seymourblogger

It's not my keyboard it's your software. did you jism it? http:// intellectual terrorist two but you have to put the number 2 in as your software turns it into 12 twelve then blogspot dot com Your software also says I have one more post when I do not. You need a better IT person. Want a reference?

Looks like this blog bit the big one. Either that or the link is wrong. Michael http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com

Maybe Ms, Xray, Angela could give a tutorial. She had the same difficulty understanding the "24 hour paradigm." "Five posts a day" can be misunderstood as being those of a calendar day. I recall being been listed in the "Today's top posters" section (which OL had back then) with e. g. "3 posts", so I thought I had 2 more, but when I tried to get # 4 through, I got the message "You have already used up your 5 posts"; I thought there must be some glitch in the software, or it that it has to do with the time zone difference. But the 24 hours just run through independent of any calendar day or time zone limits. The 5th post I recall not being able to edit, for the program closed after posting, so that last post often stood there with all the unweeded typos. Hey x-ray I answered you on true and false at solo. See I don't always make typos. http://www.solopassion.com/node/8924#comment-105329 The links on truth you asked for are on the right side of this blog of mine: http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com L'Immoraliste and The Relative Absolute. They also have wonderful blog links on their sites.

Brant, I hope you will forgive me for harping on this point, but here are your exact words on OL:** "he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS" Here are your exact words on SOLO last November: "Didn't Foucault go to Mexico to have sex with boys while dying of AIDS?" I would respect you so much more if you just said you fucked up and repeated a rumour/fancy/confabulation/misremembrance. All the dancing about with "oh, I never meant that. I meant the other thing, the nice thing, the non-sleazy gossip thing" -- all this is not credible. Why not just say you were wrong, and you are sorry and we can move on, all of us? ___________________ ** The original OL post has been deleted ("Honey, somebody let the horses out! They are all gone! What? Shut the door? Okay, Okay! Just as soon as I call the horse thief hotline."). If anyone ever seaches the whole wide internets a few years from now, the earliest places they will find "sex with Mexican boys Foucault AIDS death" is here and at SOLO. I read it on the Internet or in a magazine maybe 20 years ago. Since I've not been able to further substantiate it I withdraw the allegation and will not repeat it. What is apparent is that Foucault got caught up in the first great AIDS hysteria and die off doing what so many gays did back then which killed most of them. That behavior plus misuse of poppers tended to come to a halt and bath houses closed down or were closed down by the authorities. If that's all there was to it he was more a victim of the tragedy than a perpetrator. --Brant Too little too late brant

Is that a fact?

Seymour has a hard time with facts. Aside from your mention of "Mexican boys" and Seymour's acquiescence to your 'boys,' there is nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING that suggests Foucault was a pedophile. Nothing in the Faux Roman (which I linked to above) nor in his numerous biographies (or biographical sketches) suggests he had sex with boys. It is appalling the amount of sleaze and rumour that gets ladled out here at times. William I am referring to the "boys" who were graduate students at Berkeley who met en masse with Foucault informally. And yes he was deeply loved. That is not the same as sexuality, fucking, minors or anything else. You may think I am loose with facts because I don 't footnote and document everything I say. That is something I am not going to do to please people here. At the same time it does not mean there is no access to quotes.

