seymourblogger

All open philosophical systems are subject to permanent transformation. As for closed systems, in what form do they 'survive'? Mostly it is in the form of dogma, but then no dogma can survive in the long run. You are a closed-system advocate then? Orthodox Hebrew religion is a closed system. Christianity is not. I believe it was Paul who opened up the teachings of Jesus to non-Jews, over the demand of circumcision. It was then, at that cut (no pun intended) that Christianity really opened up. But it was eclectic from the beginning. It has spread all over the world because it opened up. It has also spawned many splits, controversies, interpretations, arguments, etc etc etc. It really has not very much to do with Jesus and his teachings anymore at all. It is something quite different. Rand knew this. If she opened it up, then she would lose control. Just as Jesus would have, only he was martyred which saved his teachings. For awhile. Yes, as long as it is closed it has the taint if not the substance of dogma. I think this can be said of orthodox Objectivism. You are a closed-system advocate then? Now you are asking me a question that forces me to enter the dialectic of pro and con in order to answer you. Bacon has said that a question well-asked is 1/2 the answer. Actually I do not have a dog in this fight. I do not advocate open or closed. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. That's all I am saying. There are two POV and I am just observing them.

I am not in your Discourse. There is no origin of a problem and no idealistic horizon we are aspiring to get to. That is your Hegelian Dialectical Dominating Discourse. I am not in it. There is NO ROOT to this problem. There is only a genealogy of it. I am not going to spend the next couple of years doing that for you. Just accept the fact that I am not in your Discourse. The statement "I am not in your discourse" merely signals an inerlocutor's unwillingness to enter into a communicative exchange with another individual. Yes, you are absolutely correct in saying this about what I said. It is therefore of no objective relevance to the actual topic that is being discussed. Every problem has a cause (or causes). If you trace it back, you can call it 'genealogy'. Good. This is simple. Thank you. Genealogy is not linear, not chronology. A genealogy can have numerous "cuts" that all exist at the same time, but which were first made at different times, in different eras. This has no impact or influence on the genealogy, or the understanding of it. This is a very important distinction. If you go to my blog http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com and look under Eclipse, there is one review detailing how Eclipse is a genealogy of the history of sexuality. This itself is just one way to read the film Eclipse. It is not the right way, the wrong way, the correct way, the smart way, the stupid way, etc. It is just reading Eclipse through Foucauldian genealogy. From what I have just written, genealogy is not in linear time, but in discontinuous time. This is Nietzsche and Foucault following Nietzsche. Cause and effect belong to linear time. Cause and effect do NOT belong to discontinuous time. So you cannot use genealogy and cause and effect within the same argument. They belong in different categories. You are arguing genealogy and cause and effect together, and that cannot be done. Not logically. So that's why I refuse to get involved in explaining myself within a category that is not the category I am thinking in. "I have no intention of being a flyswatter", and it was Nietzsche who first said that, and , I believe, Rand said it too at one time. This is what often frustrated her in Q & A at NBI. But she had not differentiated the two categories, and she was constantly getting caught betwixt and between. Her genius was in her fiction just as Nietzsche's genius was in his Zarathustra. Foucault disagrees here as he was most influenced by Nietzsche's genealogy from his essay The Genealogy of Morals.I hope this clears some things for you as to my refusal to engage in a Discourse that is invalid for what I am saying and writing. I await your reply. In case you think that the causality (or genealogy) chain is virtually endless: one doesn't always have to try tracing it back endlessly in order to get "at the root" of a current problem. Proceeding exclusively by an endless causality chain would make any progress impossible because the effect of such thinking is 'psychologically immobilizing". "Getting at the root" is therefore to be interpreted as "tracing it back as far as it makes sense in terms of finding a solution. " I am continuing to reply to you because Brant made a statement about your basic honesty and integrity.

