Philip Coates

I also found Gatsby fairly boring on previous reading and am only reading it now because it is our book of the month in Great Books. I'll wait till I finish it this time to revisit the whole picture.

George, not every thread I create is all about you. Did you think my last three threads - "smallness of mind", "largeness of mind", and "current reading" -- were? This is a thread about a widespread problem among those who have their ego too tied up in how smart they are. I thought my post was quite clear and even rather well-written.

A "defense value", to use what I think was Allan Blumenthal's term, is something which actually may be a rational value but to take it out of context, to use it as a source of fake self-esteem or to bluster about it, make it a source of pride out of proportion or out of context. There is a certain phony disease among highly intelligent and competitive people. They don't like to be shown up, to admit someone is quicker, to admit error, to be thought of as less than the local genius. In a highly competitive college full of high achievers, there was a certain very sharp-edged rivalry for who was "brighter". Freshman year: Were your college boards or ACT's as good as mine? Later on: How did you do on the national Putnam exams? Earlier, in my high school, this kind of rivalry was keenly felt among the Ivy League bound. And intellectual one-upsmanship. Who is more the master of the witty putdown? The average man on the street will smile and say "good job" when you accomplish something difficult or which shows intelligence or (wider term because it includes knowledge) intellect. But there is a certain clique of aspiring intellects who often will find that if you were quicker or smarter in some area, they feel threatened by it, want to pull it down somehow. It's as if their egos are tied to how smart (or knowledgeable, or expert) they are and if anyone seems smarter or more knowledgeable or expert - or even comparably so - they get edgy or hostile or want to take them down or make excuses. "Yeah, I could have gotten a hundred on that test, but I didn't have a good night's sleep, the dog ate my homework, and I had a basketball game...Yeah, he probably cheated anyway..." A value of how-smart-you-are is a "defense" when it assumes such unhealthy proportion that your ego depends on it. One form: maybe you can't take well any cases in which someone seems to outdistance you in some concrete intellectual or debating or knowing or thinking area or if feel too crushed on an ego level when you are not top dog or when you feel yourself (even with no "rivals") to have done something stupid: getting over mad at yourself for missing something. Saw those things (or strongly sensed them) all the time in college and a bit in grad school. I thought I'd seen the last of that when I got out of the hothouse atmosphere of formal schooling. But it still pops up. Even in the hothouse atmosphere of Oist circles and their similar edgy sense of 'pecking order'. (I told the story here about the simultaneous resentment of BInswanger and Schwartz in the Peikoff living room workshop and how surprising it was to me. All of a sudden it was high school math class all over again.)

> Right now I am going through a ‘mystery’ phase. [Peter] Do you have any favorites so far, or is it too early in your phase? Any writers (or particular books) who are particularly clever, dramatic, good at story-telling, satisfying plot twists, or the like?

Thanks, Peter. I hope people will give some detail on current (and recent!) reading - what value it has (or had) or why they like it. I realize I made a mistake in titling the thread current reading because often if you are in the middle or an early chapter you can't evaluate or provide feedback yet. Let me revise the thread purpose and theme: "Current or Recent Reading -- Things of Some Value and Why". (Is there anything you've completed recently that you got benefit or entertainment from?) We had another thread on movies but, alas, people tended to not give any explanation....was more like a bunch of one-line each bullets or a laundry list. the reason for specifying recent is people tend to forget a lot of the details of books read years ago. Any 'mini-reviews" or simple one sentence summaries tend to lose some richness then.

> We have the written words of the received Aristotle. Yes, but I distinctly remember you saying we only have student's notes and we don't know his own views. Do I need to look it up? You can't weasel out of it with the 'received' Aristotle. > Philoponus found Aristotle to be in error. Philoponus did an experiment (dropped two unequal weights together from the same height). I already explained to you that they didn't have the instruments to measure this properly. And you have not explained how he got around this problem.

[post 113] Adam that's a very good picture of me. I don't have that much grey hair though. I definitely look a bit put upon and I can't decide if the little black thing chewing on the one ear is Jonathan. The one defecating in the other ear is clearly George - although podium boy didn't bring his lectern along. While the one biting the top of my head is ND, and the one farting in my eye is probably MSK. (Notice how distinguished I look through it all, though.)