(NOTE FROM MSK: This pearl of wisdom came from another thread right after this post.) Brant, My concern is not with that poster, but instead with OL. Should truth on OL be spoken or just inferred? Think about it. I don't mind teasing readers to jazz up a payoff for them, but I don't like teasing readers with BS. So I just blurt it out when a tease like that starts. Michael She sure hit SOLP like a blunderbuss. She's really scattered, replying to posts I didn't make as if I did. After seeing that, maybe you should have restricted her to three a day. I couldn't do what you do in running this place even if I had the time. I'm actually less tolerant. --Brant And much more of a hothead who smears Foucault with slander because you don't have the knowledge, nor the persistence to get it as Shenck (sp?) has said, you need to address his work intelligently. It's "yellow journalism" of the kind Rand wrote about in her Journal, while she was researching Hurst for the character of Wynand. In fact your slur on Foucault was to attack me and make him seem like an unprincipled virus murderer of Mexican boys. Therefore anything he wrote that Seymourblogger quoted was worthless. Turn Foucault into a scumbag and get me at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone eh. That's another shoddy tactic of yours and shows your lack of integrity, something I have known all along. I am glad it is out in the open for all to see, even MSK sees it now. I am pleased and proud to be someone you dislike so much you would smear someone I was intellectually admiring and quoting. It seems Foucault was aware he was dying and yet in denial. He finished the last two volumes of his History of Sexuality that he had been planning and talked about for almost 2 decades after he published vol I. The final manuscript went to his publisher just days before he went into the hospital where he died shortly after. He left no formal will. His longtime lover and partner was agonizing over the fact that his family might get control of his writing and only by diligent searching in their apartment did he find a letter leaving everything to him, Daniel Defert. And in the letter very strongly put was : No posthumous publication. None. Defert has respected his wishes while everyone has screamed. Much like Peikoff and Rand. All Foucault's notes are in the archive at the Bibioteche (sp?) where they remain. There were boxes and boxes of genalogies he was working on. Transcripts from tapes at his lectures at the College de France have been transcribed and published. He was loved, admired, respected, feared by students all over the world. And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back. I also think they were intelligent and not nasty little motherfuckers who like to smear people with gossip. I especially noticed you just had to mention that roman faux sort of novel a friend of his wrote. Nasty nasty person that you are.. Is that the truth now--finally? You may have a legit beef about my Foucault comment. I do wonder what is consensual age for a boy? Did he love them knowing he had AIDS? As for my integrity and Michael, I've not gotten anything from him about that. Did you infer an intimation from him? That's not how he works. What novel are you talking about? I don't remember it. It's now blatantly obvious you care nothing about Rand except as a pony for your pomo ride. We're supposed to respect your feelings about Foucault while you do nothing but throw her into your Foucaultian Brier patch? --Brant Are you such an idiot that you don't know people with AIDS have sex without murdering someone or infecting someone. DID YOU EVER HEAR OF CONDOMS! You are the one who used the term roman faux. Actually it was a novel and it had real elements in it about Foucault, his lover and his death. You probably pasted it from somewhere because you didn't know what you were talking about. I am sorry your life is so complicated. I would be surprised if it weren't. Nasty motherfucker. And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.

It was the contradiction in the name of the chief that had peaked my interest. But if "In the Order of Seduction there are no contradictions", doesn't it follow that I must have examined this issue in the "Order of Production" then? But the words "in fact" you have used refer to just that: the existence of a truth. Nice pick up: In fact there is no truth. Nice paradoxical statement eh. You are the one who picked up the contradiction. An object does not exist until and unless it is observed - Burroughs. And so you went looking. The Discourse had translated it one way but you felt something else on a hunch, an intuition. Delving into the Discourse is when you are doing Nietzschean genealogy that Foucault extended so fantastically. As you have demonstrated, when you do it, the hidden meaning that has been pasted over, emerges. As I said, this is what Foucault spent his life on in the archives. Your wondering was seductive. At that moment you were in the Order of Seduction. A feeling, a wonder, a hunch, an intuition, a mystery, clues, solving the mystery. To explain it the way you did made it seem boring and I know it was not. But we educated ones have a huge investment in dialectical explanations. We are not going to give it up without a fight. We wil stay in the Order of Production until we are dragged out and in time it will happen whether we like it or not. I figured I may as well choose it since it is inevitable. I d not accept your wiki definition of truth. And I do not want to get into an endless dialectical argument/discussion on a concept that has been done to death for centuries by philosophers. Like God. I am not mixing up truth and validity. There is a site that delves into this and I wil have to search to link it for you. The Relative Absolute is another site with a wonderful name, and wonderful material. We are mostly in simulated reality now. In SR there are no opposites. All you have are simulacra, copies o9f copies circulating. Look at the women: Fake boobs, lips, faces, liposuction all over their bodies, not to even get into artificial kidneys, hearts, hair, teeth, eyes, which is the beginning of cloning that we are very close to. It will be done because they can. And people will choose to have themselves cloned rather than die. Women that hire surrogate mothers to bear children for them, artificial insemination and sorry but my mind has just started to shut down on all this. One more thing: Did you see Never Let Me Go, where children were being raised for body parts. Do you really think this is not going to happen? At what point does one look at a person and say are they real or not? Are they a true person or not? What makes true? What makes false. Impossible to know. The London Riots were an example. People were looting stores, taking things they did not want at all, nor did they need them. They just did it because they could. Because they were in a fucking game all of a sudden.There's no morality or integrity in a game. It's Cronenberg's eXistenZ and when it ends they don't know whether they are playing or not. They don't know what's real or game. This is where we are going. This is the real danger. Not haranguing over the meaning of "truth". I am sorry you think this is arrogant, impolite, not appropriate behavior to discuss all this in the dialectic. As for posts. Yes I know it is automatic and I counted, and it still wouldn't let me. And no editing either. This is Baudrillard. A technology gets so advanced, so complicated that it breaks down. The Japanese say that every piece of technology has a demon inside of it. Akin to the Gremlins in the airplanes in World War II. "The Gremlins did it." Or The Borrowers from children's books when things disappeared. It was like the day I watched the steam shovel digging dirt for the new traffic light. After a bit it wouldn't work. Missouri mud is clay. It sticks to the treads and the machine won't move. so there these city road workers were, with their high union wages, digging the mud out of the treads with shovels. I was hysterical with laughing and furious I didn't have a way of videoing it and putting it on youtube to show Baudrilardian thinking. It was much funnier to watch than to read my telling of it. I don't care. I know how to hack around it if I want. It is interesting to have restrictions and rules that are arbitrary. It sharpens the mind dealing with it. And it forces you to think if it is worth your time. I find the software here similar to MOTET from the old days. It encourages heated replies, long held grudges, endless nit picking masquerading as intellectual discussion. At solo that is much more difficult as the software encourages a straightforward post and comments. If you reply you need to put the person's name in the title bar. If you don't you don't really know who it replies to or whether it is a reply even. This requires more interpretation, as there is no nesting function. It gets to be too much work so the effort to make nasty replies is dampened down. Dilly dilly.

