seymourblogger

One more post....da da da. For the first time I took a look at the stats for this post today. 10,000 plus people may have wanted to kno9w more about Rand and Nietzsche but what did they get? From the first comment by 9th doctor, an arrow to the heart. Do you have proof of that statement? Gah. Anyone who has read at least a little of Nietzsche knows. If s/he hasn't then maybe I'll find out reading this post. No such luck babe. All you're gonna get is vitriol. Someone with a different view around here on OL is gonna get called a troll. The same people come out all over someone new to cajole, reward submissiveness and pleas for help, throw darts, of yell troll troll troll. So be the littlest Bily Goat Gruff when you post and comment here folks. Sorry you didn't get much Nietzsche but you sure did drive up the hits for Michael Stuart Kelly eh? He didn't even say thank you. 10,000 plus and no wink or salute. Alas. And comments excessive of other blogs. And the time frame of not even 2 months! For all these hits! Something is in the air. It smells like Nietzsche.

The debate between linguistic relativists and universalists is very interesting. Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'? Do u think it is serious?

I am only conversant with the latest experimentation in physics. I do know that they are in a quandary at the moment in particle physics. The changes in positive and negative, and the attraction of opposite charged particles is consistent with Baudrillard's Fatal Attractor. I have written about the WTC Towers as Fatal Attractors http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2011/09/remembering-9-11-memorial-on-10th.html Quantum physics on thought, chaos theory in mathematics, abrupt events in evolution, Kuhn's Logic of Scientific Revolutions, and certainly Picasso's cubist period and Pollack's tremendous influence, as well as Warhol's "cut" into art history Discourse. DeLillo's Cosmopolis is not a linear novel, and films have been non-linear for a long time. But it has been Nietzsche's genealogy opposed to a progressive, continuous, historical analysis and Foucault's extension of Nietzsche's genealogy into all aspects of human behavior that has undercut linear time. The Hegelian dialectic is yesterday's Discourse, but that's all there is here. On my blogs are links to more advanced blogs on this topic where I read and comment. The Relative Absolute, etc so if you go to my blogs you will see them on my blog list and can follow them. There are some amazing writers and thinkers in this area in art, and especially film, videos, books, well so so much. Here I have been limited to 5 comments a day because well, because of what I say, the attacks I get, and the fun I have in replying to idiots. The software will not let me edit now once I post, If I click on the quote but change my mind, that counts as a comment, and so it goes as Vonnegut says. But I got darren from here and solo, so it was worth the time and trouble. See some of his posts at my blog http://aynrand2.blogspot.com Also there you will find a lot of comments from curioushairedgal who lives in Bosnia and read Nietzsche in a cellar while bombs were going off all around her, each one maybe her last. Nietzsche: words written in blood are not to be read, but learnt by heart. In April Zizek's new book on Hegel will be out. He is reading our present world through Hegel and Lacan, saying his book is more Hegel than Hegel. It is being awaited with held breaths.

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation? Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle. Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts. It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context. So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it. See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence. We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there. Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc. I hope this clears up for you what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both non-organic and organic. You need to get up on present day physics and particles. Non-continuous universe. Events no cause and effect. Just consequences. It seems cause and effect were like a map we human invented to lay over the historical world. It doesn't fit anymore. But hey, if you like it, keep thinking that way. Nothing wrong with that, says Seinfeld. You're psychologizing has a name. Freud called it Wild Psychoanalysis. I call it pop psychology. But then an education degree is not the best for arguing in the areas you stumble into here. I was there. I know how inferior an education degree and/or certificate is. It takes a lot of studying to climb out of that brainwashing. It's never to late to start.