Subject: Difference Between Strong Criticism and Psychologizing/Moralizing Character Attacks I'm glad George snipped a paragraph of mine from the old OWL list. Even as early as '04 I was likely to make **very frank and forceful criticisms** of people in the movement - Peikoff, Kelley, Rand - and also of minor figures -George- and also of posters on the list: "...points known to those of us already ...excessively wordy ...not relevant to the central point ...go off on tangents." I think that is the main reason people took enormous offense and started responding in heated attacks on my honesty, character, etc. They wanted to escalate to nuclear weapons. It's revealing that almost everyone who now engages in character or moral or psychologizing (Michael's recent post that I'm neurotically just "seeking attention" is a classic example) attacks on me are people that I have harshly criticized in the past. ( No better way to get an intellectual to hate you for life than to tell him he has done some poor writing or thinking. Been sloppy. Needs to pay attention. Made a rationalistic argument. Needs to do more research. ) And I really did stir up an enormous amount of outrage on OWl, Atlantis, Solo, etc. It takes a certain amount of suspension of ego to be able to take criticism. Especially if it cuts deep or is about an area where you take a great deal of pride - like what a genius you think you are.

> "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Society"...George makes a number of good points known to those of us already familiar with the history of common law. But with regard to -this- debate, all he does in excessively wordy academic writing style (other than use irrelevant language and drag in Mises and big words such as 'catallactics' or positive words such as 'entrepreneurial' which are not relevant to the central point and go off on other tangents such as the ambiguity of language not relevant to the issue) is to claim that deceit and unreliability by private or governmental 'justice agencies' would be minimized by the "need to minimize potential conflict with a third party who might intervene." ... I suppose if I had time to waste I could go reread his piece and dissect it again. Maybe I did in what George 'snipped' out? Or was that a comment in passing? But what would be the point? And what does dragging in the kitchen sink have to do with this thread? At that time I was interested in debating anarchocapitalism and ripped it to shreds then, as some many Oists from Rand, Branden?, Bidinotto, David Kelley on down. People like Randy were impressed? No big surprise that fans of or converts to A/C would like George's work in this area and those of us who think the philosophy has more holes than a moldy swiss cheese would not be impressed. Never been impressed with pretentious academic or jargony style even for a so-called "journal". Good thing about JARS, Objectivity, etc. is they usually avoid it. (By the way, in George's writing more generally he sometimes does seem to like to go off on tangents and do a core dump of all sorts of stuff floating around.) I'm curious whether I addressed the (false) idea I underlined above from the OWL post in the part G. snipped. It would have been relevant to at least explain what 's wrong with the idea. At least in passing. ...Shouldn't this tangential topic be moved to another thread? Isn't there already one on Arachnocapaphobia?

Beaucoup HarrassMen "The sect came to national prominence in 2009, when its members rioted and burned police stations near its base of Maiduguri, a dusty northeastern city on the cusp of the Sahara Desert... "While initially targeting enemies via hit-and-run assassinations from the back of motorbikes...violence by Boko Haram now has a new sophistication and apparent planning that includes high-profile attacks with greater casualties... "[The group] has splintered into at least three different factions, diplomats and security sources say...Targeting the group has remained difficult, as sect members are scattered throughout [Objectivist Living, Solo Passion, & Noodlefood] obscure foodfight websites." -- Nigeria Calls State of Emergency Over Sect Attacks By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: December 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM ET

> If you are going to litter our flamewar with cliches like "up yours," then this won't be any fun at all. > Competent jousting requires wit, not time. I apologize for not being able to keep you amused and not being witty enough for you.

Subject: benevolent machete-wielding to look forward to... > you clearly need some help. I will therefore offer advice as we go along. "Boko Haram's widening terror attacks, though, are only further intensifying religious divisions in Nigeria. In this nation of more than 160 million people, thousands have died in recent years in communal fighting pitting machete-wielding neighbors against each other."