Is all that supposed to mean that you too (like Joan Baez) want to "shut up" the questioner if the questions asked don't suit you? If that is the case and you refuse to answer questions about philosophical quotes you have presented here, this of course translates as evasion. It's a sufi technique.

Brant, My concern is not with that poster, but instead with OL. Should truth on OL be spoken or just inferred? Think about it. I don't mind teasing readers to jazz up a payoff for them, but I don't like teasing readers with BS. So I just blurt it out when a tease like that starts. Michael She sure hit SOLP like a blunderbuss. She's really scattered, replying to posts I didn't make as if I did. After seeing that, maybe you should have restricted her to three a day. I couldn't do what you do in running this place even if I had the time. I'm actually less tolerant. --Brant And much more of a hothead who smears Foucault with slander because you don't have the knowledge, nor the persistence to get it as Shenck (sp?) has said, you need to address his work intelligently. It's "yellow journalism" of the kind Rand wrote about in her Journal, while she was researching Hurst for the character of Wynand. In fact your slur on Foucault was to attack me and make him seem like an unprincipled virus murderer of Mexican boys. Therefore anything he wrote that Seymourblogger quoted was worthless. Turn Foucault into a scumbag and get me at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone eh. That's another shoddy tactic of yours and shows your lack of integrity, something I have known all along. I am glad it is out in the open for all to see, even MSK sees it now. I am pleased and proud to be someone you dislike so much you would smear someone I was intellectually admiring and quoting. It seems Foucault was aware he was dying and yet in denial. He finished the last two volumes of his History of Sexuality that he had been planning and talked about for almost 2 decades after he published vol I. The final manuscript went to his publisher just days before he went into the hospital where he died shortly after. He left no formal will. His longtime lover and partner was agonizing over the fact that his family might get control of his writing and only by diligent searching in their apartment did he find a letter leaving everything to him, Daniel Defert. And in the letter very strongly put was : No posthumous publication. None. Defert has respected his wishes while everyone has screamed. Much like Peikoff and Rand. All Foucault's notes are in the archive at the Bibioteche (sp?) where they remain. There were boxes and boxes of genalogies he was working on. Transcripts from tapes at his lectures at the College de France have been transcribed and published. He was loved, admired, respected, feared by students all over the world. And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back. I also think they were intelligent and not nasty little motherfuckers who like to smear people with gossip. I especially noticed you just had to mention that roman faux sort of novel a friend of his wrote. Nasty nasty person that you are..