You can get a used hardcover of Cosmopolis for $2.00. Exactly what does that prove? There are 262 Amazon reviews of ATCAG, average 4 stars, and only 87 of Cosmopolis, average 3 stars, what does that prove? If you added up the number of Amazon reviews of all the works of Michel Foucault combined, would it be more than 262? Doesn’t look like it, not even close. And there’s plenty of cheap used copies of Foucault for sale too. http://www.amazon.co...r_id=B000AP6Y1O MSK: whatever happened to the 5 posts a day club? Are they still accepting members? I think there are regulars who would like to enjoy breathing the Phil-free air, while it lasts. The point is that it doesn't prove anything at all. It's a joke! If you want to take it literally you can, but it's not funny if you do. When you try to explain a joke it's not funny anymore. And you left out the rest of the context and that's a no-no. And there's plenty of criticism of Foucault, DeLillo and Rand, so what does that prove. Nada.

Hmmm.... Those Foucauldians are a tricky tribe. Ghs ... and quite versed in 'concept stealing' ('The root of the problem is that there is not root of the problem'). For the background of my reply you would have to spend a lot of time with Foucaut's The Order of Things.

Janet, What do you think Ayn Rand would have replied to that? Joan Baez handled that kind of comment perfectly in her early memoir Daybreak. Go read it and get your answer. I asked you what you think Ayn Rand would have replied.Sorry the Joan Baez quote was to a question by Smith on a hypothetical case of a crime. Not to you but ........... Here's the Rand quote that I think answers your question from my reading of it: http://intellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com/2011/10/reading-ayn-rand-through-nietzsche.html There's a lot more there that you can skip but Burroughs is large and highlighted and Rand's right under it.

Come on. A few thousand hits is not "going viral." Not bad without promotion, but far far from viral. I'm just an optimistic hillbilly looking at the stars. I wouldn't know of such things... MichaelNo I'm the hillbilly looking at the stars. No the 12,000 was just bean counting, not viral. And they read other stuff when they are there, which is more gratifying. Wht I meant was I don't think you have one serious posting on your site that comes close to that number. Just one, not the whole site. By viral I mean when a juxtaposition does like Colbert + Foucault + parrhesia then gets into university classrooms via a professor using my blog to illustrate a lecture on post modernist thinking. When someone in that class talks about how neat it was on a comment site. Then you know your ideas are going viral. going, not there, just out there, the beginning of a trend, a way of thinking differently. I don't do any original ideas of my own. My aim is to disappear. I just connect dots and weave them and interweave them, but they are what other people have done, said, written, wrote. This is not about me, Michael. I am not interested in arguing an idea back and forth ad infinitum within the dialectic. Foucault has convinced me of the worthlessness of that and I bow to his far superior intellect and his utterly convincing and detailed discussion of it, both in his writings, his interviews, and the transcribed lectures from the College de France. A young woman graduate student was introduced to him at one of those get togethers you go to when a famous person comes to your campus and lectures, etc. She had recently done her PhD dissertation on Foucault and she was introduced as having done that. She was thrilled to meet him of course. And he said to paraphrase, Why me, I'm not important. Do genealogies. When he died he had cartons and cartons of genealogies he worked on during his life and never published. Nietzsche's genealogy of god and atheism was what completely convinced Rand. Now I've given you a serious answer. I will wait to see if I get a one-liner back. Do you mean what you say or do you not?

In your first post (now in your profile), you wrote: Change your mind? Two points: First, Rand had developed her philosophy (or at least the vast majority of it) before she met Branden. Second, the most promising developments in O'ism have been done by philosophers (such as Rasmussen, Den Uyl, and Kelley) who have categorically rejected Peikoff's "closed system." Rand's philosophy is not "a hodge-podge of philosophical constructs," and it has not been "shattered into bits" by those who treat it as an open system. If you must pontificate, then try -- please try -- to get your facts straight before doing so. What does Zizek have to say about Objectivism. I know what he has said about Rand,but has he said anything about Objectivism? Who has that I might know of outside of the faithful? I'm being serious not snarky.

Brant, What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic. You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors. Wooh... Light bulb time... This is just like Phil. Michael She has neither the staying power of Phil nor the basic honesty of Xray. -- Brant Well Brant, isn't that a blessing.

