Philip Coates

> you appear to agree with Perigo that I am giving you orders. (Please correct me if this is not so.) Barbara, I was just trying to rebut Linz's idea that I would take orders by turning it into a humorous response: I didn't intend to say you were giving me orders - Sorry for that misunderstanding. I respect your viewpoint and fully understand that you are giving me heartfelt advice. I hope we're still friends and feel free to continue to give your opinions or advice or argue strongly against my actions. Even though I am a fairly headstrong individual ...and may not always take the advice. Phil

> She'll be nursing that prune on his sickbed, and guiding his hand across the transfer-of-dynasty papers while she's turning off the drip...For sure, her old man is suboptimal...what a Nancy-Boy. Rich, that's beyond the pale. Don't be a feces-hurler.

Barbara, we disagree on this. I've only got time right now to address what to me are the key parts: 1. Opening Up Side Issues: I don't think I'm opening up new avenues of attack that would not otherwise be opened up. Diana clearly intends in the near future to write long posts attacking Chris's book and his work on many fronts. The points where I'm *not defending Chris* re: his book or his interpretation of what Diana said on homosexuality are not central to the main charge of dishonesty she is leveling. And if I think he's wrong (or in the case of the book, I'm raising the question of whether dialectics is an accurate or useful term--which is not an issue of honesty but of clarity of thinking), I'm going to say he is wrong. My purpose is not to defend Chris (or to attack him), but to raise every issue. 2. Effectiveness/Appropriateness of Debate: If I make good points or ask probing questions which were brushed aside, I'm putting them on the record and the fact they are not answered or not well answered will be evident to bystanders. The uncontested false argument (whether done out of conviction *or* malice) always becomes the accepted conventional wisdom. It doesn't fall of its own weight because most people are busy and don't explore or question it for themselves. That's true whether the arguments attack character, or attack someone's intellectual position or books. People will say, "well no one has answered or thoroughly questioned Diana, so she must be right". > you have to speak as if she's honest, which she is not I'm not actually doing that one way or the other. I'm just asking her a series of questions of the nature of the how can you say that or what is your evidence nature. That doesn't presume honesty or dishonesty. It allows the chips to fall where they may on that as I continue with probing questions still to be asked.

Barbara and others, I don't have time to both debate you guys on why I -shouldn't- be debating or its not an honest adversary and to actually debate.... I'm already over my head in the actual debate...and I need to concentrate on that. If at some point, I decide its not worthwhile or in good faith or I have a nervous breakdown...I'll drop out :-) It's late and I need sleep.

> if it's true that approximately 10% of any population is and alway has been homosexual, surely one could conclude that that's precisely what nature and evolution intended Barbara, that's an interesting point and I hadn't thought of it. But my purpose was not to argue in favor of Diana's two positions on homosexuality but against the over the top idea that it was proof of weasellyness or dishonesty or subterfuge. That would be to make the same cynical mistaken of lack of any possible benevolent interpretation that she is making with Chris. Michael, my point is that the most effective counter to bad ideas is not to draw a psychological diagnosis whether they could be held innocently or whether the opponent has to be evil or trying to curry favor with an orthodoxy (or with academics -- again, same mistake as is being made by the other side against Chris!) but to take them at face value and rebut them or ask questions about them. This is what I'm doing on SP right now. I created a thread called "Questions for Diana." You can read my posts and you'll see I'm pulling no punches in my strong disagreements...but I am not using invective. And you can see that there is a very vigorous debate between me and four? other people against me on that thread. The only problem is I don't really have time to keep answering everything said by that many opponents. If you think my posts and discussion are *bad or improper ones*...please post that here (rather than there, so I can keep my questions going) why you think so. If you aren't civil, it gets in the way. The person who has nothing to fear from clear and direct expression of his ideas is the person who -avoids- ranting and name-calling? Why? Because his points and arguments get lost. And he can't win his case. Are you accepting Peter Schwartz's sanction principle? That I shouldn't have a discussion or debate because I'm 'sanctioning' it by disagreeing with it or critiquing its basis it on the deepest level? RESPECT FOR THE DISCUSSION DOES NOT MEAN SANCTION OR RESPECT FOR THE POINT OF VIEW. (That's not true in every single case...e.g., a debate on whether genocide is proper...but it is true when someone propounds a long list of moral charges and accusations and data against someone...they have to be answered.)