It is quite easy to find out what what lies at the root of it: you projected into my post about "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" something that was yours, not mine: you label the act of "wondering" as belonging to the "Order of Seduction" (which you prefer to be in, as opposed to the "Order of Production"), and since I had "wondered" why a chief had this odd-sounding name, you placed me in that preferred Order of yours as some kind of philosophical "kindred spirit". But since I don't happen to think in terms of these categories (and this finally became obvious to you as well as the discussion progressed), your disappointment and anger about not being able to find a philosophical Nietzschean/Foucauldian/Baudrillardian kindred spirit here is showing. Your sudden personal attacks on poster Carol can be interpreted in that context as well. In addition to "badmouth" an OL friend of mine, you are trying to instill in me a feeling of guilt about not having fulfilled your philosophical expectations, which you conceive as my having let you down in some way, and answer by 'retracting' your feelings of well-wishing. It's simple as that. I'm dealing with his kind of stuff day in, day out in my job, Janet. The phrase "I'm not your friend anymore!" is monnaie courante among kindergartners, who often use it when the other child refuses to do as they wish. But behavior that reflects the psychologcal immaturity of a five-year-old is not likely to "cut it" (to use a favorite term of your guru Foucault) in a philosophy forum. Another comment about the Order of Production/Order of Seduction thing: You say that the dialectic (which resides in the "Order of Production" belongs to the "world of opposites". But the very act of creating two opposing "Orders" (Pr. vs Sed), is an act that belongs to the world of opposites as well. So without being in the world of opposites, such categorizing could not even have occurred. They are not opposing Orders. They bleed into each other. I've taught kindergarten. No Montessori or Waldorf for you x-ray. Or Emmi Pikler. I have had experts inside my head. You is an amateur hon. We are not talking about friends or wannabe friends. Just that I thought you might be someone interesting to talk with if you could intuit something like that, however you managed to do it or explain it to yourself. I can't explain things to you, keep discussing and arguing with you. Give you a crash course in thinking you don't want to begin with. Go argue with darren. Now there is someone who has a mind and uses it.

Back in my student days, I was quite impressed by Whorf's book (I have it in German translation), but his "linguistic relativism" is quite controversial; as for his theory re "time" in the Hopi language, it looks like he got it downright wrong: And x-ray don't you just love the Hopi intentional verb form. You use it when you wish someone or something well. This does not mean you are required to do anything, just that you wish it well. A tree, a cat, a person, etc. Such a lovely way to think and perceive. I used to think of you that way when you talked about fear and horses. My halo effect, Hawthorne Effect, for you for that, has dissolved however. You can make 3 more posts until 11 March 2012 - 03:38 PM. This restriction is in place until you have 99648 more approved posts What do you want to bet that when I post this one I won't have 2 more. And the cukers don't roll over like minutes either. Type A MSK. Boo-Hoo.

This is embarrassing? On what planet? Looks to me like Daunce has a token Facebook account, just to say she has an account, with hardly any effort at using Facebook for anything. But to a petit bourgeois busybody with nothing to do... MichaelPetit bourgeois! Now that's a funny name-calling comment!

Back in my student days, I was quite impressed by Whorf's book (I have it in German translation), but his "linguistic relativism" is quite controversial; as for his theory re "time" in the Hopi language, it looks like he got it downright wrong: Well I studied with the brilliant Michael Silverstein of Chicago. He was the one who discovered mother-in-law language and spoke about 13 different North American Indian languages. MIL sounded like spitting as it had no vowels. The verb form I was reaching for earlier is durative as in English pas, present, future, etc., Sorry haven't read your book but I'll take Silverstein's reading of Whorf over anyone. He was brilliantly mesmerizing, mezmerizingly brilliant. I am certain many many interpretations can be put on the table. As many interpretations as there are hungry academic careers. More ping-pong gals and guys. Come play.

"Chuttle"?? I that another another of your postmodernist typos? To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp? I think Janet was just gulping her meds. Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm. dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean? Go gulp some more. --Brant Gulp. Happy now?