> I would strongly advise against engaging in a war of words with me. You are not nearly clever enough. You have no talent for polemical jousts I don't invest the time to properly "joust". I just fire off a fifteen second "up yours" dismissal. And I don't care if your feces-hurling seems more clever or intelligent to bystanders. (this one took over a minute - slow typist)

Subject: Substituting Moralizing Character Attack for Discussion of Issues These personal attack accusations remind me of the Rodney King thing. You need to view the start of the incidents before the police baton beatdown came on to evaluate the whole thing. I distinctly remember bending over backwards not to respond in kind when I first encountered these kinds of vicious character attacks over on SoloP when I was defending Chris Sciabarra. Post after post after post questioning my honesty, calling me an evader, claiming I was a troll, was just seeking attention. When was that? '06? At a certain point, I ran out of patience - I don't remember whether that was over there or over here when people started outragedly responding when I was very critical of their posts by calling me*** a liar, an evader, questioning my character ... all the usual ARAHW** moralizing rhetoric that only Objectivists seem to have absorbed in their movement. **Ayn Rand At Her Worst *** It wasn't just directed at me - IIRC, George has done it with Shayne and vice-versa, Jonathan with Michael Newberry and Roger Bissell, MSK with several opponents. Lindsay Perigo with other opponents. Diana Hiseh, of course, was one of the first to do it with Chris Scibarra. People on both side of PAR, PARC, etc. And on and on. And they'll always say: "Yeah, but it's *true* in -this- case: Coates, Branden, Perigo, Newberry, Peikoff, Bissell, SJW REALLY IS A COMPLETE STINKER AND THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW, DAMMIT!!! "

On one thread, Baal claims that we don't have Aristotle's words so we have *no ideaat all* what he actually said or did as opposed to his followers. On another thread he castigates Aristotle for his bad scientific method. You can't claim both: Simple (Aristotelian) logic.

> What do you expect? You are, after all, an active participant in an "arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture" that is populated by "vicious little turds" and "lowlifes." [GHS] Subject: Three little Sleazeball tricks in Perpetuating the Food Fight Here we go round and round again: I've pointed out that (1) I -respond in kind by kicking you in the teeth - when I'm vilified and slimed**. You keep acting as if I were the initiator. Or (2) you blur the distinction between criticizing someone (which I do frequently) and attacking their character (which is a frequent response of yourself). Over and over you and your cohorts have done this; another trick: (3) pick a quote of mine out of context and lie to pretend that I'm the initiator. (I've made this point on probably a half dozen threads, and you clowns [ yes, I'm now sick enough of your attacks that I will regularly use insulitng and abusive language] never seem to learn.) **how would you expect someone to react?

I like to read several books at once and take many weeks to finish all of them, then start another batch. Currently, it's "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald (re-reading), "Africa, A Biography of the Continent" by John Reader, and "On Writing Well" by William Zinsser. Sometimes I'll start a book and never finish, but all three of these are superb, will be finished, are being well-annotated: One is great literature. One is a breathtaking survey and integration of the geology, climate and ecology, anthropology, cultures and sociology of a place that fell behind in history. One is a compendium of many wise tips about a major skill or avocation.

> The Aristotelians were in command when Galileo was sentenced to life under house arrest. [baal] Actually, I think there might have been some Catholics around as well.

That was so good, I almost understood it! As loong as I don't look at it directly, but reread it with my peripheral vision....... ( Admiringly, Phil the Robot )

> I'm quite certain that, despite my best intentions, I often fall short in my effort to live up to the principles Branden describes here. [DH] We all do. Those principles are hard. It's human nature that we often tend to cut ourselves some slack but don't cut other people any slack and think the worst of them, especially if they've angered us. Ayn Rand was at her worst when she turned disagreement about ideas or slowness to accept her views into attacks on that person's seriousness, commitment, integrity, character, etc. That kind of injustice is how you narrow your circle, permanently lose friends who don't feel visible or respected, don't want to have anything further to do with you, etc. I personally don't mind that much when people make mistakes in the realm of ideas or when they tell me my ideas are really dumb or rationalistic or poorly thought out, but I never forgive or forget or want to have anything further to do with them when someone has attacked my honesty or character.