Brant, What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic. You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors. Wooh... Light bulb time... This is just like Phil. Michael What gives you the idea there is no traffic? One posting from 9-5 (5 months now) has 12, 451 hits and is still going strong. I'll leave you to search around to see if you can find that one. I have no idea why. I can't come up with any reasonable reason. Someone checked and told me that post is on page 4 of google on a search showing 40,000,000 results. don't ask me why. I know I go viral. I post something and not too long after when I do a back search on it I see where there was dnothing when I first posted now there are 4 or 5 on that subject. Colbert + Foucault + parrhesia Foucault has a genealogy of parrhesia in his little book Fearless Speech done just before he died. This was what he was working on as Death was stalking him. It's nice to see your original ideas go viral. You do know Malthus's work, yes?

Stick around. I'll help you baby.

Seymourblogger, Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP. Michael EDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George): This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God. Heh. No wonder he raves against Foucault. For 3.52 it can be yours. Plus postage of course. You can buy his book on half.comAtheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith (1980, Paperback): The Case Against God George H. Smith Paperback, 1980 Buy: $3.52 http://www.ebay.com/...+god&_sacat=267 14 for sale! 8 completed lilstings on ebay with ONE BIG SALE during January 2011. Get yours hot off the press from 1980. That's only 31 years ago. What are you waiting for. Oh I forgot I'm old and my memory is lousy. I already forget how much they are asking for the book. Sorry. My bad. And here's an excerpt from the best critical review at amazon: ​When I was in law school, I learned that one should not use words like "clearly" to bolster an argument. Use of such words is a dead give-away that the point is anything but clear. But that is exactly what Smith all too often does here. When he comes to a point where he wants to press forward far beyond what his argument will support, he begins using vituperative language and hand-waving to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is dishonest or an idiot. Yup. That's what he do. 46/56 rated this one and found it helpful. I did. Boy I surely clearly know what Smith's hand waving and vituperative language is first hand. Here's the link for the rest of it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R30XOBXGPCOL9Y/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R30XOBXGPCOL9Y

Seymourblogger, Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP. Michael EDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George): This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God. Heh. Oh wow! I had no idea! Do I genuflect now or tomorrow!

Where did you get that? In conversation the afternoon you mentioned (here) visiting his apartment? Sounds to me like either he or you got it backward. Barbara tells the story of Rand becoming furious with her, Barbara, when Barbara criticized an early story of Rand's which hadn't been identified as such. Why does it have to be either/or. Why couldn't it have been both/and. The way Rothbard told it to me was that Rand got furious when Barbara's writing was criticized saying, "Mrs. Branden is a professional!" I remember that adjective he used. He also told me, and the others in the room, some pretty serious stuff that went on among those people. At the time I didn't think much about it, but now after all these years I choke on some of it. It could have been both/and, but I'm left doubting it was for several reasons: If the incident you report Rothbard reporting really happened, I suspect I'd have heard about it before from Barbara or from some other attendee at the writing group. I trust nothing from Rothbard which isn't verified by others. I already distrust your reports, since there have been several inaccuracies in what you've said about contents of BB's bio, NB's pair of memoirs, and other details, e.g., your saying (#132) you've "been reading this site for over a decade." I'm thinking your memory is faily unreliable. No offense meant. Memories slip, especially as one gets on in years. Ellen Well Ellen that was a nice nasty caustic zap. Good work. You're getting better all the time. I'll have to try harder to keep up with you.

Janet, What do you think Ayn Rand would have replied to that? Joan Baez handled that kind of comment perfectly in her early memoir Daybreak. Go read it and get your answer. Ms. Abbey: Rather than play the go find out yourself bitch game, perhaps you could paraphrase how Joan "handled" that order of question/interrogation. Adam Only since it's you: she was being interrogated on her pacifism. If she were driving down the road and a car was coming at her and there was someone in the way that she would hit if she swerved. So she responded that she would try to avoid the oncoming car and avoid hitting the person when she swerved. So then the question ante was upped. Well suppose you were on a two way road and there was a cliff on the side where you would go off if you swerved to avoid the car and the woman. Then she said I would probably go off the cliff and land on a farmhouse and kill all the people inside. I am paraphrasing but she upped the ante on the response to shut the questioner up. And this was exactly what was going to happen in the above example and I was going to have to spend all the rest of the day answering reasonably and logically, while the ante was upped. And then I would start my caustic one-liners and daunce would have another nail to pound in my coffin and the rest of them would jump in and and and....... Nope. Joanie had it covered. Sorry I messed up on this answer of Joanie's. She said she would probably crash into the oncoming car, kill the driver, then swerve to miss the person but kill them too, then go over the cliff, land on the roof of the farmhouse and kill the entire family inside. In 05 at Camp Casey she played and told stories. She was on a beach with some people and some boat people came to come ashore. The police or military that was there told them to get back in the boat and leave. Joan asked him what it would take for him to let them stay. He said, "A song." So she played and sang a song and that's the one she played for us. I forget the name. Sorry. My bad. Oh, how could I make such a mistake as to forget the name of that song!