For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation? Bottom line: the motion and transformation principle as such is unaffected by what results from it. It is just a permanently operating principle. Aah, this is where you are coming from. it would explain the difficulties you have with the term "transformation" in my posts. It is true that for example in esoteric circles, people often speak of transformation in a psychological or mystical context. So to clarify: I do not connote "transformation" with being elevated to a higher level, with reaching an ideal; I do not associate a religious context with it. See above. Not my point at all. The transformation I mean is "non-linear" (to use a term you are familiar with). It is an ever-ongoing process that can be observed in all existence. We only percevie this as stasis because our senses are tuned to function in a mesoscopic world. Therefore when we look at e. g. a table, we don't see any motion of atoms there. Just as we cannot directly perceive many of the transformations that are constantly occurring in our bodies. Our body cells permantly die, new cells are formed, etc. I hope this clears up for you what I mean by permanent transformation as a fundamentally operating principle underlying all existence, both non-organic and organic. "For discussion's sake, I'll take the Nietzschean premise (which you believe to be true I assume) and ask back: And how is this "Eternal Return" going to work without an underlying process of permanent motion and transformation?" Permanent motion and transformation rests on the assumption of continuity, continuous time. Yes? The Eternal Return does not. The Event, coming from elsewhere, unpredictable, (no cause and effect premise) is discontinuous. Our perception of time as continuous is based on our language. Our language conditions our perception of reality. (Whorf and Sapir) The Hopi language perceives "walking" as an infinity of discontinuous steps, not as a fluid movement of the body in continuous time. I forget the name of the verb form but it is in Whorf's book in the chapter on the Hopi language. You can experience this by doing inverted positions of yoga in a gym where people are playing basketball. The movement of their legs appears as a series of discontinuous movements even when they are moving very fast. Have you checked daunce's facebook page yet? It's embarrassing that she doesn't even know how embarrassing it is.

I think Janet was just gulping her meds. Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm. ITA. Brilliant reply, Carol! dancer is soooooo brilliant! Who punched you in the mouth a long time ago dancer?

"Chuttle"?? I that another another of your postmodernist typos? To whom does "gulp" refer? You mean that you have gulped, or that I would gulp? I think Janet was just gulping her meds. Daunce: dayaaaam! Well played, ma'm. dancer? You mean the one with the platinum blonde wig? The tasteless decor in the house she is so proud of she posts pics of its tackiness? The dancer who dresses her doggie up in costumes all the time? Is this the dancer you mean?

You have five posts a day. You might start really using them instead of bitching. Xray had five a day too, only she productively adapted and the restriction was lifted. Do you even begin to understand how much you're polluting SLOP with your incessant one-liner postings and why you only get five here for the same reason? I don't think Lindsay cares that much about his site except as ego food or he wouldn't tolerate it. --Brant Hoarding posts and making good use of them lies in the Order of Production. I try as much as possible to stay in the Order of Seduction. Yes you have managed to normalize x-ray into mediocre pablum. Congratulations. You get attacked quite a bit on SOLO for your drive by assassinations. I don't post much there and am not doing any drive-bys. I can't even remember the last time I was attacked on SOLO or by whom. Was it you? You seem to just cough this crap up. --BrantAs a matter of fact it was just the other night. By goode I think in the goblin one perhaps. One more comment getting thrown away. Whooopeeee!

You have five posts a day. You might start really using them instead of bitching. Xray had five a day too, only she productively adapted and the restriction was lifted. Do you even begin to understand how much you're polluting SLOP with your incessant one-liner postings and why you only get five here for the same reason? I don't think Lindsay cares that much about his site except as ego food or he wouldn't tolerate it. --BrantHoarding posts and making good use of them lies in the Order of Production. I try as much as possible to stay in the Order of Seduction. Yes you have managed to normalize x-ray into mediocre pablum. Congratulations. You get attacked quite a bit on SOLO for your drive by assassinations.

OMG the same people who came after me for discussing post modern thinking, Ayn Rand, Foucault, Baudrillard and Nietzsche, who destroyed that post that was meant to be serious, are now screaming because someone is serious NOT! The same vultures who want to tear at anyone at all. And this person is a gamer. What do you want? Serious? No. Zingingg? No. What do you want? He didn't know what he wanted. (Cosmopolis p. 7) Go read DeLillo. You might have a chance to find out what it is that you want.