Janet, All I did was looking for info because the name "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" seemed so contradictory for a warrior and chief . This method is not ridiculed here - on the contrary: it is part of checking premises. Contradictions frequently rest on false premises. The false premise exposed in this case was the (erroneus) belief that it was a correct transation. It was actually a mistranslation.Yes it was a mistranslation because it was an interpretation by the translater. Until Kauffman Nietzsche was poorly translated. The problem always in interpretation. Now this is of interest to me because of the implications and intersections of "misunderstanding" and "mistranslation" of which I have some actual knowledge. Full disclosure,I studied linguistics and Saussure at semi-postgraduate level )"Honours" in Canadian) though I cannot say I have retained much. Where is Ted Keer when you need him? I have also worked translating French into English. Not philosophy of course, the subtleties of thought and difficulties of communication are endlessly interesting though. Janet, how would you assess your own level of interpretation of the writings of Baudrillard and Babich in the original? I do not read German so I have not read Nietzsche in German. I have read him in English. I have read Baudrillard and Foucault in English. Sheridan is an inspired translater of Foucault. The rest are very good and also very devoted. Chris Turner is the translater of most of Baudrillard. Forget Foucault is the edition by sylvere Lotringer and that translation is by Nicole Dufresne. I will accept Lotringer's choice anytime. Diane Rubenstein first introduced me to Baudrillard (she waves off Foucault) and her graduate work was in france where she studied with all of them and more. she is a prof in political studies at Cornell the last I looked at her site. Exquisite scholarship and very funny. Babich is American, graduate work in Germany, writes in German and English so her translations, depending on which she originally wrote the article or book in, is her own translation. I do not believe I am being misled by any of them. And something I have longed to get into for almost 20 years now: translating Francoise Dolto into English (she was Lacan's " clinical partner" in psychoanalysis and her case studies are so perfect. and too few of her books are in English although the Spaniards and Italians have kept up with her. I Interested? Thank you for the comprehensive answer. I infer that you have read all these texts in English, and through your knowledge of the texts and their interpreters, and your reading of same, have reached your own conclusions. There are few writers who convey the same nuanced meanings in English and French both ( although I would say Flaubert comes closest from what I have read)--it is a tough judgment to make..And it is a long hard academic road to make second-handedly. And to have done it all by myself, without colleagues, and to find that the way I have read the texts corresponds to some of the best thinking in the field. This kind of thinking gives one not only a satisfaction but a confidence in independent judgement. Invaluable. Thanks.

Janet, All I did was looking for info because the name "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" seemed so contradictory for a warrior and chief . This method is not ridiculed here - on the contrary: it is part of checking premises. Contradictions frequently rest on false premises. The false premise exposed in this case was the (erroneus) belief that it was a correct transation. It was actually a mistranslation.Yes it was a mistranslation because it was an interpretation by the translater. Until Kauffman Nietzsche was poorly translated. The problem always in interpretation. Now this is of interest to me because of the implications and intersections of "misunderstanding" and "mistranslation" of which I have some actual knowledge. Full disclosure,I studied linguistics and Saussure at semi-postgraduate level )"Honours" in Canadian) though I cannot say I have retained much. Where is Ted Keer when you need him? I have also worked translating French into English. Not philosophy of course, the subtleties of thought and difficulties of communication are endlessly interesting though. Janet, how would you assess your own level of interpretation of the writings of Baudrillard and Babich in the original? I do not read German so I have not read Nietzsche in German. I have read him in English. I have read Baudrillard and Foucault in English. Sheridan is an inspired translater of Foucault. The rest are very good and also very devoted. Chris Turner is the translater of most of Baudrillard. Forget Foucault is the edition by sylvere Lotringer and that translation is by Nicole Dufresne. I will accept Lotringer's choice anytime. Diane Rubenstein first introduced me to Baudrillard (she waves off Foucault) and her graduate work was in france where she studied with all of them and more. she is a prof in political studies at Cornell the last I looked at her site. Exquisite scholarship and very funny. Babich is American, graduate work in Germany, writes in German and English so her translations, depending on which she originally wrote the article or book in, is her own translation. I do not believe I am being misled by any of them. And something I have longed to get into for almost 20 years now: translating Francoise Dolto into English (she was Lacan's " clinical partner" in psychoanalysis and her case studies are so perfect. and too few of her books are in English although the Spaniards and Italians have kept up with her. Interested?