Whom are you addressing? There is what may appear to a newcomer to be a double standard at work here on OL. Myself, GHS, Brant, and several other old timers pretty much post whatever, wherever, and MSK doesn’t say a thing. Could it be that we have the rhythm of this forum down, and you don’t? Granted, my funny little paternity dance videos have nothing to do with Don Delillo’s Cosmopolis, but I will note this once again: no one here has read that book. If anyone here was likely to have read it, it would be me. http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147341 And dealing with you has left me much less inclined. Besides which, I follow a well-trodden modern lit board, and the word there from people I respect is that it’s his worst mature work. White Noise and Underworld are regarded as his best; I’ve read the first of those, and that was enough for me. I mean, you’re praising Twilight too! I was obliged to read up to chapter 13 of the first one (never mind why), and if someone’s knocking Ayn Rand and praising Stephanie Meyer, their opinion ain’t worth the title of excrement.No way am I knocking Rand. You stand corrected on that. I think much more highly of her than anyone here.

This is clear. No problem. Does hypocritical fit? Just askin'. Some are more equal than others around here. OOPs on the decade. I am seeing myself first looking at this site in a certain place. The last time I was there was 03 so I guess the pics in my head are wrong. How awful to mistake having read this site by a few years! I mean that is a terrible thing and I apologize profusely for that dastardly error. Wow, to think I of all people could have erred by a few years. Gadzooks! How awfully sloppy of me not to know the exact history of this site down to the moth, week, and minute of its marvelous birth. Sorry sorry sorry. Gee I hope I don't screw up on a Rand quote. God, if I got the page wrong. I tremble to think of it. How many angels can daunce on the head of a pin? I know someone here knows, so please tell me. Oh and tell me on the Cosmopolis topic as no one has read the book, from one of our major writers of fiction. Oh my bad, just because he is highly admired means he's not worth anything here. OOOPs, there was a time Rand was not admired at all, but I guess that doesn't count, does it. Not a question.

Oh 9th, if you have a woman in your life then I suggest you get familiar with Cosmopolis, because you just might get dragged to Cronenberg's film on it because Rob Pattinson is in it and all the women want to see him get laid as much as possible.

Whom are you addressing? There is what may appear to a newcomer to be a double standard at work here on OL. Myself, GHS, Brant, and several other old timers pretty much post whatever, wherever, and MSK doesn’t say a thing. Could it be that we have the rhythm of this forum down, and you don’t? Granted, my funny little paternity dance videos have nothing to do with Don Delillo’s Cosmopolis, but I will note this once again: no one here has read that book. If anyone here was likely to have read it, it would be me. http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147341 And dealing with you has left me much less inclined. Besides which, I follow a well-trodden modern lit board, and the word there from people I respect is that it’s his worst mature work. White Noise and Underworld are regarded as his best; I’ve read the first of those, and that was enough for me. I mean, you’re praising Twilight too! I was obliged to read up to chapter 13 of the first one (never mind why), and if someone’s knocking Ayn Rand and praising Stephanie Meyer, their opinion ain’t worth the title of excrement. Twilight is a "cut" in the History of Sexuality and that is its importance. And that is very important. Yes, I know that that's what is said about Cosmopolis. I think they are wrong. IMO they don't know how to read it anymore than I did in 02 or 03 when I read it the first time. And when Atlas came out they didn't know how to read it either, if you remember all the negative reviews. Unanimous negative reviews. Fountainhead didn't do so well in the review department either. And Leo Steinberg says, If a work of art is hated then that is a pretty good indication that it may just be great. You can't use a reason to support your opinion and ignore the same reason when it doesn't suit yo to remember it. A very good reason to ignore reviews. Unless you have immense respect for the reviewer. Same goes for movies too. I saw Rango because Ebert liked it. I still haven't forgiven him. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno. Serious is as serious does. --Brant a boy, just wants to have fun! understand the seriousness of even farce, rightly done, and you understand Michael's representation Michael complained about your lack or seriousness or your lack of effective ratiocination? You cut right to the chase don't you. Not a question.

