiding actual quotes right now so Phil will not derail the conversation with rationalizations of them.) Wow!!! Avoiding actual facts AND ACTUAL QUOTES so I can't confuse you poor people by defending myself so skillfully that no one will be able to see the rationalizations. I didn't know I was that much of a Svengali that you can't use my actual positions against me.

> tell him that people should not listen to music while they write because they will not be able to produce anything worth reading that way or be able to sell it. Then, when the author says he listens to music all the time while he writes, start telling him that he didn't understand the point. Whoa! Hello!...You can't MAKE UP SHIT!!!!!!!!! Where the fuck did I say something crackpot like you shouldn't listen to music while writing?? Talk about a smear. That's like saying Ron Paul advocates cooking and eating black people. "We, he didn't really SAY that exactly. But in his newsletters I know I could find something really racist."

Subject: Put up or Shut up > When you get it wrong or proclaim misleading overgeneralizations to him (which happens a lot with you) [MSK] That's the real point, so what do you think I'm wildly wrong about? It's whether the criticisms are correct not that no one should dare criticize a published writer or criticize someone with credentials without having them. After all, what matters is the truth of one's points. You can criticize Rand's writing or that of F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce without having written novels, right? So - here's a challenge: What's the biggest "misleading" or gross misunderstanding of the work of my "betters" have you seen me make? One that you know *of your own first hand knowledge*. Not because you are deferring to "the master" as you put it? Pick one or two really obvious ones. Pick something simple so that it's crystal clear. Not terribly debatable or arcane. Can you do that?

> I have no objection to citing Wikipedia No one does. Nor is that precisely what I objected to. As I suspect you well know.

subject: having your coates and eating it > I've certainly forgotten more than you'll ever know. Yes, not-a-doctor, I agree you certainly do seem to have forgotten a lot. ha. ha ha. (Or never fully understood it, to be more exact in the area of history.) I should have worded it differently that you **seem sometimes** to just be using wikipedia as a trot. I found your raising up of Manichaeism to be too silly to answer. And, no, I don't always answer challenges or questions, especially from people who seem to do nothing but launch personal attacks on me. You can't have youir coates and eat him too. You can have serious intellectual discussions with me or you can do almost nothing but launch contemptuous personal attacks or character assassination on thread after thread. But you are not mature enough to grasp why that would be my reaction to you, are you?

I don't agree in the slightest with the central lese majeste point of William here (and others in other posts) about the inappropriateness of "constantly criticizing your betters". But he makes the point very powerfully and vividly - and in a number of different, inventive ways: 1. Among the things that make this well-written are his long lists separated by commas. They reinforce each other and make each other stronger: "like all genius, derided, locked in towers, banished, tortured, locked in other towers, forced to pay taxes, refused service at Texaco in LA because of Incident Two, ignored by Peikoff that fool and David Kelley that hypocrite and by Ed Hudgins that gladhander and MSK whose noisome blog is such a cesspit of snakes and mud and human feces and insects and cunts that I vomit and have left and come back nine times so far, mistreated by the fools and anklebiters and bad French spelkers such as otherwise-nice WSS whom I will patronize..." 2. His parallellism and images are effective: "you feel you have a right of cultured response from those whom you reduce to extras in your script, a right to cast the kings as slave boys, schoolmarms as empresses, pioneers as stumblers, and have everyone sing perfectly songs you cannot even mumble..." 3. He expands the 'schoomarm' metaphor and makes it more effective: "The same autistic lesson plan delivered to a classroom of pupils (not even students), as you cow them, correct them, rap their little knuckles, give them tasks and purse your lips and mark them and correct them and sometimes shame them and try to make them feel small and stupid next to you?" 4. The huge gap between how the person he is writing a "takedown" of sees himself (The Bravest Man in the Universe) and how the writer sees him by contrast (A Sad Little Monkey) is striking. And vivid. 5. William's images are sometimes laugh out loud funny - "[you] try to lure folks into your manic self-torture routines"..."a Mrs Grundy Groundhog Day horror movie loop" - at least I found them funny.

> The crime was..heresy. I do note that it was a time of religious wars. As I said the Reformation was 100 years running at this point and in fact, by this time 1633, all of Europe was at war over religion. Wrong as the Church was, the error was political, just as when Woodrow Wilson ordered all radio receivers to be seized. There was a war on. It does not mean that the Presidency or the Democratic Party is in favor of seizing radios as a matter of policy. [Michael M] That's a good historical point, although burning people at the stake, massacres, etc. is a bit more strict than radio restrictions. As you say, the Counter-Reformation, the Inquisition, etc. occurred when Catholicism felt under seige and 'at war'. (Of course, on the other hand, it took a very long time for them to 'loosen' up in appreciable degree. And even today...)

> For the Greek, I recommend the Loeb Classic Library Physics ...Volume I...Volume II Michael, have you read these? Can you compare different versions? If so, you are -considerably- more knowledgeable or better read on that than I am.

Subject: Claims that are Perhaps Too Sweeping or Grandiose for one's Knowledge or Experience Base > To put it briefly he either did not check or did not check carefully. Or if he did, he did not record his corroborations or they did not survive to our time. I suspect he did not check. [baal] You seem to be portraying yourself as knowledgeable enough in Aristotle to make this rather general sweeping statement. I, for one, certainly would not be able to have an encyclopedic, integrated enough knowledge of what Aristotle -checked- or -did not check- in physics, biology, astronomy, the special sciences in order to assert or deny this on such a cosmic scale. Especially given that Aristotle has such an enormous range of statements and especially given that you'd then have to integrate each of these to the state of the art, the availability of -means- of checking [specimens, microscopes, telescopes, etc.] in so many cases. Especially since I know enough to know that he didn't always give pages and pages of the "back up" for their conclusions or that only a fragment of his basis or evidence survives. I often get the feeling you are claiming a grand sweep of knowledge and I have to politely wonder if you have actually read extensively enough (in this case in the works of Aristotle) to claim this with such great assurance: Which works of Aristotle have you read in their entirety?