Janet, All I did was looking for info because the name "Young Man Afraid of his Horses" seemed so contradictory for a warrior and chief . This method is not ridiculed here - on the contrary: it is part of checking premises. Contradictions frequently rest on false premises. The false premise exposed in this case was the (erroneus) belief that it was a correct transation. It was actually a mistranslation.Yes it was a mistranslation because it was an interpretation by the translater. Until Kauffman Nietzsche was poorly translated. The problem always in interpretation. You can say what you did with all those cumbersome words, but what you did was rescue a name out of the dominating discourse, where it lay on a side road, in the disregarded utterances, etc. and then you took a look at it. And then you inverted it - very Nietzschean BTW -and saw what the name was supposed to convey about a warrior. The reason you were able to do this was because you weren't thinking literally but imaginatively contemplative, contemplatively imaginative to invert it in a trope Nietzsche uses often. And Rand following Nietzsche's style not the present day American English she was exposed to in her time. Go ahead and take all the poetry out of what you did and reduce it to a production that can be taught. But it can't. What you did was in the Order of Seduction, knowlingly or not. But what you did was not in the Order of Production you are trying to explain it in. Different orders again, eh. Rand: There are no contradictions. Check your premises. In the Order of Seduction there are no contradictions. In the dialectic there are always contradictions. Hegel: thesis - antithesis- synthesis - thesis. The Hegelian dialectic is founded on contradictions. The Hegelian dialectic is in the Order of Production. Rand knows this from Nietzsche. It is clear in her fiction but when she tries to explain it in the Order of Production within the Hegelian dialectic something is lost. The poetry of her fiction. Its joy. Its eroticism. In her prose her words become leaden bullets. Didactic and pedantic. My problem too. But not yours.

Whatever is said about anyone or anything by the media is simply credible. anything is credible. There is no true and false, only credibility. You can contradict the false all you want. You can demonstrate proof, facts, counter-facts and all that occurs is ping-pong. As Candidate John Kerry found out when he was swift-boated. This is why celebrities now have constant 24/7 damage control. The recent movie Carnage by Roman Polanski is not about child sex abuse but it is about the Discourse he was tried in in the US. There are many facts in his case, credibility pro and con, true and false, and no one will ever know the story. I have my interpretation of it, but that's al it is: just my interpretation. The same is demonstrated right here. In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless. Continue to use it in your arguments whenever you choose. Just as doctors continued to use leeches for bleeding very ill patients long after they were known to have no value except a negative one. And doctors who refused to wash their hands while assisting childbirth because "gentlemen" did not have "dirty" hands. Your statement about Foucault is a typical smear tactic to discredit someone's work, that has nothing at all to do with his work. Women know all about this as improper clothing can get them raped so it is their own fault for going out there dressed like that. For someone like you to splatter something like that about Foucault, credible whatever he did or did not do, only says something about you. Not Foucault. Just you.

Having now read the entirety of this thread and most of s-blogger's remaining "body of work" on this site, I hereby retract everything about my statement above [except the part about the shorter signature line]. Never saw the mean streak coming, I am afraid. Not to worry. It's just mirroring.

Absolutely. Who the hell knows or cares? Communication 101: Airily dismissing concern for correct facts, especially while pontificating, condemning and consistently getting facts wrong, is a way to destroy ones credibility. People tend to tune out everything a person with no credibility says--both baby and bathwater. In this case, the person with no credibility is directly to blame for his or her lack of being taken seriously. It's not the public's fault seeing how concern with presenting correct facts is an easily learned skill. It's a nobrainer to fix this. The message might be good (or not), but if the messenger sucks at communicating, nobody hears it. Michael There is a difference between information and knowing. The Japanese do not have a word for "communication' at which you are so adept at. Not. Just think you got me to use up one of my posts. and now I can't edit anything I say or I can't repost the edited version. A pity.

I can't give you the link because it downloads another PDF copy everytime I click on it. So put this in google search the genalogy of morals and right reading and it's the 3rd one down. If you put - Clark Babich Nietzsche - in google search you will come up with lots more. There's a perfect one for x-ray who made the comment about fear/horses and the way she dug out the meaning by inversion. Babich does the same with "become who you are" attributed to Nietzsche after Pindar. She does the same on it. BTW Babich and x-ray are doing a genealogy when they do this. This is what Foucault spent his academic life doing. When he wasn't dressed in leathers, going off on his motorcycle to s/m clubs. Or bath houses in SF for which he is constantly criticized by lesser scholars than he. Why is this method so ridiculed around here? Did your successful correction about the murders improve the content of what I said or did it improve the intent of what I said? Or did it just show that I misremembered? Or or or or........