> priceless example of..."weasel-worded academese"..."I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral." Dirk, I'm not used to defending Diana :-), but I have to disagree with you on this: I'm not arguing the position, but she's holding two separate positions, and that's what the word 'but' indicates in English grammar. One is apparently that it's better to be born (become?) hetero-sexual as nature and evolution intended (You "fit better" both physically and into a society hostile to sexual variation). The other is saying that it's not immoral to be gay. Those two positions do not logically contradict each other (and Chris was wrong to presume dishonesty or that she sneakily believes h. is immoral...that is not in evidence in her statement). An analogy: Suppose you were born without some physical capacity or color-blind (or something-I don't have a perfect analogy). That would be unfortunate to some degree or other or less than optimal. But you can be fully fulfilled, successful, achieve happines...be moral..without it. Dirk, MSK, Charles and others--> I am an opponent of Diana's on many things...including many aspects of how she judges people...but there are several things it is important to do in dealing with intellectual adversaries: (1) Don't oversimplify or 'strawman' their positions (2) Don't indulge in ad hominem, character assassination, or name calling...even if they do. (3) Don't jump to moral condemnation or overstated character evaluations prior to hard and thorough evidence that honest error is totally impossible....even if they do. (4) Just go on the evidence in people's statements. Do not read conspiracy theories or ulterior meanings or hidden motives into people's statements. I've seen people on this list and on RoR who are outraged when their opponents do 1, 2, 3, or 4. Then they turn around and do the same things themselves toward -their- opponents. Having now read and outlined her piece on Chris, I have started posting questions and gotten responses from her and her defenders. I have not assumed evil on their part and vice-versa in the discussion and it has been polite and civil....so far! Even though absolutely no agreement has been achieved on anything.

Another thing about these two sculptures. Life size is close to 6 feet tall. Winged Victory and David are each at least -triple- life size. They are unstintingly titanic, a shout of pride and assertiveness to the world. In scale, boldness, drama, heroic presence, they are the Atlas Shruggeds of the art world.

Fred, choosing between the Winged Victory and the David is like being forced to choose between my two favorite movies. One problem for people who want to see WV: When I visited the Louvre you were led to it from behind and on the same level, which smashes the drama of the long, upward staircase and the ability to see the whole thing as a unity and from the front (not a closeup of its butt). This was '95 and I had to walk all the way to the other end of the Louvre and go down a level to see it the right way. It's sort of like being dumped at the base of the Statue of Liberty Empire State Building and immediately entering the elevator, never having seen the whole thing from a distance first and gradually approaching.

> I apologize if anyone is offended over my drooling. Just don't get it on the screen. I'm trying to read here :-)

Ellen, I just read this: Thank you for that great, great description of a teacher who influenced you deeply. It is eerie the simillarity to my most influential teacher -- Mrs. DeCesare, also an English teacher with rigorous, old-fashioned standards: Every one knew of her. Her couse inspired fear (and respect). She was zealous, intense, outspoken, as passionate as her Italian last name. She challenged people, woke them up, made them come up with more than just a lazy answer. She saw more in me than a distracted juvenile delinquent cutup who found everything too easy or too boring. When she told you you had done a good job, you had done a good job. I think she may have gotten criticized for being too demanding and "screaming" at the kids, but that wasn't really the case...and the progressives hadn't come in yet, so they really couldn't stop her. Fortunately. Phil

Roger and Michael and others, Guys: Can I respectfully suggest losing the silly names (Dizzy, Dyin) etc. to call opponents? (PhilThePill) PS, You might want to lose the funny hats when you post as well...

Exactly. And if they spent more time trying to create things instead of attack them. Show me what you can do and build, not what you don't like that someone else did.