I thought I said why. Again then. My purpose is to place Rand in the pantheon of post modern philosophers. She is one who happens to be a writer of fiction. Cronenberg is one who makes films. Zizek, well, he is unclassifiable. So is Baudrillard. My POV is that Rand fictionalized post modern thinking over 70 years ago. Foucault got his inspiration from Klossoski (sp?), Raymond Rousell (sp?) and Baudrillard originally from NIetzsche, then he was a geneaologist before he wrote Foget Foucault, and pushed the limits to expose simulation. You may have seen The Matrix, which was loosely based on the writer/directors screenplay inspired by Baudrilard's book Simulation and Simulacra. Rand will never have Objectivism taken seriously by serious philosophers. Her fiction is a different story IMO. Stephenie Meyer will never have Twilight taken seriously. Warhol was another outsider who cut into the Discourse. If you are going to use the term Dominating Discourse or Discourse, then it would be a good idea if you used it correctly. I do not come from an established Discourse. You do. The dialectic, that you argue from, is established and has been for a few hundred years now. It is finished, but its ghost will stay around for some time to come. It is limiting. All opening up Rand's Objectivism has done is produce a folly of different opinions and thoughts and more arguments. High level ping-pong. Wittgenstein silenced this quite awhile ago, before Foucault. Foucault just tied the string around the box and knotted it. Rand's fiction is respected. Her philosophical mutterings are not. Not where it counts.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno.

Don't rant at me then. Ignore me. I won't feel offended. As I told you before, if you persist in your troll-like behavior, if you refuse to deal in an honest manner with comments and criticisms, I will hound you unmercifully. You are either addled or you are playing games, or both. Ghs A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about. I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

There is nothing "caustic" about your one-liners. They are on a par with So's your old man and Takes one to know one. If they showed a spark of intelligence or wit no one would object to them. You use juvenile one-liners for no purpose other than to avoid responding to criticisms. Ghs Caustic was not my adjective. Or if it was it was daunce who used it. Or dance, or whatever.

Janet, What do you think Ayn Rand would have replied to that? Joan Baez handled that kind of comment perfectly in her early memoir Daybreak. Go read it and get your answer. Ms. Abbey: Rather than play the go find out yourself bitch game, perhaps you could paraphrase how Joan "handled" that order of question/interrogation. Adam Only since it's you: she was being interrogated on her pacifism. If she were driving down the road and a car was coming at her and there was someone in the way that she would hit if she swerved. So she responded that she would try to avoid the oncoming car and avoid hitting the person when she swerved. So then the question ante was upped. Well suppose you were on a two way road and there was a cliff on the side where you would go off if you swerved to avoid the car and the woman. Then she said I would probably go off the cliff and land on a farmhouse and kill all the people inside. I am paraphrasing but she upped the ante on the response to shut the questioner up. And this was exactly what was going to happen in the above example and I was going to have to spend all the rest of the day answering reasonably and logically, while the ante was upped. And then I would start my caustic one-liners and daunce would have another nail to pound in my coffin and the rest of them would jump in and and and....... Nope. Joanie had it covered.In other words, you can completely distort and/or lie about the ideas of Ayn Rand -- as you did when linking Rand to the the comment by Burroughs -- and then when asked to explain your position. you will refuse on the grounds that people might "up the ante" by demanding additional explanations. Well, I have news for you, hon: Arguments are the lifeblood of OL. We don't need authoritative pronouncements by a woman who uses incomprehensible jargon and drops the names of philosophers she doesn't even understand. Ghs Don't rant at me then. Ignore me. I won't feel offended.