Darrow went for a bench trial by pleading them guilty. His speech on the death penalty was one of the most powerful that he ever gave. It included this statement: "This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university?" Fascinating. They were sentenced to life plus 99 years. Here is an excellent website on the case: http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/ When you hit the link, the page jumps out at you with "I teach you the overman." Over one of the boys pictures in a stark daguerreotype picture. Adam Ah selene. The fantastic crime. Babich asks Nietzsche why he after he upraided the New Testament of its dangerous rhetoric that he didn't consider the dangerousness in his own anti-semitism rhetoric. And in Abnormal Foucault's 1974 Lectures at the College de France that included bizarre crimes as they interfaced with criminal justice, psychology, and abnormal which invited the medical profession into the game. The great intersection.

Janet, And isn't one of the characteristics of postmodern literature that the so-called objective reality (to whose unquestionable existence Rand devoted her whole philosophical life!) is not only being dismantled right in front the reader's eyes - the reader himself is also made a participant in the dismantling process because the narator denies him certainty. In a postmodern novel where, for example, signals are given that the characters cannot be certain whether what they perceive is real or imagined, and no additional info is provided by a reliable narrator as to whether character X is imagining things or not - then the reader cannot be certain either. So the reader often wanders around together' with the characters of the novel in search of a truth that will never reveal itself. Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of LOt 49 is a typical example of a postmodern novel where this happens. This denying of certainty is, again, completly un-Randian.Ah this is nice. Thank you for replying to me like this. Yes this is all opposite of what she said, antagonistic to all she said. But not to what she wrote in her fiction. In fact she anticipated much of this fiction in her own fiction, that's how good she was. Rand is different from the post modern fiction writers who came after her. Robbe-Grillet's first fiction was 1959, but Klossowski was earlier. and neither were best seller type books. Rand's difference is her lifelong love affair with Nietzsche. As reading Babich will reveal to you how Nietzsche seduced and owned the mind of a reader who read him seriously, the way he instructed his reader to read him. Babich has read him exactly the way he wanted a reader to read him. Words that are written in blood are not meant to be read, but to be absorbed, learnt by heart. This is what Rand did. She learned Nietzsche by heart. "O whan that aprille with its shores swoote" (not so good anymore but the sound and music is there). This knowing of Nietzsche is shared by no other post modern thinker except Baudrilard. Foucault came to Nietzsche too late to love him that way. BTW this is the way Houellebecq loves Lovecraft, not Lovecraft's officially recognized biographer though. Babich has gone to Nietzsche the same way. In Germany. In German. she has become completely his and emerged on the other side to tell us of her journey into Hades and her return. Rand never got out. She fought her mentor all the rest of her life after Fountainhead. she fought Nietzsche through the dialectic, on her turf, not his, and she has given us in Objectivism the final authoritative critical confrontation with Nietzsche within the dialectic and Nietzsche has crushed her, laughing all the way. But Rand has given us something much greater in her fiction. I am just scratching the surface. In F she writes aphoristically and musically in many places. It is not an even book. So what. F has been interpreted through Nietzsche with ready-mades: superman; Overman; one who does evil (Roark Cortland Project blow up) and does not show remorse. This is superficial Nietzsche, the top sound-bite layer and if readers on this site can't understand that after what Rand herself went through, and knowing all that, well, then, who can? F has been critically reviewed, taught, academic papers written, etc within the dialectic, her characters receiving psychological motivations. This is not my reading of Fountainhead. My reading is through her linguistic mother's milk language of Nietzsche, not a superficial 101 lecture on Nietzsche. The heart of Nietzsche, not the content of Nietzsche as Walter Benjamin might have said. Do I think Rand knew any of this consciously? No I don't. Does it matter. Not a question. Aphoristic writing beckons to be learned by heart, as does poetry. Rand learned Nietzsche by heart. Nietzsche is dangerous, as Babich warns. the LIndbergh's found this out with the murder of their baby by two very intelligent college students who decided to act on Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche is "worse" as he might have put it. He crawls into your mind and occupies it. Colonizes it. And you don't even know he is there. And Rand's writing has crawled into our minds, she has occupied our minds, colonized them with her fiction. Objectivism has tried to put the lid on the box to seal it. But the splinter groups keep trying to get out, to find reasons to convince those still there, to drag them out, argue, and even kill. Heller has said this about Rand herself. Rand devoured people around her. As someone here said about my liking vampires, I do. Rand was a vampire. Since I am only allowed 5 posts a day until I reach 99,999 approved posts, I do have to make them longish. Sorry. If I get 10 attacks I will only be able now to respond to 3. And if they beget 10 more, then.......law of diminishing returns. For me. A pity.