Thread: Where is the home of science as we know it? Mistake: Instant Wikipedia-Based Expertise > Science as we have come to know it had its start in Samos in the Northern Agean Sea. No. Ionia** would be more accurate (Thales and post-Thales) if you want to start with Greece rather than the river valley civilizations even earlier. Baal, you're not the only one who does it (Marotta on a range of topics, ND on the history of the spread of religions, and many others do it here) but what often comes across as just ripping paragraphs out of context from Wikipedia as authoritative or complete -- whether to oversimplify history or Aristotle or Galileo or epistemology any other subject -- is no substitute for having read books, taken courses on the history of science or on other complex subjects on which you want to sound off. **Yes, you did mention the coast of Turkey further down. Also: You mention Alexandria as -the- high point. That also is too simplistic: Archimedes for example, the most brilliant mathematician-physicist-engineer of that age was from Syracuse, contrary to your statement. And Hellenistic science, engineering, technology didn't just reach a zenith in one city. (And yes, I knew this stuff from decades of reading--I didn't have to cut and paste wikipedia. At least I get the strong feeling that's what you and sometimes others do a lot of the time.)

> I expect Phil, for example, to outlive everybody who ever disagrees with him, out of sheer cussedness. Could there be any doubt??? At any rate, congratulations, you cintillating canuckleheady centenarian, you!! (Not supposed to ask a lady her age, but will you be 100 in April or 101?) (What has been your secret to longevity? Booze? Male Strippers?....please find a sentence or three to squeeze in a serious answer.)

> I don't speak or write Attic Greek. I use translations. Sorry about that. That's like saying because you don't read French or German or Russian, you have no way of knowing what Victor Hugo or Kant or Dostoeyevksy said.

> In ‘real’ life are you really rich or just the pool boy? I clean the shit from the pool, then I go home and take shit on this list.

It may also be being from Germany, a different cultural background and history perhaps? I know Gatsby's world and Nick's world and Daisy's and Tom's. I've met the people in it, and even been one or more of them. And a number of times I say "yes, I know exactly what he is talking about and that kind of situation".

Those two [non-exhaustive] lists Dennis gives of defense mechanisms and defense values are very helpful in concretizing all the forms they can take: --"denial, fantasy, rationalization, regression, projection, displacement, sublimation" --"popularity-seeking behavior, promiscuity, prestige or ‘status,’ power (over others), sacrifical humanitarianism, workaholism, parental martyrdom, drugs, alcohol". (I notice he left out my post 1 idea of intellect/intelligence/intellectual superiority as being a defense value.) > "In Branden’s approach, defense mechanisms are almost always pathological precisely because they obstruct awareness." [Dennis] Was Branden's approach above new in the history of psychology? Did everyone (not just the Freudians) think defenses were good or did all the previous psychological theorists fail to put major emphasis if not on reason, but at least on 'awareness' as crucial to psychological health?

> William, Some of your stream-of-consciousness style (when you do it) reminds me of James Joyce. Except I think you do it better. [MSK] Yes he does. That last post was really quite eloquent, quite inspired. Quite brilliant in fact! (So much so that I didn't really mind the beating I was taking.)

And I pointed you to the relevant facts. As did Merlin. And several others.

> you..manipulate others..and lie to yourself Michael, do you understand what psychologizing is and why it's wrong?

Here's another "defense value" that is commonly observed: Beauty. Getting your self-esteem 'fix' from beauty. Over concern with or psuedo-self-esteem from how good you look or being more physically attractive than your competition. Usually more prevalent among women, but men can have it too. But in academic circles, Oist circles, other highly intellectual subcultures, they take more pride in intellect. Of course, defense values can be based on what are legitimate sources of pride. You can and should take legitimate pride in the power or accomplishments of your mind, but having it as a defense value - the way I described in post 1 - is not the same.

> What are the patient’s characteristic defense mechanisms – those neurotic devices (such as repression, projection, hostility) by means of which an individual attempts to protect himself from self-doubt, guilt or anxiety? [Alan Blumenthal] > Blumenthal used the term defense mechanisms, not defense values. In a Seminar recording shortly after Blumenthal's essay appeared, Branden commented that all of the ideas in the essay were originated by him [Dennis, post 6] Wikipedia: "In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms (or defense mechanisms) are unconscious[1] psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image." The difference seems to be that Freud thought this was often healthy or 'adaptive'. Continuing with the wikipedia article: "An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour." (Further: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) includes a tentative diagnostic axis for defence mechanisms.[13] This classification is largely based on Vaillant's hierarchical view of defences, but has some modifications. Examples include: denial, fantasy, rationalization, regression, isolation, projection, and displacement.") (Seems to me that a "defense value" is just a subcategory of a defense mechanism. But I'm not too hung up on whether you want to discuss intellect as a defense value or a defense mechanism. )

Baal, I give up. I've explained it to you in multiple ways. With irrefutable logic.

> I mention your cries for attention, but not because I want to retaliate against anything you have said about me in the past. That's not the only reason for negative psychologizing about someone else. Your arrogance makes you think you're a mind reader. > I can cite post after post where you claim you don't need to read something when called on misrepresenting the ideas. No you can't. It's your sloppiness which makes you think so. > your cries for attention Psychologizing. > you're just trying to get your jollies at their expense Psychologizing. > your self-deception Psychologizing again. ..... You just can't stop doing it, can you?