> Cognitive science is a far more rewarding subject to discuss than any of the matters I've been embroiled in for the last two weeks plus. Robert, I agree! I get the sense that you had been holding back for a long time (even as far back as OWL) and now you just turned from MMCR to REV for a time and had to let out all the things you needed to say, give no quarter, let no charge or attack go unanswered, etc. Without reopening the whole thing, I agreed with some of your criticisms and points and disagreed with others. But I think the wrong or mistaken things done by and views held you saw in front of you basically fall in the categories of: mental blind spots, cognitive disfunctions, honest error, compartmentalization...and, most importantly being blinded by rage, seeing a "red flag" whenever the opponent speaks, etc. --as opposed to: venality, dishonesty, cowardice, conscious evasion, etc. <rewritten 1:17 PM> > My dosimeter has turned an ugly color...at SOLOPassion. That's a funny and clever way to put it...I may steal that line from you and use it at some point. You were clearly beginning to show signs of radiation sickness which consisted of parts of the body falling off of you :-) <rewritten 1:23 PM to remove excessive humor>

> Ayn Rand didn't suddenly sit down and write Atlas one day having never written any fiction before in her life, she had to work at her skill as an author, and only then after many years of practice had she acquired the level of skill necessary to write Atlas. Fran, this is a great point. Most people either don't have a very vivid and very high goal, or it's so compelling that they want to rush there. They try to get there too soon or too instantly (the equivalent of trying to write Atlas a year or two after one has first learned English as a foreign language). They 'strip their gears', fail to master the bootstrapping and component skills, and do something they aren't ready for because they don't have the 'prerequisites'. And then often they just give up rather than understanding the gradual, progressive nature of anything complicated in life. Ayn Rand's writing steadily expands in scope and the previous steps made the later ones possible. (This need to understand appropriate processes and steps applies not just to writing an ambitious book, but even to something less enormous such as learning how to explain or persuade people of Objectivism.) Phil Coates

> One of my high school teachers -- who became after I'd graduated a treasured personal friend -- remains to this day in my thoughts as possibly the ultimate example of good teaching. She taught "English and Literature"; I was her avid student for two years, my junior and senior years of high school Ellen, can you give us a little bit of detail: What did she do that was different and an example of the best way to teach? Were there particular books she assigned that were riveting? Did she have a way of making literature not seem dull or make it seem relevant to the life of the adolescent? Thanks! Phil

> pointless palavers with parasites Roger, I love it! What about nattering nabobs of negativity (Vice President Spiro Agnew, 1970s)? Or festering fulminators of foobar (Phil Coates, just now)? > I have several books on epistemology and aesthetics -- or is it aepistemology and esthetics? -- to write It's only one man's opinion, but out of the four, (1) I would skip ape-istemology since teaching apes to speak politely at dinner parties does not have a large market. And, (2) I would skip the a-esthetics, since "a" is the latin prefix for away from or against...and, again, the market for anti-esthetics guidance has already been captured by the pomos. You have my permission to write the other two books, however.

> I would call what Aristotle used to develop his logic "reflective abstraction" (a term derived from Piaget) rather than "induction" Robert, I'm very interested in any new (or even slightly modified) mode or type of thinking. Can you explain what you mean by this phrase...and how someone like Aristotle (or any of us) might be doing something different from the standard processes we're familiar with, such as concept-formation, induction, deduction, concretization, reduction, etc.?

However, Michael, I do have to say I wish you had resisted the temptation to start a thread with a title like "online objectivist mediocrity" whose purpose is to take on your tormentors / opponents: "Aw, Phil..you're no fun! Even just one tiny kidney punch?..Enough to draw blood?....Just one!!" I thought this was supposed to be an oasis whose purpose is to focus on the productive, constructive, and positive. You can always reply to them or display your contempt for them on RorR, if -absolutely- necessary (but hopefully in principle on the philosophical or judgment mistakes and not re their character, motives, or whether they are successful or productive). And once you open things up to this sort of fight, it simply invites more of the same. (And there is literally no end to it...the opponents - just as angry and offended and outraged as you - will come at you once again and try to cut your guts out.) On a related matter: I would urge this same course on Robert Campbell, Robert Bidinotto, and Roger Bissell as well, whether here or on another website or venue. Skip the *personal* type of criticism, even if they've done it to you. Let others be on that level. [ I think one can respond to the principles which are disagreed about...that's what Kelley does in T&T which I've urged them to make available for free download on their website, since F&V is available.] "But I don't think of you" is not always possible, but should be the rule with regard to getting into the gutter or trench warfare or personalities by and large. Is it clear who wins when the conversation turns to this level? Seldom the more thoughtful, rational argument. It's in the interest of he who has the best case to not get deflected from the higher level of discourse. Phil