I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity. How can you be "finished" when you have not even got started in terms of convincingly presenting your case here? But It was discourse... Yesterday. That's why Brant never engages in it. But then he never says anything at all either. Oh no, not Brant! When did this happen?..last time I looked he was saying stuff. Say it isn't so...that he is not "weary of tears and of laughter and of men who laugh and weep/ of fears of the hereafter, and those who {forget the word) to keep." I do remember though that the great Johnson said that "He who is tired of Objectivist Living is tired of life"... He seemed so healthy and cheerful just yesterday. She's just pissed off at me for my recent remarks. Sadly, her stuff before she first left was better than her stuff when she first came back. Now she's back for the second time--third time here--and I suspect once she leaves again she'll be back again. I tried to engage her substantially when she first appeared, but all she had was her message. So I switched to humor on minor points, which I enjoyed. If I lived anywhere near her I might look her up, but I'd leave the car running. For me the stuff she hasn't talked about hardly at all seems interesting. Like her experiences in real estate. Not psychoanalysis. For me therapy is abreactive, altered states of consciousness, not talk, talk, talk. --Brant Real estate - that is interesting - to everybody really, isn't it? We all have to live someplace. I had to sell my house and endure the beratings of my sons while it was falling down and flooding, explaining that I couldn't afford to sell the wretched hovel until its sale value rose above the mortgages I owed on it. I had no reason to think that would happen, but it did (prices rose). I lucked out through sheer intertia. Then I inherited my mother's house and the roof pretty much fell off it and the taxes, though meagre, are beyond my means. I had the impression seymour was a schoolteacher - Grade 5 or 6.Of course a lot of schoolteachers get into real estate, I have some fri colleagues who got quite rich, by my standards. It was their husbands though actually who did the deals. I agree that the things she doesn't write about much are more interesting. She did announce her focus - spread her ideas, which are 2 by my count: 1.. Baudrillard is the Allah of knowing how to think about and look at everything, and some French lady is his Prophet. 2.Vampirism is the only metaphor for sexuality. But she just repeats them over and over and over in the same words until even the most reluctant reader has memorised them. Maybe she has achieved her plan. I'm not here to interest and amuse you. I repeat because you don't get it. You don't listen. You just keep coming up with dumb insults. Who cares. She this and she that. This is what serious adults write? By the nature of your approach to ideas serious conversation is pretty much excluded. What would it take to falsify what you keep repeating? --BrantTrue and false belongs to the dialectic, the world of opposites. We are no longer in that world anymore. I don't want to do it. If you have seen Polanski's Carnage it's about that, referring of course to his problem with the US. Would you like me to send you a very short essay on Nietzsche from Babette Babich. If you have read Nietzsche's Genealogy then reading Babich's reading of Nietzsche's Genealogy is like crawling inside someone's mind to watch, listen, savor the way their mind thinks. She is letting you read her mind. She is not lecturing, explaining, convincing you or any of those things we are used to in our past education. BTW this is how Nietzsche's aphoristic writing did just that to his readers. I would send you just the link and you could download it PDF but I need to be home where I can do it on my apple because that's where it is. If you want to wait I will remember. I hope. No, just kidding.