What I think is that she never studied it and she was not the sort of person who was going to speak in public about something she knew she knew nothing about. She studied in the USSR but once she got to the US she became a sort of autodidact. Her library was composed of a lot of bad literature and 35th rate non-fiction for the most part. I don't think she felt comfortable in English reading something difficult. She was excellent at pop research and early on her mind was so keen at grasping the propaganda in everything pop. She learned from people she knew by arguing dialectically with them. But in the US she received nor looked for any formal education. This freed her and crippled her at the same time. She did not move in scientific circles at all and after Branden was in her life, with his family, the collective, her other friends drifted away because they didn't like them and deplored their influence on her, as she became an arrogant tyrant with them. This is what happens when a genius associates always with inferiors. They can't keep up and so they must follow slavishly or attack her, which they dared not do until they were a collective no more. We see what has happened to Peikoff. Heller discusses this: what happened to the bright, enthusiastic witty boy. But Branden's sexual charisma won. For me it might have except for the fact that I went to the U of Del to grad school when I decided that I wasn't a stupid cunt any more, and the men in the psycho dept there at that time ........well, they were so astute, sharp, charismatic, accomplished etc that Branden became in my mind's eye, just an amateur psychologist. I am sure people went into treatment with him because of this. As a teacher I became aware that my students wanted to be in treatment with me. A way to get closer.

I have not "dug up" anything with any Obama message; my interest in politicians is near zero, which is why I usually don't pay attention to their "messages". But if Obama actually said this about "hope and change", I suppose it has little to do with what I meant: that permanent transformation is a fundamental operating cosmic principle. Panta rhei. . You don't get my point: My focus in speaking of permanent transformation is on the motion aspect..On vita in motu, which is just another reflection of the cosmos in motion. And since there is no such thing as a standstill, it makes no sense trying to 'cement' cherished beliefs, ideologies etc. And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner. <b><i>stasis</b></i> not <b><i>statis</b></i> for the detailist trivial pursuitists among you who can't read a typo. Alas I have wasted a very precious comment because I couldn't edit and because I knew typos would just be seen as a way to attack and condemn.

I have not "dug up" anything with any Obama message; my interest in politicians is near zero, which is why I usually don't pay attention to their "messages". But if Obama actually said this about "hope and change", I suppose it has little to do with what I meant: that permanent transformation is a fundamental operating cosmic principle. Panta rhei. . You don't get my point: My focus in speaking of permanent transformation is on the motion aspect..On vita in motu, which is just another reflection of the cosmos in motion. And since there is no such thing as a standstill, it makes no sense trying to 'cement' cherished beliefs, ideologies etc. And since there is no such thing as a standstill, I believe statis means standstill, eh. As Darren's comment on the Cambrian period read, "There are long periods of statis." Then of course there are Events, irruptions, abrupt changes discontinuities,which is how evolution goes, not in a steady, smooth, historical progressive manner.

I say it's Darren. I too think it's Darren. I asked him and he replied that just because Rand was serious about her philosophy "doesn't entail that WE must be serious about her philosophy; at least, not as serious scholarship (which it quite obviously is not)". (end quote Darren) But how he had phrased it in his original comment could lead to misunderstanding:: The philosophy of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics and epistemology) — like Atlas Shrugged itself — is ultimately meant as entertainment, not scholarship." (end quote Darren) http://aynrand2.blog...s-floating.html Well chuttle he has answered you in detail today. Gulp.

We're all enjoying the Phil-free air, let's not be beckoning him back. Here it is on Gutenberg.org http://www.gutenberg...98-h/1998-h.htm When you're done, for dessert, you can look at some of the early Wodehouse on the same site. What if it is against my principles to read important philosophical works in translation? (How long is Zarathustra anyway?) Hmmm? I mean, if I don't know the original language, how can I know the translators are trustworthy? I would have to rely on second hand information and not use my own judgment. Those translators could have their own agenda.... Look at the Big Code and the Big Other -- what were the original words in what language? Maybe anything can "translate" as anything if you are postmodernist, it is only slippery old language after all. Personal to Xray: Could you read that Nietszche book and give me the rundown? I'll pay you back! Your bff Carol Until Kauffman's Nietzsche translations Nietzsche was abominably translated. In Kauffman's intro he gives some awful examples that he fixed. At this time Babette Babich is the Nietzsche scholar to goto. She has taken advanced degrees in Germany, written Nietzsche articles and books in German and in English. Born in New York, prof at Fordham U, edits a Nietzsche journal she started and has written a few books on Nietzsche fairly recently. Also on Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, who also wrote a book on Nietzsche. I would trust Arendt with my mind before x-ray. And Babich. Unless you are just being your typically ironic self in which case you won't bother but will still spout off.