Thanks, Roger, for Peikoff's insightful defense (and context-setting) about Aristotle.

OK, after these latest posts, I'm more and more leaning toward reading Barbara's book, dammit. I think I have a mental block about the whole field of biography and I'm not quite sure why, since I'm generally an omnivorous reader. For some reason, I don't think I will learn as much as if I read another history book, even though I'm intelligent enough to know that doesn't quite make sense, as I am interested in people and in psychology and in a good personal story. I have Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography sitting on my shelf unread for a decade, even though I love Benjamin Franklin, have heard many good things about it, and it is a classic. I also have some biographies of great scientists which I have no inclinations to crack open. Does this mean I'm a thoroughly evil person or only two-thirds??!!@#$%^*(%@

> Peikoff therein talked about mathematics being atypical (epistemologically) because it was deductive...Has he modified this view since 1983? Roger, this is the kind of thing I would have qualified in my mind with the word 'largely' or 'basically', had i heard it, assuming he realized many concepts were abstracted from (induced) from concrete instances and he was 'essentializing'.

Hi Charles, I think what leads intellectuals to intrinsicism, which is what you are really decrying here -- the throwing away of the concept's measurements [the bad form of 'measurement omission' hah hah!], the throwing away of details -- is, often, that once they have essentialized, it is unpleasant to have to immerse oneself in the messy, 'imperfect' world of detail. If you stay in the ivory tower of abstraction, life is simpler and you feel more powerful. Plato spoke in these terms of the world of particulars. Phil

> It is clear, however, that the Objectivism left to us by Ayn Rand does not even begin to adequately address very important topics relating to many human relationships. Romantic love...was inadequately developed and understood. Friendships were not understood and developed. Many social and organizational interactions of people were not understood. Questions of how an Objectivist society would operate were not addressed...those who try to live life the way she did are not able to function well among others and tend to have similar relationship problems. Since Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for living life, it is clear that it is an incomplete philosophy. If it is a closed philosophy, then it is not a philosophy for living a happy life! [Charles Anderson] Charles, I have to disagree with the parts where you blame this on philosophy or Objectivism. I think that's a "category mistake" with significant consequences. The things you cite fall heavily under the category of psychology, not philosophy (or in one case, the philosophy of law). It's certainly true that psychology i) as a science needs further development, ii) is little understood by PSO's (Philosophy-Solipsistic Objectivists). But that is not the fault of the philosophy of Objectivism. It just means you need to know much more, possess much wider and deeper knowledge, and integrate it with philosophy to make it a "working" philosophy. Jus to take one example: All philosophy can do with regard to Romantic Love is to tell you you should have it. And list very broadly some of its criteria. A page or two of knowledge. Getting it and practicing it are book length, a lifetime of work and struggle.

The Phoenix one, as photographed, is -extremely- disappointing to me, arms and head or no (and doesn't really look like the original). Reminds me of Roman copies of Greek originals, pale and sunless imitations, lacking conviction, which are all over...without the detail, the subtlety, the original emotional force. I get more of a feel of a timid, Christian angel...but I don't suppose the Phoenix authorities would allow me to crawl up to the cupola to get a better look.

Photographs don't do justice to a three-dimensional work of great art. You have to go to Paris to stand in front of it which I did for over an hour without being able to tear myself away. I have never seen a work of art of the awesome titanic power of the Winged Victory. I never knew anything could exceed the power of Michelangelo's David. Or inspire me more. Until I saw this.