> I've been informed by the quality of some of the posts. I plan to reread some of Nathaniels stuff with this in mind. Thank you Phil for starting this thread. [Mikee] > He also never has to give credit for the ideas hatched in threads like this. Setting aside the personal attack posts, I also have learned some things from a number of the posts. And been reminded of some valuable things I'd seen but forgotten in Branden's work in The Objectivist. I'll also be doing some more reading. (It'll also be interesting for me to see if I can reconstruct why I started and stopped several of his post-break books, but that's less important.) So I guess I'm sort of glad I started the thread, as I can set aside the usual convening of the ad hominem brainless psychologizing-about-my-motives clown school and just extract some positive insights. (It's amazing how someone like George or Dennis can be so intelligent, objective, and insightful about many intellectual matters relating to ideas, Objectivism, psychology - and even books on grammar and writing - and such an abrasive moralizing Ayn-Rand-at-her-worst!!! psychologizing asshole when it comes to attacks on someone's personal character, insults, food fights.)

> Phil, honestly, I was trying to turn you around a bit, get you going on something productive, exciting, already remarkably good and supported on this site, get you to fuck your enemies and turn to your friends...Do you trust anyone to help you?...don't give up on yourself and your dreams to fear. ...Trying different ways and means of helping myself and others closer to practical truth. Entertainingly if possible. Savagely if necessary. With kindness if it might be effective. [WSS, post 37] Willliam, I really do appreciate your civil attempt to be helpful, to strongly criticize me where you think it is appropriate, and the time you spent on trying to communicate with someone as hard-headed as me. For that reason I don't mind the occasional sarcasm or snark, because it's not the essence of the communication, and I don't sense someone mean-spirited or whose primary objective is to play "gotcha". (Unlike some of the vicious little ankle-biters around here.) However, I think we will often have to agree to disagree ==> > A Staggering Irony for him to ask for this kind of labour while dodging it himself [WSS] Not exactly: The most precise way to put it is you draw conclusions about what you've seen; if this were a venue where people were serious about putting effort into something like this, and if they treated other people's efforts with respect and engaged with them, then, for my part, I'd be considerably more likely to put more effort in myself. (And also note that I have done many, many, many efforts of labor in the past and usually gotten little back in return.) > an embarrassing blunder -- in tone, tenor, register, angle of attack...How many times have we seen or watched or listened to or read drama or comedy or tragedy and seen a real person or a fictional person stand in his or her own way? Not really interested in much 'trade' or having friends among the J's, ND's, Brants, GHS's, and the vicious little turds I see here. So I'm not "getting in my way" of achieving that goal. Lowlifes and snarky insult boys have no values to offer me. My value (and it is limited) is often to kick 'em in the teeth. And play whack-a-mole when they pop up with something stupid that it doesn't take me long to shoot down. Other times I'll just ignore 'em when they make a particularly dumb form of sophistry that falls of its own weight in any rational mind. You seem to have the idea that the Oist movement - especially as epitomized on these discussion boards - is an unparalleled fount of great wisdom, well-meaning allies, thoughtful commentary. And wise and knowledgeable people. :-) And that I'm somehow missing out if I antagonize some of these paragons. > your zeal for and knowledge of Objectivism could help you Spread Objectivism. It is a good hook, I think, a fine spine, a great jumping-off point. You could kill two birds, maybe three, with one stone. I don't think Objectivism is going to spread until a host of more fundamental attitudes, knowledge, liberal arts education, persuasion 'savvy', people skills are treated with respect and effort first. Problem is: A majority of these people are not "housebroken", so no one in their right mind is going to listen to them. > give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified. I do have fans but they are not in this steadily declining arrogant and foolish and often sick little subculture. And I have other goals, things I want to spread instead, which are more personally satisfying. And I'm afraid there are better people out there.

> Phil will plead his innocence once again, claiming that his remarks have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by his enemies. Why should I even bother? You and Dennis and others on this thread are too fucking dumb to read what I said anyway.

> almost knocked me off my chair from a guffaw small mind easily amused

It's not scheduled -anywhere- in my state, Florida, with one of the largest populations in the nation, unfortunately.