I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity. How can you be "finished" when you have not even got started in terms of convincingly presenting your case here? But It was discourse... Yesterday. That's why Brant never engages in it. But then he never says anything at all either. Oh no, not Brant! When did this happen?..last time I looked he was saying stuff. Say it isn't so...that he is not "weary of tears and of laughter and of men who laugh and weep/ of fears of the hereafter, and those who {forget the word) to keep." I do remember though that the great Johnson said that "He who is tired of Objectivist Living is tired of life"... He seemed so healthy and cheerful just yesterday. She's just pissed off at me for my recent remarks. Sadly, her stuff before she first left was better than her stuff when she first came back. Now she's back for the second time--third time here--and I suspect once she leaves again she'll be back again. I tried to engage her substantially when she first appeared, but all she had was her message. So I switched to humor on minor points, which I enjoyed. If I lived anywhere near her I might look her up, but I'd leave the car running. For me the stuff she hasn't talked about hardly at all seems interesting. Like her experiences in real estate. Not psychoanalysis. For me therapy is abreactive, altered states of consciousness, not talk, talk, talk. --Brant Real estate - that is interesting - to everybody really, isn't it? We all have to live someplace. I had to sell my house and endure the beratings of my sons while it was falling down and flooding, explaining that I couldn't afford to sell the wretched hovel until its sale value rose above the mortgages I owed on it. I had no reason to think that would happen, but it did (prices rose). I lucked out through sheer intertia. Then I inherited my mother's house and the roof pretty much fell off it and the taxes, though meagre, are beyond my means. I had the impression seymour was a schoolteacher - Grade 5 or 6.Of course a lot of schoolteachers get into real estate, I have some fri colleagues who got quite rich, by my standards. It was their husbands though actually who did the deals. I agree that the things she doesn't write about much are more interesting. She did announce her focus - spread her ideas, which are 2 by my count: 1.. Baudrillard is the Allah of knowing how to think about and look at everything, and some French lady is his Prophet. 2.Vampirism is the only metaphor for sexuality. But she just repeats them over and over and over in the same words until even the most reluctant reader has memorised them. Maybe she has achieved her plan. I'm not here to interest and amuse you. I repeat because you don't get it. You don't listen. You just keep coming up with dumb insults. Who cares. She this and she that. This is what serious adults write?

I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity. How can you be "finished" when you have not even got started in terms of convincingly presenting your case here? There is no start to start. --Brant Correct. and now you just got #4 of 5. Unless of course I decide to get unlimited. But I don't want them. Yet.

I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity. How can you be "finished" when you have not even got started in terms of convincingly presenting your case here? But I am not trying to present a convincing case HERE! A convincing case cannot be presented within the dialectic. All you can ever get is interpretation, counter-interpretation, counter counter interpretation etc. Did you get that? You are asking for a hermeneutic analysis. Sorry. You won't get it from me. It's a has been discourse. Yesterday. That's why Brant never engages in it. But then he never says anything at all either. Try reading very old textbooks you can find in thrift stores. Try reading them. It's an outdated Discourse. So is yours x-ray. Stay in it if you want. That's the whole POV that I have been saying here. Foucault said it much much better than I.

Why are you so worked up over this? But to get back to the discussion: you said you have "no dog in the fight" when it comes to open vs. closed Objectivism. I believe you because your focus is elsewhere indeed. But you do have a dog (two actually) in that fight: they are called 'Faucault' and 'Nietzsche', right? I am finished with you too. I disagree with someone - I forget who now - having decided you didn't want to know "in good faith." A pity.

Carol, That's my tempering by life. I actually do feel pity for this little nobody. In former times I would have let my pity let her contaminate this forum with her brand of poison by trying to reason with her about it. I've learned that there is no reasoning with destructive people--especially destructive nobodies--once they have gone over a certain line. They don't stop. Their mission in life is not to produce anything of value to others so they can receive payment. It's status--pure unadulterated unearned status. It kills them inside that other people have it and they can't seem to get their hands on it, so they spend their time racing against the wind for the booby prize at a finish line that never appears. Well... that never works. So they try something else. They try to take an ephemeral cure to their frustration and inner emptiness from someone they target. It's an ancient superstition, really. You find this in savage tribes of cannibals where they imagine they will obtain someone's courage or knowledge by eating that person's cadaver. I could go on, but the bottom line is my job is to keep this forum healthy. And I take that task seriously. So I have to balance what I've learned in life about people who exist to destroy with jazzing things up for some entertainment around here. If nasty is the game I'm called out to play, sure. What the hell. I'm game. But only up to a certain point. If this little carnival bearded lady sideshow truly starts contaminating the spirit of intellectual goodwill on OL, I have stronger measures available to shut it down. I never like doing that, even though I have to do it at times. It's such a pity... Michael I suggest you don't do that.