I just tried the 'paste in the browser' method but it didn't work either. On which thread/post on SOLO did you post the link also? "Dareen" - You mean Darren? If you are "jealous" because you think D's comments surpass yours in brilliance, in your place I'd take this as an opportunity to study how this poster lays out his arguments. Ellen has collected some crucial posts Darren made on SOLO; (there had been some insecurity about whether this is a theist or an agnostic). But those post should erase all doubt as to where he's coming from: Thanks Ellen for posting this here. Janet: "The Big Coder (...) Always Was And Always Will Be" [end quote Darren] is as clear as it can get. Actually The BIg Coder translates to Lacan's The Big Other.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge. Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation. they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation. Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message. Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there. Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth. I will say this, SM-Blogger, you have accidentally motivated me to (re?) read Thus Spake Zarathustra. The law of unintended consequences is alive and well... Ah, you have made my day!

I say it's Darren. I didn't read her that way. She says he's co-administrator not co-writer post #633. I took her to mean by co-writer co-writing individual pieces. I think what she's saying is that he's writing his entries and she's writing hers. It does seem weird to me that Darren would argue that Rand meant her philosophy as "entertainment." Doesn't Darren know better than that!!?? But the coherence, style and vocabulary in those two first brief entries by "Darren" don't seem to me to be anything Janet could have managed. The "Ayn Rand and the Myth of Chemical Evolution" piece is what Darren argued on SOLO. (ADD: On my screen there's a line at the bottom of that piece which says "posted by Darren." Which of course needn't be truthful. Credibility and all that. ) Ellen Looks like 2 different cut and paste jobs to me. The first paragraph is pretty well written and shows some personality, and the remainder is downright pedestrian, with the same amount of punch as a bill of lading. The essay is not cohesive at all. Makes me think there are two different sources, sloppily pasted together. Administrators is the label blogspot gives for x number of people who all have equal privileges/power on the site. That is darren can delete everything and so can I. He can invite other people and so can I. He can post and so can I. He can comment and so can I. Jesus did I leave anything out. If I did I am sure you will tell me that we are not equal because........... he can tie shoes expertly and I cannot. You people are going to win at trivial pursuit the day you get on that show. I posted darren's comment with darren's name on it as we were working out tech issues. They are worked out. Is there anything else you all want to know? And yes our styles are vastly different. Too bad all yours are the same. Knit pick. Nit pik.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge. Catholicism is a classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation. they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation. Now where the fug did you get this fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation? I guess you dug it up with Obama's "hope and change" message. Nietzsche: Zarathustra's despair of the ETERNAL RETURN. No transformation there. Transformation is what Foucault will analyze as the remnent of a belief in God. Transformation belongs to the dialectic. Reaching toward the Ideal, toward Heaven, or Heaven on earth.

But being adamant about preserving the whole system will lead to the artificial 'freezing' of a philosophy, for it prevents its permanent testing required due to the accumulation of new knowledge. Catholicism is classic example of a frozen, sclerotic belief system. But all attempts to preserve such systems will ultimately fail, for they go against the fundamental cosmic principle of permanent transformation. Objectivism as a belief system is not a philosophy. As a philosophy, it is not a belief system. The former is Ayn Rand's "philosophy," centered on the ethics and her view of the ideal man. That's mostly ethics, then some politics then the axioms. The logical progression is reality, reason, rational self interest, freedom (individual rights). This last sentence reflects the commonality of the philosophy and the belief system and is individualism from A to Z. When one elevates off these basics we've got problems. One must elevate because the individual has a social existence and a complicated and non-plastic psychology, which is hard to change, and no one is generally morally privileged to insist on changing others, certainly even unto killing them as is the wont of the totalitarians, who, if they've no guns, may resort to sundry vicious vituperation. --Brant The logical progression is reality, reason, rational self interest, freedom (individual rights). Here's where you lose it. Progression is linear, continuous, historical. Didn't you read darren's comment on the Cambrian abrupt Event analysis following Thom's mathematics of non-continuous catastrophe theory applied to evolution according to Darwinian theory. Discontinuity has taken Darwin, Marx,history, all the human sciences, etc out of the Hegelian Discourse of the Dialectic where you are still standing with your feet glued to the dirt.